User reviews

I'm an atheist, and I enjoyed this movie. People dismissing it as Christian propaganda are watching movies for the wrong reasons. I'm here to be entertained. I don't need every movie I watch to match my world view. In fact, it's often more interesting if it doesn't.

It had some excellent acting and kept me interested. It's dialogue heavy so keep that in mind. That's a plus for me, but if you want action, go watch one of the many mindless Marvel movies.

The only gripe I had was the soundtrack. I get it's low budget, but honestly the only part that felt low budget was this.

To the producers I say, your writers were fantastic, your cast was great, maybe look for a different composer. Soundtracks are incredibly important and this movie probably would have been better with no soundtrack at all compared to what it got.

Religious thriller/horror films are a dime a dozen especially bad ones, this falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum and it could've been a great film had there been the correct cast to support the stellar performance that Sean Patrick Flanery gives in it. Throughout this entire film you are left wondering what is real and what isn't and what sells this so well is Flanery's performance. Sadly the rest of the cast feels like they are just there to chew the scenery and belong in a hallmark channel movie. If this had been properly cast with professional actors for Flanery to play off of this could've been a truly amazing film. That said it's still worth seeing for his performance.

My reaction? I was floored by this movie. I love this movie. In fact, I did not think that a film called nefarious dealing with a prison inmate's claiming to be possessed by a demon would be one of my favorite films to come out this year. Yet, that's what has happened. It's not a perfect film but it's close. It's well written and the performances are literally award worth (back when awards were based on actual merit) and the direction is next level. It makes me look forward to any other future projects. Theologically and emotionally it hits all the right notes and it honestly makes you think. It touches on the culture war and why you can't ignore the chaos or the false narratives put out by mainstream enthusiasts. I'm blown away by this film and you have to see it if you love intelligent thrillers.

I thought this was a great movie, I have been thinking about it for days after.

The acting was great and I thought the writing was very good, I was very intrigued for the duration of the movie.

The character of Edward was incredibly well done, I became so uncomfortable with him at points I thought I'd have to leave the room or cry, but that is by no means a negative. The actor was just that good.

It's a very dialogue heavy movie, but it had a perfect run time which I appreciate.

I do recommend this movie because of its through provoking nature and short-ish run time. A good way to spend a weeknight evening.

Once again, a good movie is panned by so-called critics simply because it is rooted in a Christian worldview. NEFARIOUS isn't a perfect film. It is, however, a gripping, intellectual thriller that seizes one's attention from the get go and never loosens its grip.

NEFARIOUS depicts a battle of wits between a condemned serial killer (Sean Patrick Flanery) and a psychiatrist charged with determining mental competency for execution (Jordan Belfi). The condemned man claims to be a demon, and this sets up the film's central conflict.

With the bulk of the action taking place between two characters in one room, a tight script is essential. NEFARIOUS sports riveting dialog that creates and maintains suspense in this confrontation between mismatched characters. The demon outwits his opponent at every turn, while his foe swims in a sea of smug superiority and unjustified self-righteousness. That the story is really a battle between evil and lesser evil, rather than a battle between good and evil, makes the film infinitely more interesting.

Flanery's past work has not been particularly memorable, but this performance will stay with viewers for the long haul. One expects over-the-top bombast and supernatural shenanigans in low-budget, independent movies about demonic possession. Flanery instead delivers a pleasant surprise: subtlety. His admirable performance both interests and chills, and it's not the standard fare.

NEFARIOUS could have scored one more star if the second lead had been better cast. Belfi gives a passable performance, but one that pales in comparison to Flanery's. As an aside, Belfi's character is 35 years old, and Belfi is 10 very obvious years older. It's an unforced error. There's no reason short of vanity that the character couldn't have been true to the actor's age. In fact, it would have made him a bit more interesting. Fortunately, the script does allow Belfi's character to grow and change for the better, which props up the otherwise mediocre performance. One wonders what the part could have been in the hands of a more skilled actor.

The ongoing, reflexive bias against films with a faith message is unfortunate. One doesn't have to agree with every element of the filmmakers' message in order to recognize and acknowledge with fairness a creative work's virtues. NEFARIOUS is a solid, thoughtful drama with plenty of suspense, interestingly imperfect characters, and a message that's thought-provoking if you're willing to engage with different points of view.

Unfortunately, these days, that seems to be too much to ask.

Wow what an amazing movie. I am not that familiar with Sean Patrick Flannery, but my god can he act! He deserves recognition and I'm going to keep an eye open for his future roles.

