A lot of questions unanswered....**SPOIL ERS**

I'll answer with what I believe was going on:

1. Michael was possessed by the mortician at the cemetery. That's why he gets kicked out when he goes back to the funeral home. The spells he tried to cast himself at first wouldn't have worked because of his disbelief. When he goes back to the house where the husband and wife had him drink the LSD and tied him to the cross, the man tells him it was all for fun before Michael knocks the door in.

2. The demon within Michael was groping his sister but I don't believe it went beyond that. If it had I think the writers would have put a scene in with the sister mentioning something about it to Michael since it was in his house.

3. I don't know exactly what his wife was trying to tell him at that point because the woman had a seizure. I could guess she may have been trying to warn him about what he was getting into. Then finally, when it's too late, she appears just enough for Michael to release his daughter and jump out of the window to his death, saving his daughter from being murdered and eaten.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

He was possessed by all three, the one he did at home, the one with the mortician, and the one with the demonologists. He even said at the end that the angels to trying to warn him not to listen to "you three".

Who controls the past, controls the future.
Who controls the present, controls the past.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I'd say he was definitely bought to possession by the couple. There were a fair few hints. The bringer of ants, wanting a child, the noises it brings and the all round torture.

I think the mortician wasn't expecting him to be possessed at all. I could be wrong tho

reply share

add reply

formatting help

As I understood it. (and I'm not claiming to be right)

1. I thought the demonologists ritual is where he got possessed, Did you notice the difference in the color of his eyes immediately after he picked his demon? They just took him downstairs to finish the coupling. And plus, they did mention the ants, the child it wanted, and the noise that he always heard. They were right on point with everything. Those fools said it was all for fun, but they're better at it than they think, or better at than they'd actually admit.

I assumed the mortician was something different all together. I thought he was exploring and different aspects of death and that near-death engagement allowed him to open up the communication with his wife. I don't think it had anything to do with the possession.





2. She was on sleeping pills. She could've slept right through it. But I do agree with you. If he had've of, we would've seen a slight mention of it later.





3 She was only trying to warn him.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Delete

reply share

add reply

formatting help

 

How did Mike get possessed? Was it at the cemetery or was it at the house of the demon summoners...or was it by the spells he casts? 

IMO, Michael initially opened the door on his own in his arrogant disbelief and taunting about evil even existing. His little demon-summoning-online-kit blew that cracked door wipe open and very easily could have brought about a demonic attachment through his incantations/summoning ritual(candles, sigel, altar), but IMO, we have no clear indicator that anything demon related actually occurred as a result of this particular summoning ritual he did on his own.

But IMO, the movie makes clear that what Michael openly took part in with the so-called demonologists very much did result in successfully summoning a demonic force. Even during the chaos, sexually violent ritual there were pretty clear indicators of demonic forces being very much present in that cellar dungeon with them.

Then as is previously mentioned the movie goes on to unfold positive indicators that the LSD group ritual successfully summoned the specific demon that Michael drew the sigel of via psycho-scrying(ie. Preying on the nonbeliever, bringing the ants, the seeker of children, the cacophony of music to torture until madness, etc). IMO, it is this ritual that fully brought about Michael's possession without doubt due to the specific indicators seen that were directly related to that specific demon that was summoned with the demon-couple.

IMO, the necromancer that followed was just allowing the already present demon to grab an even firmer stronghold onto Michael's soul. Regarding the statement made while under the spell of the necromancer's ritual when Michael says, "he doesn't want to be dead" it was indeed Roland(the recently deceased human's soul that the necromancer had summoned) speaking through Michael. The necromancer's objective is completely different from what was the demon-couple's objective. The necromancer was seeking a temporary possession from a recently deceased human spirit to inhabit and use Michael's body temporarily.

Whereas the demon couple were seeking an inhuman, demonic spirit to take possession of Michael. Totally and completely different from the agenda of the necromancer. The demon couple full well knew exactly what they were doing, and the comment about being just for fun was obviously 100% BS. They knew exactly what and how to do what the naive, non-believing Michael was asking for, and they were perfectly successful in completing their agenda. The necromancer's comment to Michael when he returns to the funeral home seeking help was his reminding Michael that he'd warned him prior to the ritual that such an outcome "could happen" as a result of dabbling with the dark magic. Meaning that while the necromancer's intent was only to temporarily possess Michael's body with the soul of a recently deceased human, but that in opening one's self up to such rituals could result in a demonic spirit using the opportunity to enter and possess Michael.

But Michael was already possessed by the demon from the group LSD ritual, and his taking part in the necromancy just gave that demon all the more of a stronghold on Michael's soul.

IMO, that's how I interpreted those particular aspects of the movie, and obviously the interpretations will vary from person to person. All in all I must say that I was pleasantly surprised with this movie, and I found it to succeed on all levels as far as the horror sub-genre of demonic possession comboed with found-footage.. It was entertaining and I found it enjoyable in even a subsequent viewing a few days later. IMO, not many movies succeed in holding my attention and entertaining me in repeated viewings, this one did!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I haven't thought about it fully, but the theory I'm leaning towards right now is that he had always drawn demons to him because of his cocky disbelief, but the death of his wife made him open up and become susceptible to their influence.

I started thinking this because iirc the psychic's cards show a devil for him before any of his attempts. So perhaps the demon was already there keeping an eye on him.

Then the guy who came to warn him told him that he was fine until he started listening, because when the demon knows you're listening he won't leave you alone.

I'm not sure about how that psychic scrying thing is supposed to work in theory but my naive impression is that he drew the ant demon (daungore or whatever) because that demon was already with him, not because he sought out the demon (that doesn't make sense to me).

What opened him up all the way to demonic influence was his drug episode where he hallucinated that he was talking to his dead wife. I think that was a hallucination, but it made him believe in the possibility of what he was attempting. More than that.. he suddenly wanted it to be true so he could continue talking with his wife.

I thought this was a pretty good movie because I think it does a good job of paralleling the character's experience to the audience's. Most people today are, if not outright atheist, at least unbelieving about demonic possession and such. But when you watch a movie about demonic possession and talking with the dead and all that, you can't help but start thinking of it... and in the movie that's exactly what weakens the main guy and makes him susceptible. That makes this movie scarier, I think, than your typical haunting movie where the cause of the scariness is something tangible in the movie (Indian burial ground, etc). My house isn't on an Indian burial ground, so after the jump-scares of the movie it's over...but in this case, well, now I'm sitting here thinking about the concepts presented in this movie.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

souvik wrote:

I felt the movie used more of loud jarring music and sudden movements to scare than on story...

Agreed. I'm older, so this film reminded me of the Saturday morning horror films I watched as a kid. No overt gore. Startles and jumps were how we reacted to things that popped out, dropped or appeared. Unlike today's horror film viewers, who risk being traumatized for life because they can't un-see something.

I think this film does have "story" and a good one, but I missed a few important bits, as did others on this thread. I think that the voices and the music and the action made it difficult to notice, or hear, some salient details. That might just be me. I dislike how current films make the actors compete with the soundtrack by making the music so loud, it drowns out their voices.

I also had the same questions you do.

Debate my points. Challenge my perspective. Prove me wrong. Only, do it with a smile.

reply share

add reply

formatting help