Best movie of this year hands down!

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Seytan is just one in a field of maybe two dozen or more Exorcist ripoffs made in the 1970s. Outside of the blaxploitation version 'Abby', I wouldn't refer to any of these movies as a "must see". However, because I like the plot of The Exorcist and I am also fascinated by demons and cases of demonic possession, I do tend to find all of these ripoffs rather enjoyable and this one is no exception. The effects and the make up are decent although nowhere near Exorcist levels of quality. However, I'm sure their budget was a speck of dirt compared to what French Connection genius William Friedkin was allowed. As far as our main characters go, the mother comes across with a bit more sex appeal, but far more bitchiness than Ellen Burstyn had. Maybe it's just a cultural thing, but are her cooks and housekeepers slaves or employees? Overall I'm sure it's just there to demonstrate to the audience how much she cares for her daughter Gül just as Burstyn had some of that anger. Gül is another thing that doesn't translate well to us Westerners as it sounds more like the name of a demon than a little girl. Canan Perver as the daughter is probably the high point of this film though. We realize that Linda Blair was a terrific child actor which is why her performance was so great. However, I wouldn't call Canan a great actress, but she does come across as a little unstable. She almost seems to love being possessed and this psychosis benefits her role as the demonic daughter. If you've seen The Exorcist you know the plot and I only recommend this film to you if you want to see another culture's take on the subject. Keep in mind if you are a fan of something like Turkish Star Wars don't assume this film will appeal to you. This film is not humorous in any way, shape or form...it takes itself and the story very seriously.

Out of all the Turkish rip-off films i've seen, this one is the most palatable in some ways (not the most entertaining, but watchable)... It may have helped that i had subtitles for this one, but part of it was the fact that they follow the Hollywood version very closely, and the basic narrative of the exorcist is solid...On the other hand, this movie is a perfect example of why story and script can only take you so far in a film... The story is almost identical to the Hollywood version with only a few changes to make it more culturally relevant, but the direction and all the cinematic aspects are much worse. The end result is a movie that fails in every way. There are no scares, and every scene lacks intensity compared to William Friedkin's version... You would figure that somewhere in the movie there would be at least one scene that would be superior in some way... Some inventive touch that would surpass the original, but even though every scene has a counterpart in Friedkins film, the Turkish version of the scene is always vastly inferior to the point were it's almost depressing. The lighting isn't even remotely atmospheric, the camera choices are all horrendous (except when they copy friedkins exact camera angles), the acting is soap opera level (at best). This movie is a perfect example of why directors (not writers) are the most important figures behind the creation of a movie. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Lucio Fulci (one of the masters of Italian horror) routinley worked with scripts that were much worse than this one, yet consistently churned out movies that were 10 times better. You can't even really use the poor budget as a justification for this film because many of the problems have nothing to do with any budgetary constraints. It's cheap, but that's not why it's bad.Most of these Turkish rip-off films play as pure comedy for me, not this one... There is a bit of unintentional comedy here and there, but it's so close to the original exorcist that you can't help but constantly compare the two and the end result is a greater appreciation of the Hollywood version. It will make you thankful that all movies aren't as blandly made as this rip-off.Worth watching just for the interesting contrast, but not worthy as entertainment of any kind.

Legendary turkish remake of "The Exorcist" is really a hoot. The little girl who gets possessed looks amazingly like Linda Blair, the christian references are severely toned down, (though not quite completely replaced by Islamic counterparts), and they do about what one would expect in such a production. Technical aspects are amazingly minimal, although that isn't really unusual for such Turkish productions. There is a bit of atmosphere and menace to this production, but the cheesy effects work against it. Very rare, I guess, but it should turn up any day now. I suppose it would help if I spoke Turkish, but this is still a mindboggling ride. heh --Judex.1--

Just from the box art, you know your in for a treat. This movie made me laugh so hard i almost choked! They follow the Exorcist from the start to the end. This baby must have been on a budget of $100. The FX are horrible, the acting is stale, and they play tubular bells 800 times in this movie! But it is so bad its hilarious and i highly recommend it. Pure cheese! One part during the exorcism, the room is all lit up, when the girl levitates, the room becomes dark [to hide the wires i guess] and when she comes back down, the room is dark again. Its in Turkish though, but if you want it dubbed, just dub the Exorcist audio over the whole movie, i am sure it will fit.