Firstly I would like to point out some things because there are some _edgy teen_ and _anti-religious_ comments here that are missing the point of a **FICTIONAL** narrative, this is **FICTIONAL**, not a documentary.

Despite your political, religious, or non-religious (I'm an atheist) views of the world, you must see a piece of art for what it is, a piece of art, nothing less, nothing more. You can hate it, you can love it, but judge by the same standards you would rate a movie that fits your view of world. This movie is not a documentary, it's a fictional work, It is not supposed to be seen only as a political thing, you must analyze it for everything that a piece of cinematographic art is: photography; acting; music; plot; and so on — said that I will try to resume what I think about the movie:

I was not expecting this kind of acting. Sean Patrick has nailed the character here, his job here was spectacular. I liked Jordan Belfi acting as well but what really stands out here is Nefarious character. The plot is pretty solid, the dialogue between Dr. James and Nefarious makes you really immersive in the movie. This is the kind of movie that NEEDS good acting and plot to make the spectator watch it since there is almost nothing more than this. There is nothing special about the image like angles, luminosity, or photography, is not bad, but nothing here stands out. Yet music... I really missed this part. That's something that I particularly think you CAN'T underestimate, a good soundtrack will build everything in the movie, and it will make even a bad scenario and bad photography stand out. Here in Nefarious the soundtrack is missing for a lot of the time, and some parts with no soundtrack at all (this is really bad for the movie), yet the SFX are there, not the best ones, but they are okay. The only thing I really didn't like about the plot was the final scene [spoiler] Nefarious just showing up like this was really some bad choice for ending the plot, no tension building, just "here I am :clown:"[/spoiler].

**Not sure if it's a good Christian movie, but it's a great horror movie**

Great movie, even though in a way it sets itself up for failure, because a Christian audience doesn't usually appreciate a good psychological horror movie and horror fans usually don't like a movie made by Christians promoting Christian values.

So there is no big demographic that really appreciates a movie like this and it's obvious that the makers of this movie knew that too and were doing it to simply make a good movie for those who can appreciate it (no matter how few there might be).

So I am not sure if it even really wants to be a good Christian movie or a good psychological horror movie, but either way it does succeed at being both.

For a movie about demonic possession it's also surprisingly realistic. And I say that as someone who has worked as a guard in prisons and mental institutions. There are a few extremely minor inaccuracies but these are necessary for the plot or are for safety reasons (after all, not everyone needs to know what exactly the actual safety measures in a prison actually look like in detail).

There actually already is an almost identical German movie called "Der Totmacher" (The Deathmaker). Though I am sure no one involved in this movie saw it, even though it's essentially the same movie and that's because that German movie's entire script simply consists entirely of the actual transcripts of an actual psychological evaluation of an actual serial killer. But that's how close to reality this all actually is.

When hardened psychiatrist "Martin" (Jordan Belfi) arrives at the prison, he is charged by the warden (Tom Ohmer) with certifying that a prisoner is mentally fit. Mentally fit to be electrocuted, that is! Opposite him, shackled to the table is a man (Sean Patrick Flanery) who proves extremely problematic for the normally ordered and structured analyst. That's not least because he claims to be possessed by the eponymous demon and that he has made enough use of this body and so wants to be killed so he can move on! Preposterous we all think, but this orange-suited man knows things he shouldn't, and soon his comments are unsettling and discombobulating "Martin". Now the performance from Flanery is actually quite good here. There is something almost compellingly maniacal about his delivery. The dialogue - well that's another matter. It could be considered thought-provoking or it could be considered banal. You certainly can't ignore it, or the curiously extreme and frequently contradictory doctrines being espoused and countered during what passes for their frankly rather contrived debates. If that's it's purpose, then it's worth a watch. As any sort of light-horror concept, though, it's derivative and unremarkable and it misses the target.