The Possession of Joel Delaney (1972) User Reviews

Unique, Freaky 70's Horror...But Certainly Not "The Exorcist"!

[BogieandBacallfan · 7/10 · 23 April 2011]

I recently just heard of this 70's cult-classic, and some were trying to compare it to or put it in the same realm as the 1973 masterpiece "The Exorcist." Let's be honest here...the ONLY thing that "The Possession of Joel Delaney" and "The Exorcist" have in common is that both do deal with the subject of possession. Other than that "Possession of Joel" does not even come close to an ink-ling of being in the same realm as "The Exorcist."

However, this 70's horror flick is pretty good for low-budget and the topic it deals with. There are plenty of bizarre and freaky moments, and the slow mental collapse/possession of 'Joel' was amazingly portrayed by a very young Perry King! Shirley MacLaine also gives a very excellent performance as the somewhat weird and mentally troubled 'Norah'.

But, the actor I had the most respect for, and thought truly had to go through a humiliating/horrifying experience, and handled it professionally (especially at his young age at the time) was David Elliot. He was the young 13 year old son of MacLaine and had to strip naked (exposing himself entirely) after the possessed Joel forced him to dance naked around the house to terrify him. That had to be embarrassing and I'm surprised they allowed it...but he handled the situation and that scene like a pro. This scene is also somewhat shocking and makes this film remembered among horror movie fans.

Overall...again don't expect "The Exorcist", but it is frightening and the character development, filming locations, etc... are excellent! This is a must have for horror fans/collectors!

Mean-spirited yet mildly intriguing horror oddity...

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 5 September 2006]

Potent, occasionally disturbing, but ultimately uncomfortable thriller from Ramona Stewart's novel concerns an upper-crust New Yorker (Shirley MacLaine) who reunites with her vivacious brother, but soon begins to suspect he's either on drugs, insane, or worse...it's worse. Unapologetic film dives in where most movies would fear to tread, and that's both pro and con. Turns out Joel Delaney has become involved in a voodoo cult and is now possessed by the soul of a vicious killer. Final moments with MacLaine and kids at the beach, cornered by Perry King's dangerous Delaney, are quite nasty...but you have to admire that final plot-twist, handled with unashamed bravado. I would recommend the picture to connoisseurs of the offbeat, even if the film is actually rather pointless, never dealing in depth with its own subject matter. ** from ****

Possesses some interesting qualities if you can hack the pace

[fertilecelluloid · 5/10 · 18 July 2008]

Films dealing with the subject of voodoo usually leave me cold. This left me lukewarm. Set in New York, the story focuses on Joel Delaney (Perry King), the brother of Shirley MacLaine. Delaney has been picked up by the police for beating a man. Later, he is accused of murder. As the title states, Delaney is possessed by the spirit of a killer. There's no originality here, but there is some courage in the writing. The climax pushes the envelope -- the 70's envelope, anyway -- and is satisfying enough. There is a lot of slow moving mumbo-jumbo and the obligatory scene -- where psychics attempt to get in touch with the bad spirit -- is predictable. Shirley MacLaine is very good in the lead role, as is Perry King. The film edges towards an incest subplot and features a scene you wouldn't see in a studio film today -- a little boy dancing nude on a table. Director Waris Hussein came from TV, and it shows. The film is not big on cinematic compositions, looking more like a TV movie than one meant for the big screen. Lower your expectations and you might enjoy this relatively obscure item from the 70's.

An effectively done spiritual thriller

[tla.baio · 25 January 2000]

This is a sharp supernatural thriller worth seeking out. The pace may be a little slow for some, but those who are patient will be pleased with the use of their virtue. Shirley MacLaine plays a Manhattan socialite who realizes that her brother has in some way changed. For example he now practices the Santaria religion, he speaks very good Spanish, and his health is not quite the same. MacLaine is then warned that her brother may be slowly becoming possessed by the spirit of a Spanish decapitator. Not knowing what or who to believe, she dives into the world of the Santaria faith in an attempt to get some answers on what is happening to her brother. As time goes on, the danger increases and getting the answers she seeks may prove to be fatal. Director Warris Hussein does a good job in building the suspense for the viewer and creating a frightening atmosphere to those who are not familiar with Santaria. The performances, lead as well as supporting, are first rate especially Perry King (who plays the brother) who is truly frightening towards the film's conclusion. This is very well done, and highly recommended.

