Waste of time

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

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.

This is basically a Turkish scene by scene remake of "The Exorcist", so how bad could it be? Well, it also honestly isn't that bad but it of course is a totally pointless remake.It's always credited as a remake but somehow I doubt this is actually an official one. They were lucky Hollywood did not find out about this movie, or else they would has most likely been sued for it. It's just made to cash in on the success of the original "The Exorcist", in its native Turkey. Why else would you make and release a remake only one year after the original. And it's not like this movie is offering anything new or original, as compared to the original "The Exorcist". So seriously, I hope the Turkish people at the time were smart enough to catch the American version instead, which is of course also an infinitely better one.I don't know why anybody should ever want to watch a cheaper and weaker made version of "The Exorcist". And that's basically all this movie is; A really cheap looking one, with some poor effects, weak acting and some bad film-making. Even though it follows the exact same story, this movie yet never manages to become a scary or intriguing one in any way. As a matter of fact, the movie starts to drag and repeat itself pretty early on already and it never succeeds at rising above the level of average.The approach to the story is just boring and without any good ideas behind it. The directing and cinematography is the same, all the time. Often it starts with a closeup of a person and then zooms out. It becomes so noticeable and annoying after a while. It also just doesn't really manage to get its story of the ground and because of that its pace is also lacking, as is its horror. The movie still does has its moments but that is all simply because it's being based on some great source material, so can you truly give the movie credit for that?But it does make this movie still a definitely watchable enough one. Those who like trashy, cheap horror flicks should definitely be able to appreciate this movie and seriously, it isn't half as bad as the movie might sound. Sure, it's a bit silly and clumsily done at times but overall the movie still remains a decent enough watch, despite the fact that it's being nothing more than a blatant ripoff, that adds nothing good, new or original on its own.5/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

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.

Saw this the other day. What a laugh! Apparently, some films in the 70s were suffering from attention from Warners, who tried to ban them saying they ripped off their classic "The Exorcist". How this slipped by them I'll never know! Not a subtly or even majorly similar film, this is a complete remake! I mean even the same SOUNDTRACK! Tubular Bells is played EIGHT times in this movie. Get some imagination! They try their best I suppose. The actress playing Gul hasn't got any stunt performers standing in for her a la Eileen Dietz puking all over poor Jason Mller, no, this babe hurls the yellow (not green for once) puke herself. I totally loved the dramatic organ music when the bed levitated (God, it took so LONG!) and then the same music a few minutes later when the bed descended. Fantasticaly crap! The mother reminded me of my make up tutor. Hmmm. Couldn't look at this actress without seeing a foundation pot and a bruise wheel. Not to worry. How these people think they can do this and not get sued (hell, they managed) I will never know. Turks have BALLS! See it. It's trash, badly made and completely pants. Great stuff. :O)