One of those rare movies where you really have no idea where it's going, and the ending was not at all what I expected. How people can give this a 1/10 is beyond me, but each to their own I guess. Some also though the movie tried to shove Christianity down our throats, but the 2 main characters, one was an atheist and the other a demon, so I don't get that complaint.

Jordan Belfi and the rest of the cast all helped make this a stand out movie, also a nod to the directors. Thanks for making it!

A number of reviews claiming that this is a 9 or 10 can't be taken seriously. Is this film at the level of The Godfather or Citizen Kane? Absolutely not. It is however not without its merits, which I'll discuss momentarily.

There are also very low reviews stating that it's trying to force a Christian worldview based on the dialogue between the two main characters, which takes up 90% of the run time. By that logic, so does almost any possession-type movie out there, The Exorcist included.

It should be noted that the production company behind this movie has conservative roots, but I didn't get the impression that it was overtly preachy at all, aside from maybe the abortion fiasco.

The script is laughably predictable, but I did feel that the dialogue kept me engaged. It was gripping to see how the mental sparring between the two main characters developed, even though it ended up with a fairly formulaic conclusion.

The acting was... sufficient. The possessed man, played by Sean Patrick Flannery, honestly felt a bit over-the-top at times, but was nevertheless a unique take on the character. The psychiatrist was played almost cardboard-like by Jordan Belfi unfortunately, which really was a disservice to the potential of the film.

Overall, it had my attention from beginning to end, which is more than I can say for a lot of other horror/suspense attempts out there. Entertaining result from a low-budget production.

Nefarious is about a Psychiatrist named Dr. James Martin (Jordan Belfi) taking a case of a serial killer named Edward (Sean Patrick Flannery) in prison. His job is to know whether if he is mentally stable or not for execution. Edward claims that he has a demon inside of him named Nefarious. Nefarious has already put Edward out of his misery by committing murders. His next step is commit an act of evil to James. James will have to interrogate and endure Edward/ Nefarious of his evil ways to see if he is mentally stable for execution.

Overall, it is a good film with its acting, premise, and the story. My first impressions were that this is more of a Psychological Thriller than it is a Horror. The acting is convincing by Sean Patrick Flannery to deceive James of his evil doing. The premise of this movie is whether to believe demons are real. After watching this movie, I am convinced that they are because of the storytelling. I would recommend Nefarious for a good thriller watch.

I frequently despise movies that are entirely dialogue-based, where nothing really happens aside from the conversations. But with Nefarious, I was locked in on that dialogue from beginning to end.

This was partly accomplished with good writing. The conversations are interesting and seem strategic by the characters. But the biggest reason it works is the performance by Sean Patrick Flanery. The entire success of this movie rides on him.

He knocks it out of the park. His performance is so good, so convincing. I couldn't take my eyes off of it. As I wondered why this talent hasn't launched him to bigger roles, I went back and looked at his history. I've only seen him in Dexter and Saw VII (aka Saw 3D). I have no idea how he hasn't earned bigger roles. The only reasonable explanation would be that he just recently developed this level of skill, which is possible but hard to believe.

I enjoyed Nefarious overall, despite most of the movie being very slow. But I did wish there was a little more that would push it past the threshold of being a great movie that I would want to rewatch. I also think the listed genres of horror and thriller are highly misleading. It's neither. If I had to choose, I would describe it as a creepy drama.

(1 viewing, opening Thursday 4/13/2023)

NEFARIOUS is not the kind of movie I would normally go to see. I did, however, have an idea what it was about and respect the writers and directors. Sean Patrick Flannery performed his role with intensity, superbly portraying a man possessed by evil, as well as showing the fragility of the man Edward. Jordan Belfi was also a worthy opponent, or perhaps victim, as the psychiatrist sent to analyze Edward's mental condition. And Edward's future was always hanging in the balance. .There is a believable portrayal of demon possession; and, if you can tolerate that and a rather violent event near the end, I recommend this movie.

Although I don't believe this movie to be a 10 as some of the reviews state. It's definitely deserves closer to a 10 than a 1 - The one star reviews are a joke, Sean, Patrick, Flanery's performance was fantastic and the dialogue was very engaging. It definitely has a political slant to the right, so I'm sure that's what people are upset with more than the fact that it's a Christian movie. But I find some of the reviews puzzling, especially the couple that said, or inferred that pro-life is the evil side of the equation because it's against women UGHH. Anyone that says they believe in God and giving it any reasonable thought could assume God would not agree with abortion.

Anyway, I believe the movie would have been worthy of an 8 if not for the ending. The scene with Glen Beck was too long and would have been better served by using an actor that was suppose to be a Glen Beck type of interviewer.