All In All, A Great Possession Classic

[altonnord · 7/10 · 6 April 2006]

I first watched this movie when I was just a teen and was riveted to the TV screen. I was amazed at the performance of the characters and the intensity of the plot. If it was to be redone today there would be no doubt superb special effects to make it seem realistic. Shirley MacLaine is quite the actress no matter what part she is playing on the big screen and even now I have high respect for her ability to perform. I like the children's roles as well they probably have never acted in their life or had little parts in commercial's or extras on other movies. I have not been able to find this movie available at video stores that deal in older movies. I live in Canada and would like to see if I can buy this movie due to the fact that I am somewhat possessed in wanting to own it.

Intelligent, somewhat offbeat thriller.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 22 January 2013]

"The Possession of Joel Delaney" is another of those interesting little films that's worthy of more attention than it probably usually gets. Despite the presence of the word "possession" in the title, it's not that much of a horror film, although it has some very creepy and uncomfortable moments. It's a deliberately paced thriller with a fair amount of social commentary and which gives the viewer a look into the religion of Santeria. A gorgeous Shirley MacLaine stars as Norah Benson, an affluent NYC resident who dotes on her devil may care younger brother Joel (Perry King, who gets an official "introducing" credit here). Soon into this story Joel starts acting out a lot, sometimes ranting in Spanish, and Norah discovers that an unkind spirit has taken over his body. Those with short attention spans may find their mind wandering as this story (scripted by Matt Robinson and Irene Kamp, based on a novel by Ramona Stewart) takes its time to play out, but some may find it fascinating as it takes a main character who's actually a little bit of a snob and forces her to enter a world that she may never have known had fate not intervened. Director Waris Hussein has a field day with all of the little details that go into telling this tale, and gets fine performances out of his cast. MacLaine is wonderful as a woman willing to do anything to help her tortured sibling, while King is completely convincing in delineating two different personalities. Among the supporting cast are David Elliott and Lisa Kohane as Norahs' children, Lovelady Powell as the psychiatrist, Barbara Trentham as Joels' lady friend, Miriam Colon as Norahs' maid, and Edmundo Rivera Alvarez as the occult expert to whom Norah turns for help. There are some truly macabre occurrences here, such as the sight of a severed head hanging by its hair, but the climax is some extremely twisted stuff; just the fact that it involves the possessed Joel making his young nephew strip naked is unnerving beyond belief. This may well leave a bad taste in the mouths of the audience. But overall the film is nothing if not intriguing and it delivers a reasonably effective, very '70s ending. Controvery aside (we all know there's no way something like this would be allowed today), this stands up as an absorbing enough viewing that relies on atmosphere and performance rather than special effects or spectacle. Seven out of 10.

Not worth it.....

[Madbroreviews · 1/10 · 30 May 2022]

One sentence review:"don't waste your precious time watching this bad movie" The possession of joel delaney (1972) is definitely a bad film which doesn't deserve any viewers. It is directed by Waris Hussein, starring Shirley Maclain, Perry King, David Elliott and Lisa Kohane.

