If this is a joke, it gets a solid six. If it's a thriller, it gets zero. If it's a horror, well, there's some nasty stuff, so 2 for horror. I enjoyed it. I really did. I just have no idea what it was supposed to be. If a twelve-year-old watched The Exorcist, Deep Space Nine and Rocky back-to-back, wrote a script in three hours and gave it to their 16- year-old sibling doing a movie studies course and SOMEHOW it got though to some movie exec... well, that's this movie.
Add a Review
-
carlfannen-939-75416523 June 2017
-
mikejdesign4 October 2016Besides the bad acting from a few of the actors, the movie was "eh." It started off like any normal horror flick with a few intense sequences and creepy camera angles. But after about 25 minutes, you just stop caring about the characters. They don't react the way a normal person in their situation would and it was kind of annoying.
You know those movies where you expect someone to react in a way and they do the complete opposite? That's kind of how this movie was; just OK.
The makeup team did a great job with the character Emily; she didn't look like the same person by the end of the film.
Overall, this movie could have been a lot better if they worked with the story a little more and had better direction given to the main actor and priest. Other than that, Emily's character was done well. -
The first half of the movie wasn't too bad but after that it just spiraled into oblivion and you just wanted the film to finish quickly. I got the impression that they may have run out of budget and hence the choppy dialogues and scenes at the end.
Ellen Hollman was the better actor but Will Kemp's acting (her fiancé) was sub par. It's a shame that Ellen Hollman couldn't lift up the whole film with just her acting alone which I thought was good. It was weighed down by the bad scripting and acting from the other cast.
I would watch the first half of the movie with some interest but the second half, just let it run it's course while you are having dinner or chatting with friends. -
mike-aposhian22 June 2017The only cool thing about this movie is that it is the only exorcism movie I have seen that actually illustrates the possessed fighting the demon inside their own soul. That was about the ONLY fresh aspect this movie brought to the table. Other than that the Demon looked like a bad rip off of Groot, the CGI was beyond laughable, the demon voice sounded like a 4 year old who just learned how to use auto tune mixed it down, the writing is terrible and the acting was pretty bad as well. As I type this the ending of the movie is playing in the back ground and I cant even keep myself interested in it. If you want a good laugh, or are writing a thesis on how not to make a horror movie, I highly recommend this pile of trash. I cant understand how any of the reviewers above me found any redeeming qualities in this film.
-
bgthomaswriter27 October 2016I am not ever sure why I gave this movie a shot—so many exorcism movies are just retreads of other, better movies. Perhaps it was the length (only about 90 minutes). Perhaps it was a few of the stars, like Colm Meaney, Adrain Paul and Tom Wright—all so very good. Whatever the reason it was a huge waste of time.
I try not to write bad reviews, but this film really was terrible. I kept falling asleep. It was full of action, lots and lots of the possessed star—Ellen Hollman as Emily Blair—acting like a demon and starling and hissing, and lots of gore too. But it was just silly, and despite all the stuff that was going on, I was bored to tears. Even the actors I mentioned above were sub-par, which is sad, because they are such good actors. Maybe it was the directing by Joseph P. Genier? Or was it simply that the script was so bad that no one, not director or stars, could do anything with it? So blasé. So stereotypical. So sensationalistic. Right down to the part where Meaney, as the priest, tells Emily Blair's husband that the church just doesn't do exorcisms anymore.
I wonder how they got Larry Drake—the John Doe of the film in a very small part—to be in this? To do his first film in years? He was actually kind of scary, but he is in and out of the film way too fast for our own good.
Please don't waste your time on this movie. Because it really is a waste of time. How sad. -
misscath-0266815 July 2017I love exorcism movies but this one was truly awful. Even the talent of Colm Meaney, one of my favorite actors, is wasted in this film. Pretty good special effects, but that's about it. The demon vocalizations were over the top and sounded like a snarling pit bull. Didn't really care about the characters. Don't waste your time on this one.
