Claudio Carvalho A group of Catholics go to a mental institution to perform exorcism in the murderer George Viznik (Brad Greenquist). Father Lareaux (John Hurt), Deacon John Townsend (Elias Koteas), Father Frank Page (Brian Reddy) and the teacher Maya Larkin (Winona Ryder), who was possessed and exorcised in the past, unsuccessfully try to exorcise the man and Father Lareaux is deeply affected and falls into a coma. Maya brings the Viznik's coded writings and after deciphering it, she concludes that the writer Peter Kelson (Ben Chaplin) might be the Antichrist to be incarnated by Satan. She seeks him out but the atheist Peter, who has been raised by his uncle Father James (Philip Baker Hall), does not believe in her. But when strange things happen to him, Peter meets Maya and they investigate together the chance to save his soul.The stylish "Lost Souls" is one of the most underrated horror films ever. The cinematography is top-notch; the excellent camera work explores unusual angle; the cast is magnificent; and the film has not aged after sixteen years. The story keeps the escalating tension in the psychological style of the classic "Rosemary's Baby", without the need of violence and gore. Unfortunately, Catholic values, such as the cross and holy water against vampires or the priest winning the evil in exorcisms, have been forgotten by an industry where this religion does not prevail. Why shall the evil always win in movies? My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "Dominação" ("Domination")

Ferox Ludum This movie, beautifully shot and paced with great discipline, has one of the great twist endings in all of horror/suspense cinema.It seems that perhaps the director relied too heavily upon the intelligence and observational powers of his audience; the unbelievable twist at the very last few seconds of the film went unnoticed by most of them.** POSSIBLE SPOILERS? **When I watched this movie for the first time I sat stunned as the credits rolled. The unexpectedness of the ending took my breath away. I feel sorry for those linearly minded viewers who missed out on the experience. Try watching it again without getting so invested in your beliefs about which characters are evil and which are good. Keep an open mind about the nature of deception and that the Devil is supposed to be the Father of Lies. Pay closer attention to the criteria that are given, in moments of exposition throughout the film, for the Devil's return. What characters might fulfill those criteria?

Samiam3 The reasons why Lost Souls was badly regarded become pretty obvious when you see the film. There are two that come to mind. It is stupid, and not exiting. On the other hand, it's not exactly unwatchable either. If nothing else, at least Janusz Kaminski's antique looking photography makes a nice picture, but in fact Lost Souls did a bit more for me, only a bit though.Maya Larkin is a teacher at a seminary school. She and her Catholic colleagues are convinced that Satan is about to enter human form, more specifically, the body of author Peter Kelson. His name was mentioned by a patient in a mental ward who was subject to an exorcism that went wrong and left Maya's tutor Father Lareaux on death's doorstep. Now Maya is going after Peter, hoping to find him before Satan does.One of the reasons I like Lost Souls is sort of a matter of personal taste. I've always loved Winona Rider, she has a great screen presence and her body of work shows a wide variety of faces. One could argue however that this is her most superficial role, but even so, she is not a lazy actress. Too bad the script didn't give her quite enough of a character.There are three things that Lost Soul could use; a brain, an energy boost, and perhaps another ten to fifteen minutes in running length. The ending is rushed and is about as anti-climactic as cinema can get. When I see this kind of thing happen, sometimes I want to think that maybe there was a longer ending planned, but something went wrong in the editing room.None of us can ever know. What we do know is that Lost Souls is dumb, and while it is probably destined for obsurity, it's not unwatchable.