The story revolves around Nora benson (Shirley) who is a rich new Yorker, who discover odd behavior of her brother joel (Perry king). The film doesn't have an engaging storyline and it just follows Nora, who finds that her brother maybe possessed. Joel becomes violent and is taken to a mental hospital. Then, towards the end of the film Nora moves to a beach house with her children Peter (David Elliott) and carrie (Lisa Kohane). As we expect,Joel finds them and threatens them with a pen knife. Then, Nora's husband comes with some cops. They just stand outside the beach house as Joel made them hostages. The foolish thing is that, these cops have guns with them and they are just staying there like some scare crows. Upto now, the film is somewhat predictable. But the next scene is really sick and unbelievable. Joel forces Nora's son Peter to strip and dance on a coffee table. The problem here is that Peter is just a 12 year old child. I don't know the intention behind this scene. Also, Joel forces Nora's daughter Carrie to eat dog food. Then he kisses Nora and she holds him for her children to run away and they does that. Joel run after them and will get shot dead by the cops.

This film is far below average in a creative view. Especially the final scenes are indigestible as it will never happen in the real world. The script is an adaptation from the novel of the same name and it amaze me that it's written by two script writers. How can they not see the foolishness in the climax? If it had a better ending, it could have been atleast considered as a forgotten classic horror movie before the cultural phenomenon "The Exorcist"(1973). This film was a box office bomb and no one talks about it now (it was released at the time of The Godfather).

The main problem that disturbed me is the final strip and dance scene in the beach house. How did they came up with something which can be considered as a form of child pornography. That scene is shot in a rotten way. There is a frontal nudity scene of the child when he throws the clothes outside, which is far beyond decency. Showing child nudity in such a scene is so disturbing and unimaginable. Some people say that the nudity came by accident. But while filming such scenes, film makers should be careful not to make it look dirty. I 100% agree with Roger Ebert's words, that "those scenes are rotten and are of nauseatingly bad taste". I don't disagree with disturbing scenes, but this is done by a child for real and the people who were behind it deserve punishment for that.

The one star that Iam giving to this film is for David Elliott who has done a wonderful performance in the film. Linda Blair got an Oscar nomination for the exorcist, but David didn't got the recognition that he deserved. As a person who loves films a lot, iam stunned by his dedication in acting at that tender age.

For those people who still want to see the film (to see david's performance and some beautiful shots of new York, which are the only good things in the film), just watch the DVD version which is in the intended theatrical ratio. Blueray version is also available. Just don't watch the vhs version as it reflects the failure to keep the decency of film making.

Not just an "Exorcist" precursor, but also...

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 30 July 2005]

Some people might call "The Possession of Joel Delaney" an "Exorcist" precursor, but it's more than that. It almost had a tinge of the Black Panthers to it. That is, it was one of the many movies of that era that portrayed the oppressed under-classes rebelling against the ruling class. Shirley MacLaine plays wealthy Manhattanite Norah Benson, who suspects that her brother Joel (Perry King) is possessed. But what she suspects pales in comparison to what she discovers.

I guess that another aspect of this movie is the fact that Shirley MacLaine stars in a horror movie. Yes, the woman who starred in "The Trouble with Harry", "The Apartment", "Irma La Douce" and "Terms of Endearment" (not to mention that she was one of the first American celebrities to go to China after it reopened) starred in a flick whose purpose was to invoke fear. But this one was actually good. So, that begs the question: what "possessed" Shirley MacLaine to star in that awful "Bewitched" remake? Oh well. I guess if nothing else, we need to remember the movie's tagline: "If you believe, no explanation is necessary. If you don't believe, no explanation is possible."

What possessed Shirley Maclaine to do this movie?

[brefane · 2/10 · 13 November 2005]

A confused script with sexual and social overtones is hampered by Waris Hussein's flat direction, insipid dialog,and blank supporting performances. The near-incestuous relationship between Norah (Maclaine) and Joel(Perry King)is more distracting than illuminating and this is one of those thrillers where the characters always make the wrong decision in the face of danger. Maclaine's Norah leaves her children in the care of their uncle Joel after she's signed him out of a psycho ward, and discovered his girlfriend's severed head! In order to escape she takes her children to an isolated beach house off season where there is no protection or people around? Like Child's Play and The Believers, The Possession of Joel Delaney uses urban voodoo to spook the audience. Released by Paramount without any fanfare, The Possession of Joel Delaney remains a forgotten title, and understandably so.