-
movier-8650514 October 2016This movie sucks so hard it is pathetic. It is as far some insipid idiot who thought they were great at making movies tried way too hard. I am dumber after watching this movie, and not in a got stoned and feel good way. Just plain dumber. It makes me sick to my stomach, and not in a horror movie thrill kind of way either. The plot was entirely predictable. The voice acting is WAY too over the top without any irony. This movie takes it self way too seriously. I guess I did have some laughs thinking about how someone thought this movie was good enough to release! lol. I am going to film myself throwing crosses at squirrels and making Devilish Satanic voices about how the squirrels are possessed and then pan out to a very large turd in the driveway. All of sudden, blood red eyes will appear in the turd and the squirrels will freak out and run up a tree that has a circular saw running and the squirrels will get cut in half from the saw blade. There, I made a better movie than this.
-
princessocculta9 April 2017I am an enormous fan of movies about possession, films about possessed young ladies and exorcism are, for some reason my thing.
I hated this movie, I finished it, but barely, it annoyed and disappointed me at the same time. The reason I titled this review "YOu will not like this movie," is that it seems reasonable that if I don't like this one, you won't either. -
I must admit, I had zero expectations from this one. Another exorcism film, sadly (or better yet ridiculously) trying to live up to The Exorcism of Emily Rose (I mean come on, even her name). Many such attempts have failed in the past few years, and all I wanted was to enjoy an exorcism film I haven't yet seen, in hopes that it wouldn't bring the level down too much. I'm happy to say I've been very pleasantly surprised!
The film starts as one might have expected. Nothing remotely innovative, original, or impressive. A cookie cutter story of a kindhearted nurse becoming possessed. I was a little annoyed that they cast an eye-candy-and-nothing-more, and half-expected her to do very poorly. My sincere apologies to Hellen Hollman for that terrible misconception, as nothing could have been farther from the truth. After all the possessed women we've seen on screen, she still managed to be impressive, both as Emily and her "demon-self".
On that matter, while the story felt slightly forced and in no way compelling, the cast made everything right. First of all, seeing Colm Meaney as a priest about to perform his first exorcism in a Horror film? Nothing less than a treat! Not his best performance ever, but not at all below standards (and high ones for that matter). Will Kemp and Adrian Paul were excellent as well as concerned fiancée William and former priest Henry Roizman respectively.
In addition, while I didn't so much like the way they designed the demon itself, displaying the way Emily attempts to fight it is one of the two sole original features in this film (and a great idea). The second being, of course, the ending (which lacks any impressive or special characteristics, as Horror endings often do, but is original to some extent in its own way - you'll realize when you get to it).
All in all, surprisingly good and well-made, and another Horror film poorly judged by IMDb ratings. Honestly, take my word for it and never trust this site's ratings or reviews (present company in no way excluded). If the trailer and plot synopsis (or cover photo, or cast, or crew, or any manner by which you choose what to watch) appeal to you - watch it. If they don't - don't. However, I would certainly give The Secrets of Emily Blair a chance. I'm sure glad I did. -
plowflow15 October 2017This is one film with a lovely woman that actually repulsed me. SPOILER ALERT I knew the film would be bad when she cuts the kids finger at the hospital. Her assistant and friend played by Francia Raisa, is cold-hearted to say the kids finger was an accident. To top it off, Francia Raisa played a terrible role in the TV series Secret Life Of The American Teenager. Her presence made it obvious Emily Blair would be terrible. This Netflix piece could have been way better instead of this shallowness.
-
ravenfultz28 October 2018If you get David Lynch style "under the cuff" double entendres, and strange picket fence moments in the face of bloody adversity, you'll love this one. I'm picky, or something like that (I don't enjoy what most people enjoy in the horror genre) and this was a beauty. I even pondered my existence with actual demons that look like humans, even though I'm not a devout anything, just a wanderer with a lot of spirit.
-
paul_haakonsen14 November 2016You might think 'oh no, not another delve into the exorcism genre' when you read the synopsis to this movie. However, rein your demons, because "The Secrets of Emily Blair" actually turned out to be surprisingly entertaining, despite it being yet another exorcism movie.
And true, while "The Secrets of Emily Blair" wasn't outstanding, it was still a movie that proved to be entertaining and worthwhile to watch, especially if you enjoy horror and the exorcism sub-genre.
The story told in the movie is about a bride-to-be who becomes possessed by a wicked demonic entity, and the groom-to-be seeks assistance from his childhood priest to rid his fiancée of this otherworldly evil.
