The Possession of Michael King (2014) - Review
There is not shortage of horror movies about the possession of an individual. There’s also no shortage of horror movies that use the found-footage technique. So to make a film of both sub-genres that still stands out in anyone’s mind is a challenge. The film has to have some sort of hook or edginess to it, otherwise it’s just going to end up being forgotten and absorbed into the ether of the horror genre. In an attempt to find a movie worth watching that I hadn’t already seen, I perused various top 10 or top 5 lists of horror enthusiasts on YouTube. Multiple times, The Possession of Michael King came up as a contender that fit into both sub-genres.
Pros
A few moments towards the end where the editing and effects worked well together
Shane Johnson, while not the best actor, does a commendable job at being at the center of the film for its entirety
Cons
Found-footage technique is off-putting when it looks too staged
Lots of dumb jump scares with volume levels that are just annoying
Script is extremely weak
Strange editing choices about keeping moments in the movie that maybe weren’t worth including
Even at under 90 minutes, it still manages to feel too long
Plot & Thoughts
Michael King (Shane Johnson) is an atheist, 'independent filmmaker who is doing a personal project with his friend Jordan (Jed Rees) about the supernatural. Why would an atheist do a film about supernatural beliefs and mysteries? You probably know the answer to that question if you have ever talked at length about religion or supernatural events with one, but if you couldn’t guess, it’s to disprove the existence of the supernatural by documenting himself in his home with hidden cameras. He’s doing this as a means of ‘therapy’ for coping with the recent death of his wife in an accident involving a car, for which he unreasonably blames a local psychic. With all this in mind, he does not decide to disprove supernatural occurrences through investigating miracles, or interviewing people of faith who can provide examples of good in the world, or examining any positives you might gain from religion. Instead, he decides to get the evilest artifacts, texts, and believers (or just weirdos) he can find to expose him to the dark arts so he can record his experience at home on his hidden cameras. As you might expect, there is little catharsis awaiting him in this endeavor.
The premise of the film is where I think The Possession of Michael King stands out from other films in the collective horror genre. What actually happens in the movie, however, makes it just as much a predictable cliché experience as the rest. In his search for ‘the truth’ and in making an entertaining documentary (I guess), Michael interviews some Satanists and subjects himself to multiple rituals that involve a séance (or orgy) and some strong hallucinogens. The early warning signs that he’s becoming possessed occur, and from then on it’s mostly just him pacing in his house talking to his cameras about how he can’t sleep or how he keeps hearing voices.
To help remind you that you are watching a horror film and that you should be scared, there are the occasional moments in which a special effect is used to stretch his face or show demonic imagery. To remind you that you are actually watching a bad movie, these moments are accompanied by a demonic roar or a loud noise that is emitted at a volume much higher than the rest of the audio. While the occasional jump scare with a loud sound is no big deal, I take offense when the volume levels are so wildly different because it’s a cheap method to try to make the moment scarier—it doesn’t work, by the way. This is pretty much the experience for the rest of the movie as Michael slowly descends into madness. The last half-hour is probably the best part of the film because it’s when the actual found-footage starts to justify its existence as he goes through the process of trying to exorcise himself and gets beaten up for his trouble, similar to Ash from Evil Dead 2. Likewise, the last few minutes are the highlight of the experience with a few moments where the editing and effects give his movement a creepy look. That’s pretty much where my praise starts and ends however.
Before I get into all the other reasons why I think this movie is bad, I’ll at least give some credit to Shane Johnson. His acting in the movie is not always good, but he still has to carry the entire film as the primary person on the screen. This is a challenge for any actor, good or bad, and Johnson’s performance is certainly not great in every scene. That being said, I don’t think you could have given the crappy script to a more renowned or talented actor and seen much of an improvement. The crap that Michael says to fill the time as he talks to the camera about his experience is not unique or interesting enough to keep you engaged. It’s a run-of-the-mill possession film that just happens to be about a guy who willingly submits himself to the evil spirits out of his arrogant disbelief in them and regrets it. Even coming in at under 90 minutes, another 20+ minutes could have been shaved off.
The last thing I’ll mention that I didn’t like is the fact that this film failed in its attempt to go with the found-footage approach. Films that do it right, like Paranormal Activity or The Blair Witch Project, have fewer camera angles, and the angles themselves prevent everything from being captured in the center of the screen. This makes the experience more natural, or as natural as you can get with the assumption that someone is holding a camera at all times in the most terrifying moments of their lives. Instead, this movie almost goes the George A. Romero route of Diary of the Dead. If you don’t know what I mean, it’s simply a found-footage film that doesn’t know whether it wants to be found footage or not—all it was missing was an annoying narration by the ‘editor’ who added the jump-scares. While my stomach appreciates the lack of shaky cam, the angles of all the cameras that are not fixed in the upper corners of the rooms in Michael’s house are just too unrealistic to keep up the façade. Simply justifying the decision for a cinema vérité film by having your character want to make a documentary of his experience is not enough. I don’t care if he has a camera attached to the front of his throat, it’s not going to have the same angle as someone looking directly through it and aiming it with their eyes. This is something that everyone understands, even those who have no experience in filmmaking. Yet, The Possession of Michael King goes with the decision to keep the angles of the cameras (that are not fixed in the upper corners of the rooms) in the most dramatic and unrealistic positions. Had this movie just been filmed like a traditional horror movie without the pretense of it being found-footage, it would have at least been less distracting, especially during the jump-scare moments. It’s lost in the uncanny valley of found footage and could not find a way out.
TL;DR (Conclusion)
The Possession of Michael King may be a movie that some remember as something special for its premise about an atheist who invites evil spirits into him and documents the experience. However, without the premise, it’s still a very standard horror film that doesn’t really do anything special. If anything, I’ll likely remember it more for its certain irritating qualities, like being something half-way between a regular horror film and a found-footage film, or having random jump scares with noises that are many decibels above the rest of the audio. The acting is passible at best, the script is dull, the horror moments are mostly uninteresting and devoid of tension. I don’t recommend it.