Realistic possession movie overshadowed by The Exorcist

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 12 October 2016]

This seems to be a virtually forgotten film charting the realistic possession of a man by an evil spirit - forgotten, no doubt, in the hype that surrounded the release of THE EXORCIST which came out shortly after this did. It's a shame, as THE POSSESSION OF JOEL DELANEY is a well-acted film with a down-to-earth approach. The lack of special effects or makeup help to give this film a realistic edge and the possession of Joel is far more believable - and thus quietly chilling - than that of Regan in THE EXORCIST. All that happens is that he starts talking with a Spanish accent, a simple bit of dubbing which has a really spooky effect.

The slow pacing is used to build up suspense and give us a chance to get to know the characters before plunging them into the depths of horror. To be honest, sometimes the lack of action means that this film gets bogged down in too much talk, but things are turned around in the final, taut twenty minutes in which Benson and her children are taken hostage by the possessed man. The degradation of the children and the threat of violence towards them makes this very tense and uncomfortable viewing and an unexpected surprise when considering the rest of the film.

The acting from leads MacLaine and King is very good. Perry King (CLASS OF 1984) in particular is excellent in the dual role of a nice, shy young man and a possessed, ruthless killer who has no moral scruples. MacLaine may not be a likable character but you can see where she is coming from and her character, while flawed, is a human one. Watch out for an out-of-place cameo from Michael Hordern as a doctor.

This isn't a particularly gory film, although there are a few shocking scenes of decapitated heads and bodies. Where it does succeed and become interesting is in the portrayal of the Puerto Ricans in New York and their religion and beliefs; the ritual in which they attempt to draw the spirit from Delaney's body is an immensely powerful one, building from nothing into a screaming frenzy. This may not be a brilliant film but it's worth a look for fans of gritty, '70s-style realism.

Less Than Mediocre

[arfdawg-1 · 3/10 · 23 November 2023]

Pretty bad possesson movie made the year before The Exorcist. Shirley MacCaline turned down the lead in the Exorcist to make this bomb. Bet she still regrets it.

The movie is really poorly directed. It looks like a bad TV show, not a theatrical film. And the backing musical track is one of the worst I have ever heard.

Then there's the rather poor acting -- especially the secondary characters like the woman who plays Sherry. She's absolutely horrible.

Shirley MacClaine seems to have an unusually pseudo-sexual relationship with her brother in this film. Its really weird and has nothing to do with the movie.

There's an Andy Warhol hanger-on (I think it was Pat Ast) who appears for a couple minutes is a dismal, unnessessary, scene.

The only interesting thing about the movie are the street scens of 70's NYC. How dilapidated it was, and how it's starting to look like that today.

A unique and chilling forerunner of the 'possession' sub-genre.

[Nightman85 · 9/10 · 12 November 2009]

Manhattan socialite begins to fear for her troubled younger brother when he starts behaving bizarrely and he seems to have been friends with a backstreet murderer.

The Possession of Joel Delaney is a dark horror film with much going for it. For one, it's among the earliest horror films to deal with the theme of spiritual possession. Also, it's one of those horror gems that doesn't need to resort to special effects or overt gore and violence to be effectively unsettling. It's a thoroughly well-written film as it blends eerie supernatural horror with a strong social commentary. The plot is compelling and quite off-beat as it builds to some chilling peaks and a finale that's splendidly suspenseful. It's a truly disturbing tale.

The direction, cinematography, and urban locations are all good but the true highlight is the stars. Veteran actress Shirley MacLaine is great as her bewildered, yet unsympathetic character. However the show is truly stolen by young Perry King who puts on an excellent dynamic performance as his potentially unhinged character. It's easy to see why King went on to a notable career after this debut.