Right, fairly straight forward and generic, I will agree with you on that. Yes, what you see here is hardly new or innovating to the genre, but director Joseph P. Genier still managed to put together a rather enjoyable movie.
The acting in the movie was so-so, just don't except any grand Shakespearian thespian experience here, because that will leave you sorely disappointed. It was a nice surprise to see Larry Drake in the movie, mind you he has only a very small role. I haven't seen him in ages.
It is important for a horror / thriller movie to have proper special effects and CGI effects in order to be believable and entertaining, and "The Secrets of Emily Blair" does not fail to deliver. The effects were quite good here, and definitely served their purpose quite well. For a movie of this caliber, then I was more than pleased with what I saw on the screen.
However, I had expected more in the scare department from this movie, so that I was a little bit disappointed that there wasn't much of that around. But then again, this is labeled as a thriller, not as a horror movie.
If you enjoy a good supernatural possession and exorcism movie, then you should take the time to sit down and watch "The Secrets of Emily Blair". I did, and I was more than pleasantly surprised with it, and it certainly was an entertaining movie.
"The Secrets of Emily Blair" scores a solid six out of ten stars rating from me. -
calvinporta9 April 2019Best death scene i have see in a while is the gun and the cop. But what is the deal with the end of the credits... "global warming is real. Humankind has caused global warming. Global warming will lead to death for thousands of ecosystems and human beings. Think environment. Act responsibly. Do your part." And also.. queen Latifah is executive producer?!?
-
TheLittleSongbird4 June 2018'The Secrets of Emily Blair' drew me into seeing it, with a cool poster/cover, an intriguing and quite creative premise and as someone with a general appreciation for horror. That it was low-budget, which from frequent personal experience is rarely a good sign due to that there are so many poor ones out there, made me though apprehensive.
It is sadly however yet another film seen recently, hence some reiteration because the exact same strengths and flaws are here present in those films, that to me was incredibly disappointing considering its potential which it doesn't do anywhere near enough with. 'The Secrets of Emily Blair' is terrible, with a plethora of problems (huge ones too) and doesn't do enough with its potential, which was hardly small. There is very little to recommend, but still a couple of qualities in 'The Secrets of Emily Blair'.
Lets start with the positives. The scenery is atmospheric and spooky, despite the rather direct to video schlocky way it's shot and edited, it was very clear that the film was made in a rush with no care or enthusiasm.
Best thing about 'The Secrets of Emily Blair' actually is some of the acting, particularly from Colm Meaney and Adrian Paul.
Going on further to the negatives, the story does feel over-stretched and some of it feels vague, under-explained in the last third where the film especially became duller, more predictable, more senseless and less scary. Too many characters are too sketchy and with nowhere near enough to make one want to endear to them. Their annoying and illogical decision making and behaviours frustrates.
Making the film feel bland and forgettable with not enough heart put into it. The effects are ropy at best, the sound quality is obvious and utilised cheaply (being too loud in the build ups and people's reactions) and too much of the rest of the acting is lacking.
Dialogue can be stilted and rambling while the pace goes to a standstill after the promising opening and drags on forever, never recovering. Found too many the supposedly shocking moments not surprising or scary and the supposedly creepy atmosphere dreary, due to the excessive obviousness, a lot of dumb and vague moments and explanations and the lack of tension and suspense.
A lot of 'The Secrets of Emily Blair' has underdeveloped plot elements and often nonsensical and confusing character motivations, while too many of the things to make you jump or shocked are far from creative or scary and are pretty tame. The ending makes the film finish on an incomplete and confused whimper and far too much of the film is unintentionally silly.
There is not enough threat here and what there is of it tends to be used poorly, while the psychological elements are unimaginative and are more odd than scary, completely failing to show any sense of horror. Some badly sagging momentum too. The direction is leaden, got the sense their heart was not in it, and the music doesn't really fit.
Concluding, terrible. 2/10 Bethany Cox -
mshack-4324323 August 2018Started off vaguely intriguing but then it just gets boring and predictable. The main problem for me was that you just don't care about the charachters. The suspense and horror that they try to put in just falls flat because you just don't care. Effects are pretty good for the budget, that's about the best thing I can say. Did quite like the idea of some kind of demon flashback thing to try and understand the fight between demon and human but it was just weird and didn't really make any sense. Just don't bother it's so dull.