This movie is great! Nice to see a different viewpoint in Hollywood that doesn't support the whole narrative and mainstream media.

Getting back to the roots of basic good and evil and religion is nice change of scenery in movies.

Not sure why such the negative critic reviews and the low overall score considering all the 10/10 reviews.

The two actors worked well off each other.

The movie kept you on the edge of your seat wanting and waiting for what was next to happen.

I will continue to recommend this movie and tell everyone to ignore the bad critic reviews as obviously they're playing politics.

I have mixed feelings about this movie. It is almost entirely a dialogue between two people: a man claiming to be possessed by a demon and a psychiatrist who has to determine whether that man is or is not insane. As someone who *loves* possession movies, I thought this take on one - focused on conversation and logic rather than exorcism - would be fascinating. While the conversation around theology, morality, and sin was interesting, it very quickly became apparent that the movie was written by right-wing religious people. For example: There is very heavy-handed anti-abortion dialogue in this movie, which is extremely grating. I wanted to turn it off at the 45 minute mark because of said dialogue; however, I pushed through. The climax of the movie was decent for what the film was. Do not mistake this as a horror. It is an attempt at theological pedagogy. That being said, I enjoyed the conversation and the actor who played Edward/Nefarious was awesome. 6/10. Also, I'm drunk so beware of this rating.

The first thing I want to say about this film is that the acting by Sean Patrick Flanery is just stunning! He's the main reason I kept watching. Second, this is a faith based film I knew that going in as it is written and directed by Chuck Konzelman and Cary Solomon. I am not Christian, but I do not mind hearing the opinions of those who are as long as it doesn't devolve into a discussion about how I'm evil for not agreeing with or believing in Christianity. Having said that, I found the storyline intriguing and Flannery's acting superb. I felt as if the film presented its point of view without trying to convert anyone.

The rest of the cast was okay; a bit lack luster and wooden. Aside from a few obvious plot holes, the story kept me interested. As long as you know what this movie is going in, it's definitely worth the watch.

This movie really made me think. This is not a political statement. Its not left or right. Its deep man really deep. I can honestly say that there has been very few times a movie had me thinking about life and the world around us the way this great film has. I have no clue why this movie is not a way higher rated movie. This movie was one of the best films i have ever seen. I will probably watch this film again with other family members who i know love really great movies. Don't listen to the naysayers this is a great movie. I did not expect it to be this well written. The points made in the film are not controversial just reality.

A psychiatrist comes to the prison to perform a psychological evaluation of a serial killer and judge whether he is insane, or sane and therefore eligible for the death penalty. The film is classified as a horror thriller, but that can easily lead you to the wrong expectations. There are no spilled guts, no jump-scare moments, no monsters, no action. Although some of the scenes it verbally evoked in my imagination are more gruesome than they could visually present them. The entire film is reduced to a dialogue between two protagonists, one of whom is an atheist, and the other claims to be a demon.

Although it does not have many other qualities, "Nefarious" makes up for it with an intelligent and well-written philosophical, theological, and moral discussion of opposing points of view, which presents the problems of the human individual and society honestly, directly, without without masking and beautification. Since the conversation is dominated by a demon (Sean Patrick Flanery nailed the role), who tries to convert an atheist psychiatrist, many dismiss this film as Christian propaganda. I did not experience it that way, even though I am an atheist. I experienced it as a refreshment in the sea of politically correct works in the same mold, which threaten to completely suffocate the seventh art.

7/10.

Went as a favor with friends. I don't usually like 'Christian' films as they are usually cheesy. This was NOT - the acting of the possessed inmate made Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Hanibal Lecter look amateurish. Dialogue was good considering it's like Dinner with Andre set in a prison. It was a 'Hell' of a lot better than anything I've seen (save Top Gun Maverick) in the last oh 10 years. Definitely worth the time and ticket price. Got to laugh though looking at the metrics - seem suspiciously skewed low compared to reviews. Anyone with rudimentary stats class knows somethings wrong here. Nice try -

It's basically a two-man show consisting of spiritual/moral discussion that is interesting and very well acted (especially Flanery).

It certainly has a Christian worldview and message but is not heavy-handed in conveying that. It's intriguing but not particularly moving or innovative, so I could not give it an 8 or 9. It has a few illogical things happen, necessary for the plot, but enough to keep it at a 6 instead of a 7 for me.

The production value and quality of the cinematography, lighting, sets, etc are all good. The pacing of the story is excellent, without lulls. It is not an in-depth character study, but the characters are solid for what the film is. Overall, it is pretty well done.