All around The Possession of Joel Delaney is one of the finer low-key horror films of the 70's. It's a film that wisely chooses the intelligent, non-camp approach to its subject matter and it comes off a solid effective chiller because of it.

*** 1/2 out of ****

Interesting but flawed

[matthew.hayes · 6/10 · 17 April 2000]

The Possession of Joel Delaney is an interesting member of the genre of "realistic" supernatural horror films that includes "The Exorcist" and "Rosemary's Baby". Unfortunately it is marred in my opinion by some poor acting particularly (and surprisingly) from Shirley MacLaine.

It's worth hanging on until the ending, however, because (without wishing to give the plot away) it could be seen as an early prototype for "Funny Games".

Completely disappointed, skip this one at any cost.

[scaree · 1/10 · 5 December 2023]

Last week I was searching for a horror movie and this came to my recommendations. Some even said it's a possession movie before the exorcist which is a must watch. Also, I liked Shirley Maclaine after seeing her terms of endearment.

The movie began with an interesting party scene and was so interesting at first. Then it became slow and boring. Then a scary exorcist scene came and my interest in it came back again. Then, the film just moved for the sake of just moving and ended in an unbelievable sickening way. I'll watch a movie and rate it atleast 6 stars if it has anything good in it. But this one just made me angry. The director Waris Hussein may think that he can feed the audience with trash. But not all the audience are Brainless.

Something more than your run-of-the-mill supernatural shocker

[George-n-Kansas · 6 May 1999]

This film is often compared to _The Exorcist_ although it was released a couple of years earlier. Certainly _The Exorcist_'s notoriety (and box-office performance) have ecclipsed this film, but horror fans shouldn't miss _The Possession of Joel Delaney_! I first became acquainted with this story when I read the novel in "Reader's Digest Condensed Books" at the age of about eleven years and, yes, it certainly upset me! It isn't as overbearing as _The Exorcist_ and doesn't boast the same shocking plot elements, languages and special effects. On the whole, though, it is somewhat more subtle. The slow process by which Nora Benson comes to realize that her brother is possessed by the spirit of a dead killer is carefully developed and will certainly hold you in suspense. _The Possession of Joel Delaney_ is very much a product of its time (the early 1970s) in its focus on drugs, racial tensions and sexuality. Even though the wardrobe, hairstyles etc. do now appear dated, the film has actually withstood the test of time extremely well. This film really helped to put Perry King "on the map," as it were, and deservedly so: the young actor met the challenges of his role quite competently. As Joel, he comes across as vulnerable, appealing and somewhat shy but, when possessed by Tonio Perez's soul, he conveys malevolence very believably: his facial expressions (aided by lighting and makeup, to be sure) and mannerisms change. The Spanish-accented voice, although dubbed, is chillingly effective and the fact that it's obviously someone else's voice actually works in the film's favor as it underscores the fact that Joel's body has been overtaken by an outside force (just as Mercedes McCambridge's vocality did for _The Exorcist_). The horror genre is often held in low esteem because it doesn't treat "themes of profound significance." Aside from the fact that I think that this statement is ludicrous in many cases (although there is no shortage of really bad horror films), it is also untrue for _The Possession of Joel Delaney_. The film was viewed primarily as a social and political commentary at the time of release. This does not mean, however, that it is "preachy," for you can easily ignore the ideological implications and enjoy the film simply as an excellent example of the horror genre. For something different and offbeat, I recommend _The Possession of Joel Delaney_.

Watch wide screen or DVD, not vhs

[marilyn-47 · 6/10 · 30 March 2022]

Originally when wide screen films were converted to vhs for home viewing on a square TV, they would cut off some of the image on either side, and restore some of the top and bottom. This is why often you might see a boom mic in the top of the frame on TV that wasn't there in the theatrical version.with this film, this process dramatically altered the content of this film in a way not intended by the director or producers of the film. In the final scene there is considerably more graphic child nudity not seen in the theatrical version, because it happened below the intended cut off line. I'd imagine most of the negative reviews come from those seeing the vhs version. For a time, vhs would be the best chance of seeing it. But now, it's dvd or streaming and will most likely be the original theatrical version. So a lot of those bad reviews really don't apply anymore. This film is rather dated, but still a decent 70s scary film with some great actors. So ignore the reviews.