Ulrik Sander-Pedersen I just finished watching "Lost Souls" on TV2 Film (a Danish movie channel), and I instantly logged on to IMDb to see its rating, and perhaps learn more about the layers of the film.I was shocked:: a 4,5/10 rating on IMDb!? Granted, the film is far from perfect, but it's a lot better than 4,5/10, so I must admit, I actually only think the film deserves a 7/10 rating, but because its rating is so low, I give it an 8/10.I also managed to find some good heated discussions about the movie on its IMDb board - especially its ending. And I must say, any movie-ending capable of starting such heated discussions on IMDb has my full respect! "Lost Souls" definitely owes a lot to Roman Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby" from 1968 and William Friedkin's "The Exorcist" from 1973 (and perhaps even Roman Polanski's "The Ninth Gate" from 1995) thematically, visually, and plot-wise. Examples: the general dark cinematography, the cinematography during the "exorcism of the priest"-scene resembles scenes in "The Exorcist" a lot, director Janusz Kaminski's choice to leave scenes open to debate (Which they are! Want proof? Just check the heated discussions on IMDb...), and finally the whole idea of "everybody" being in on it (as shown in the church-scene towards the ending) resembles "Rosemary's Baby" a lot. You can see these examples as a sign of director Kaminski being unoriginal, or as references/a tribute to the original classics. I choose to see it as the latter.It's clear that director Janusz Kaminski and cinematographer Mauro Fiore understand the horror genre. The cinematography is dark, creepy, and classy. The scenes are slow, although not Tarkovsky-slow, but, however, still far from the past-paced MTV editing of most of today's horror movies. All in all the movie is very atmospheric and has the feeling that something dark is looming around the corner (which perfectly underbuilds its plot). Kaminski also manages to avoid the most annoying horror clichés, although, as aforementioned, he does pay a lot of (too much?)tribute to especially "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Exorcist" - but there are even more genre references, so keep an eye open if you dig movie intertextuality. Furthermore Kaminski understands that true horror arises not from whats going on on-screen (too often big over-blown CGI-monsters), but from what goes on off-screen (in your mind!). No movie monster can ever compete with the figures of your imagination. This movie follows that philosophy.Wionna Ryder fits perfect in the role as Maya. It's not a mind-blowing performance (because the character is, to be honest, rather cliché), but it's steady. Ryder understands when to act subtle and when to act on the big emotions. Ben Chaplin is acceptable as Peter, although a bit more anonymous character-wise and easily replaceable by another actor with similar looks. Finally, Philip Baker Hall as Father James, is always a joy to watch. He doesn't receive much screen-time, but he's menacing in the few scenes he appear. A true character actor!I see a lot of IMDb users hate this movie because of its ending. Personally I like the ending, but I understand them to a certain a degree. It can feel like an anti-climax - but only if you're not using all your senses when watching movies. I think it's a great ending for the same reason I liked the ending of "Rosemary's Baby": it's open for interpretation, thus leaving the movie running in your head a long time after it's ended. You can't stop thinking about the ending. Did Peter turn into Satan before Maya shot him? Or Did Maya actually shoot an innocent man? Was she, in fact, the one destined to become Satan all along? Or did the whole story perhaps take place in a mentally ill Maya's mind? If you're a thinker, these questions are bound to come up. That's what makes this movie so interesting, and even re-watchable. At least I'm gonna watch it again, so I can look for more clues to the puzzle that I didn't catch the first time.But the movie also has its flaws. It's as if the director didn't have the guts to go all the way with the "horror works best in the audience's imagination"-philosophy, and had to put in some supernatural slasher scenes that only work against the movie's horror. Either that or he was under pressure from studio execs. Furthermore the plot and the dialog sometimes feel a bit too cliché. It's as if the movie isn't sure if it's a mainstream or art-house movie. Does it want to be an intelligent piece of art or a mind-numbing by-the-books Hollywood horror. It's as if it's going in both directions at once, and therefore doesn't fully succeed at either one.That being said, the movie does have a lot of qualities, and is definitely worth watching for any serious fans of the genre (as I am). I've watched all the classics: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "The Exorcist", "Rosemary's Baby", "Repulsion", "Halloween", "Cannibal Holocaust", "Nosferatu", "Dracula" (1932 and 1958), "Vertigo", "Psycho", etc. etc. etc. - this movie has a lot of good elements, although not quite enough to reach the classic/cult status of the aforementioned movies. At the moment I'm waiting for Lars von Trier's upcoming 2009 movie "Antikrist" which is, surprise, surprise, a horror movie... Trier's first since his TV-series "Riget". I hope he'll bring something new to the genre, because the genre sure needs it.Well... that's about it I guess. On to the rating. I find the movie worthy of 7/10, but give it 8/10 because of its currently absurdly low IMDb rating of 4,5/10!