This is a great movie for people who are interested in theology. It is presented in a very dramatic way and definitely requires repeat viewings because of how fast it goes. I've heard online from a few different practicing exorcists that this is the most accurate portrayal of demonic possession they have seen in film. All of the film up a point at the very end is riveting and very well acted. It does get a tiny bit heavy handed and preachy at the end and definitely could have done without Glen Beck.

What people are calling political isn't and this movie isn't political. It is purely theological. If you are unable to consider things from a neutral standpoint and consider other points of view this might not be for you.

If you're looking for something to turn your brain off and just watch gore/jump scares this is not that film. If you enjoy thinkers and have an interest is Christian theology (don't necessarily have to even be Christian yourself) this is captivating. If you're on the fence check it out.

Nefarious is arguably the best movie of 2023 so far. That said, let's get to my impressions. (Does not contain spoilers)

1 - It is not a Catholic film, much less an evangelical film. Theologically, as far as demonic possession is concerned, from the Catholic point of view, and from the strictly biblical point of view, the film seems to me very correct. The doctrines about possessions are practically all of them, extra-biblical, and it is not possible to trace a phenomenology that is not, for the most part, eisegetic. Thus, the author's view is also eisegetical, however, in my opinion, quite in line with the scriptures and with the available documentary reports. Biblically, what we have is that some people received authority to cast out demons, and after the apostolic era, the phenomenon was swallowed by an avalanche of misunderstandings, to the point of associating all of them with mental illness, a fact that is still a tragedy. For humanity. The film subtly presents this problem to the viewer as well.

2 - Regarding the dialogues, don't expect highly philosophical discussions, as they've been boasting on Youtube channels. However, it is precisely this characteristic that makes the film so good. Because the author does not try to be didactic. The author does not even mention the questions directly, and this feature forces the viewer to try to understand what the demon is talking about. There is no worse strategy than trying to explain assumptions that, by definition, should already be known to the target audience. If, on the one hand, it can facilitate understanding for the neophyte or non-proselyte public, on the other hand, it makes the work pamphleteer and tedious for those who were mistakenly underestimated. The dialogues are, therefore, quick, succinct, and it is the viewer's task to capture their nuances in all the dimensions that the director intended to present.

It must be understood that the Nefarious demon is a "real" demon; an extremely intelligent creature; intelligent on a superhuman level. The author could not convey this characteristic with long and didactic dialogues, because none of us has the intelligence of a demon. The author then chooses the only efficient approach: that of providing short and dense dialogues, leaving the entire task of interpretation to the spectator. And I will say that he does not always achieve such an effect, but the strategy works in 99% of cases. The writer has certainly done his homework to capture the necessary effect. It should also be noted that the demon character has little time to carry out his plan; this all ends up directing the subtleties of the dialogue, which seems more like a script necessity than an intentional feature. It is that case where the rule of less is more is extremely necessary, but rarely obeyed.

3 - The performances. If there's an actor who deserves an Oscar nomination this year, it's Sean Patrick Flanery (of course lacrate won't allow it). The other actors are practically supporting in the film. Jordan Belfi does an ok job, but missed the chance to do something far superior; I don't know if it's because he has limitations, because I don't know this actor very well. I noticed that towards the (awful) end of the film he comes off in better shape, before he had acted with the same commitment throughout the film as a whole. In any case, such mishaps do not affect the final result.

3 - The disastrous ending. I cannot conceive how a director could allow himself to spoil such a good work. The ending of this movie is similar to what the ending of Game of Thrones was for the said series. I can only imagine that there was an ideological political decision for an excerpt so poorly written, so ridiculous in relation to the film as a whole, to be included. The film for me ends when the possessed is on his way to death row. At that point the movie was supposed to end. There, we discover the dimension of demonic evil, and the tragedy that is eternal damnation. Everything that comes after is unnecessary and too pamphleteering; almost dishonoring the work. Because of the ending a movie that should be 8, became a 7.5 if that. The only reason the movie isn't a 9 is because of the low budget, mainly because of the SOUND, which isn't very good, especially at the beginning of the movie. So technically it couldn't be a 9. It would be a 10 for acting and writing, and a 7 for directing. Cinematography and soundtrack do not influence the film much. However, because of the ending, I had to downgrade to 7.5. But it's a great movie, one of the best I've seen, and I recommend everyone see it. The work will not leave deep reflections, even because it literally attacks a large portion of society that thinks it is really superior; and to the other group, that of proselytes who already understand the dimension of the problem, he does not add much, although he discusses the subject in a masterful way. So it can't be a classic. But it's a great movie.