Tacky and unpleasant, and not in a good way

[virginiegautreauxxx · 1/10 · 28 November 2023]

This film invites comparisons to the much better Exorcist. But while Joel Delaney lacks the power atmosphere, and sense of terror that The Exorcist provokes it makes up for it in audacity.

I generally try not review movies based on my personal moral views, but there are two glaring issues with this film that must be addressed.

The first is its depiction of non-white people. Native peoples in this film are depicted as Savage, ignorant, and put simply, naturally evil. Even by the standards of 1970s cinema this movie feels dated and tone deaf.

The other issue is that the film seems to share Joel's sadism, especially when directed at the other characters in the film.

There is an extremely unpleasant scene in which a young girl is forced to eat dog food and 12 year old old boy is forced to undress completely and dance on a table. In the standard theatrical edition, it appears that this scene is cropped so as to only imply frontal nudity. However, if you're unfortunate enough to be watching the VHS edition, the boy's nudity becomes full frontal, and his penis is fully visible.

Though this wasnt the initial intention, the fact is that that director still required a pre-pubescent child to get completely naked, exposing his genitals to the entire cast and crew, including a girl around his own age.

While I don't consider myself a prude, I don't appreciate shock just for it's own sake if there's nothing else of value in the film. And, sadly, in the case of Joel Delaney, there isn't.

Offensive and sinful !!!

[Kronan25 · 1/10 · 23 December 2023]

I've read the novel by Ramona Stewart years ago and I never knew it was adapted to a movie. I expected a lot since the novel was well written(but not a great one). But this film doesn't even feel like it's adapted from the novel. The main plot is completely altered and they included an unthinkable ending(that strip scene of the little boy is not even remotely mentioned in the novel). Since I'm dealing with psychology stuff everyday (it's my job) I always connect the movies I watch with human psychology. I'm pretty sure the people who wrote the script and those who approved to film something evil and disgusting like that, have some mental derangement. For those people who think that kind of an ending was necessary: just imagine about the person who suggested that scene, what type of mind does he has? And I don't think the nudity was unintended. How the parents of that child be so stupid (does they even knew about paedos?) I think the child actor participated should sue the studio for distributing the film without even caring about blurring that scene. I think the director, someone called Waris Hussein (never even heard he existed) doesn't know the meaning of respect, atleast to the child actors involved. He's a shame to the film industry who insulted and disrespected a child who trusted and participated on making this film. Stay away from this one for your own peace of mind.

A Crude, Unscary Horror Film - I Felt Icky While Watching It

[Sturgeon54 · 2/10 · 23 June 2006]

This movie pushes an obvious agenda, and fails. It is supposed to be some kind of commentary on the conflict between traditional supernatural beliefs of immigrants and the cold superficial rationalism of urban secular America, and the gap between the upper and lower classes. But I didn't feel while watching it that the director had any real concern for these worthy subjects - he just wanted to scare the audience with cheap shocks and distasteful taboos, and those don't create a better horror movie than the usual run-of-the-mill slasher/exploitation. The reason why the horror movies of Cronenberg, Polanski, and Craven work so well is that their very-real sociological subtext is buried just under the surface - the director is one step ahead of the audience, and the audience feels disturbed and helpless but can't fathom why. Their movies don't feel the need to rub the audience's nose in it in every scene like this one does. In fact, it seems as if this movie is working from some master-list of taboo subjects to cover - so it can proudly put check marks next to incest, mental illness, drug abuse, classism, divorce, suicide, Latino stereotypes, child nudity, possibly homosexuality, and dog food consumption. Very much a product of its time - the early '70s, when better movies pushed the social boundaries to enhance rather than replace a strong storyline like this one does.