-
rywplatner29 November 2018I was in the mood to watch a B rated horror film to have on in the background while I was doing other things. This is exactly what I got and it's actually not bad for what it is. Give it a shot.
-
kosmasp13 January 2018With horror movies you sometimes wonder how many signs the characters need to get it. There has to be some disbelief and of course they can't know from the first moment/erratic behaviour. But if this goes on and on and the main characters make too many decisions that are just plain wrong, more than just your brain shuts off.
In this case, we have a demon getting inside a woman early on and we watch her transform. The technical aspect of the whole thins is not half bad. Visually speaking there are some interesting things in there. Make-up is also good for a low budget movie. The jump scares are more than predictable as is the story overall though. Nothing special, on the contrary -
jwaynecon19832 October 2017I honestly thought that Colm Meany would be enough to save this movie. I was wrong. It's not a bad movie per se but it is definitely mediocre and poorly executed. The action is lackluster, the dialogue is flat and lifeless, and with the exception of Chief O'Brien does Irish priest the acting is wooden. The plot is both unoriginal and uninspired, bringing nothing new to a tired genre of watchalike schlock. The special effects weren't even all that great. The glowing eyes looked like something from Supernatural. The demon looked like, well, like Groot(another reviewer pointed this out. Not me). And the copious use of computer generated blood and gore is getting irritating. This isn't the worst movie for it but in certain scenes it's noticeable. That sounds nit picky but in a movie with so little to redeem it, real blood spray effects would have helped. They had access to fake blood. There's plenty in the movie, but if an artery is opened on camera the spray is CG. All in all it was a forgettable pile of mediocrity that not ev n Colm Meany could exorcise.
-
nickyb-791315 October 2016*Very Mild spoilers* So I guess by now the format for possession films is known. The priest waving a crucifix and the women(nearly always a woman) tied to a bed. This is no different in that regard but at least the "female devil in bondage" scene lasts a relatively short amount of time I guess because no one that says "Your mama" cusses could ever be scary and leans more towards humour for most people these days. There was one meta line when the guy who played The Highlamder mentions hallowed ground but other than that this is a very dry film that does have a few chills if you are in the right frame of mind and the personality changes in the possessed women is done well enough to jar and gave me a discomforting vibe. Anyone looking for great cinematography. lighting effects etc may be disappointed. This has the cinematic quality of a TVM. Some of the special effects were kinda lame but not the vital part of the film so not too distracting - the type of effects a college student may do on his home PC is the worst I can say. While it was a Catholic priest as it seems it has to be in this genre there was some extension to the possession story with an element of LOTR. All in all the best possession film I have seen since The Ex. of Emily Rose in terms of chills but far short on the story in comparison. You might find a 7 a bit high but it is in the context of the genre of horror-possession movies. Most happy that it wasn't yet another of the "found footage" tripe that passes for movies so often now
-
SPOILER: Emily Blair (Ellen Hollman) works as a newly engaged nurse assigned to draw blood from a homeless man (Larry Drake). Now as any nurse knows there is a danger to drawing blood such as blood borne pathogens and demonic possession. In this case it is the later. Possessed Emily is a lot of fun displaying sexual aggression, but alas, it is not all fun and games. We know Father Avital (Colm Meaney) survives because he is telling the story, even the parts where he wasn't there...like most of it.
This possession story is slightly different. There was no use of holy water and we got the see the possessed in the netherworld. We still had the neck crick, even though she only moved her head a little to the side. I guess if you have an effect, you got to use it. The plot continuity concerning Father Avital being able to take the "credit" for certain murders when he clearly wasn't there, needed explanation. They must have cut that scene.
Guide: F-word, sex, no nudity. -
przzy3 May 2019It's not that good but kept me entertained for the most part. Only 1 sex scene but no real nudity.
-
Edvis-19972 December 2018Meh really bad movie but still not the worst. Acting was actually terrible one of the worst what I've seen like in 10 years. Those special effects... Huh really cheap and poor brought me like in 2006. I felt so old now.