The movie also just doesn't make sense. The sound is lousy, and the editing is simply bizarre - sometimes cross-cutting head shots of Shirley MacLaine with completely different facial expressions. There are unimportant scenes and subplots that don't belong in the movie, and many others that belong in it but inextricably aren't there (such as the entire backstory about Perry King's character - he seems to walk into the movie already half-crazy). Is there supposed to be an unexpressed incestuous relationship between Shirley MacLaine's character and her brother? Who cares? Are all the Puerto Ricans in NYC part of a creepy religious cult? Looks like it. With some of the most lazy direction I've ever seen in a big budget film, I really wonder whether the director wasn't on drugs or something. The one worthy scene in the movie is a "traditional" Puerto Rican exorcism with drums and dancing which forms a very different counterpoint to the Max Von Sydow scenes in "The Exorcist."

Bizarre, obscure 70's horror flick-in other words, my kind of movie

[jcaraway3 · 9/10 · 14 December 2009]

When watching this movie, I kept saying to myself-"Okay,this is it. It can't get any more bizarre than this".

I was very,very wrong. It got weirder and weirder as it went along,each scene creeping me out and captivating me more and more.

This movie is hands down horrifying. One scene that particularly sticks to my mind is the scene where our hero, Norah, is walking into her beach house with her children dragging behind her. She walks into the kitchen,and on top of the refrigerator is a severed head. Well, you may be saying, that's standard slasher movie junk! Wrong! The director made that scene special because the audience can see the head sitting there long before Norah does. What made the scene even more original was the fact that in the first couple of seconds we see the head, it is just sitting there comfortably, no horror music or anything attached to it. At first I thought, hmm, nice kitchen...then my eyes drifted to the head and I thought ,woah, is that a head?!? The horror movie music kicked in a second later, confirming my fear that yes, it was a head.

And ritual scene where the Puerto Rican man became possessed was intense and nerve wracking. A very, very good, overlooked horror thriller.

I have to agree with a few of the writers here, who are a minority!

[thomas196x2000 · 2/10 · 11 February 2008]

There is something really, really wrong with this film. And here again, many IMDb writers praising it. It always amazes me how trashy films have their audience.

This movie wasn't much anywhere along the line, and then we go to the beach house. A girl is forced to eat dog food. Kids are beaten on. Then a young boy has to dance naked in front of his mom and sister. This all by a knife wielding "possessed" guy with a dubbed Spanish voice, badly dubbed.

Scary, nah. I just couldn't believe how long the perverted scenes with the kids went on and on and on.

Then of course the obligatory bad ending, where evil prevails, and "the horror continues". The only way the horror continues is if you are stupid enough to actually buy this movie.

Oddly captivating thriller with an unusual cast.

[Poseidon-3 · 3 December 2008]

"Rosemary's Baby" helped usher in a sequence of religious-oriented thrillers, frequently taking place in an urban setting. Here, MacLaine is a well-off divorcée and mother of two who is pleased to have her brother King back from an extended stay in Tangiers. She is, however, disappointed that he has befriended a rather seedy-sounding Puerto Rican and moved into the man's apartment. Before her eyes, King begins to take on the reckless, crude ways of the new friend to the point where it seems as if the brother she knew is being almost fully eclipsed by the new persona. Things get even worse when someone close to her is discovered brutally murdered and MacLaine has to start worrying about the safety and welfare of herself and her children while wondering what will become of King. MacLaine plays a rather spoiled society type and one can see the early seeds of haughtiness that she would bring to later roles like Aurora in "Terms of Endearment." She sports some seriously long hair here along with some kicky 70s fashions including a couple of audacious fur hats and fur-trimmed coats. It's an unusual type of role for her in an uncommon genre and that makes it interesting to see. King isn't really given a chance to establish much of a character before the title event takes place (the title, of course, explains much of what is happening right up front, rendering some of the build up pointless!) He and MacLaine share a fairly unusual chemistry, which almost has an incestuous tinge to it, capped off by his shower scene, which includes frontal nudity through a mottled shower door. (King, at this stage of his career, had a great deal of trouble keeping clothes on!) Other cast members include Trentham as a glamorous girlfriend of King's, Powell as his concerned therapist, Colon as MacLaine's put upon maid and Hordern as Powell's businessman husband. There's a unique tone to the film and it's one that won't appeal to everyone. There's a starkness and bleakness to it, despite the sometimes-decadent settings. A couple of party sequences afford a fun glimpse of the styles that were then popular (in clothing and décor!) One notable scene takes place in the apartment of a Puerto Rican spiritualist who is trying to exorcise King's personality invader. Another involves MacLaine navigating a dicey neighborhood in her furry finery. Most memorable of all, however, is the finale in which MacLaine and her children are exposed to the darkest aspects of King's new persona, which is not only sadistic and violent, but also memorably perverse! A twist ending may annoy as many viewers as it entertains.

Racist and sick

[preppy-3 · 1/10 · 29 March 2004]

A man Joel Delaney (Perry King) becomes possessed by the spirit of an evil Puerto Rican man. His sister (Shirley MacLaine) tries to help him get rid of the demon.

Why do I hate this movie? Let me count the ways:

1) First off, the racism in this film is subtle...but it's there. There's a suggestion that King (whose character is rich) gets possessed because he hangs around with poor Puerto Rican people who are, by implication, evil and vicious.

2) ALL the characters are unsympathetic (even MacLaine). How can you care about a movie when you hate all the characters?

3) This movie is very slow-moving--even the "shocking" discovery of a dead body was dull.

4) The direction seems off--like the director didn't know where to point the camera.

5) The ending at the beach house was the most disgusting thing I've ever seen in my entire life. When movies lower themselves to child abuse I tune out. There's no need for that sequence to be in the movie...I really wonder how the parents of the kids could have allowed this.

6) The very end was REALLY stupid...and predictable.

Dull, sick, racist...this film was understandably a bomb in 1972. I haven't seen anyone "discovering" it lately either. Even MacLaine never talks about it. Avoid at ALL costs!

Not sure why people recommend this one

[martin-1415 · 2/10 · 7 June 2008]

After reading a few reviews here on IMDb I thought I'd give this one a shot. This movie started out promising, but quickly became tedious and boring. This one is far too long and wastes way too much time on scenes that have nothing to do with moving the story forward. I am a huge fan of movies about possession, but this was very disappointing. It was interesting to see Shirley McClain so young, and the acting in general is competent, but unfortunately it's just not a very good example of the genre. The only really enjoyable feature of this movie for me was watching the scenery of New York from back in 1972. It doesn't change that much, really. Go rent The Eyes of Laura Mars, or The Exorcist, and skip this one.

Dull and lacklustre possession horror

[The_Void · 3/10 · 12 July 2008]

The Possession of Joel Delaney is interesting for the fact that it's a horror film starring Shirley Maclaine, but the interesting elements end there unfortunately. The film focuses on Maclaine's character and her brother Joel Delaney. Joel begins acting strangely after a phone call and she decides to take him in to help him get over it. However, strange events continue to occur and she soon discovers a link between her brother and a serial killer who terrorised the city years earlier. The film certainly could have been interested and indeed there are films with similar plots that are really good; but this one just doesn't have enough excitement and the fact that it's pretty much impossible to care for any of the main characters doesn't really help it. The plot takes in the idea of mixing two different cultures but it never really comes off, mostly because it's too hard to care about it. The acting is mostly lacklustre and even the central actress doesn't stand out, which is a shame considering she is the only interesting thing about the film. It drones on for about an hour and a half (seems like longer) and builds up to the ending, which is not interesting and rather distasteful. I have no problems with bad taste, but it just doesn't fit here and feels included only to provide a talking point. This is a film best left in obscurity!