The movie presents points that are seldom brought up on a movie screen. Of course it also presents some of the more common events that happen during a haunting; not that this hasn't been done before, the beauty of this movie is that the scenes are so well executed you can actually feel the earthly impact and ethereal significance of the situations the characters find themselves in.
   It's realism allows it to be a truly scary movie!
   Clair Spencer (Michelle Pfeiffer), wife of genetic research whiz Dr. Norman Spencer (Harrison Ford) and mother of lovely Caitlin (Katherine Towne) appears to be completely loosing her marbles. Clair is a woman with a past, that if check listed would indicate she is experiencing post traumatic stress syndrome which could be used by her shrink to explain away her psychic experiences - but isn't. The usual psychobabble used today, to ward-off acknowledgment of psychic activity, is portrayed as worthy of investigation but not the end-all answer. The avenue of psychic activity is considered by Clair's psychiatrist before he considers that Clair should be forcibly institutionalized or heavily drugged up with anti-psychotic medications. Her counselor encourages her to "ask the entity what it wants", to question the entity regarding it's purpose in visiting Clair ; this is common (because it is effective) practice in today's psychological circles. I appreciated that this movie respected the psychic person, the PSI believer and the psychological community - all, without pandering to the usual schlock.
   Clair's hubby, Norman, has issues. He is a wealthy, serious Nobel Prize contender who has seemingly gotten in touch with his sensitive side as he rides through Clair's possible mental illness on the back of a white stallion; sweetly tolerating as much and more stress than most husbands would put up with-- even if wifey did look like Michelle Pfeiffer! Norman is the son of a famous and much loved dead doctor, whom he must constantly be compared to and reminded of. Dead Dad is still very much alive in all conversations and introductions that Norman engages in, that is everyone from secretaries to the billionaires he is pitching his research program to. Norman is on a tight deadline and obviously has stress of his own, coupled with Clair's, he seems the sexy-sensitive-all-together-Harrison-Ford- character women have come to fantasize about in their daydreams. Or is he?
   Clair's concerned friend brings her mushroom tea, to help Clair through her "empty-nest, post-car-accident-with-memory-loss and being- haunted" stress. Clair remarks, "Oh, you were discussing me with your psychic were you?" In which case her buddy replies "No, the woman is not-really psychic, just an enlightened person like me". Clair remarks to the tune of, so you weren't discussing me with a pro you were just gossiping about me to a friend. This is an important issue being presented in this seemingly frivolous scene. It's a typical New Age concept acknowledging the western world's attitude relating to: while gossip is frowned upon, discussing friends or family with one's personal psychic is acceptable. I'm glad the issue was brought up in the movie as it allowed me to make the following notation: As a professional psychic, I don't agree with this much too common concept; there are times when the inquiries of a client regarding another person is an invasion of privacy, a psychic must first spiritually justify spying on one person for another (i.e.: there better be a very good reason and must be a benefit to all parties involved) and at other times the psychic must know when to say - "No, it's none of your business".
   The creators of this movie did their homework and it shows
   Of course, I picked the scenes apart, not to criticize, rather because this is not an entertainment review; it is an educational material review so that you can use the movie later in your psychic or spiritual enlightenment education or research endeavors. I personally enjoyed the entertainment value of the movie and as there isn't any reason why learning can't be fun, I suggest this movie as a must see for anyone who wonders what it would be like to have contact with an entity.

Following are the points of educational value to take note of:

• Clair "feeling" a presence rather than "seeing" it with her eyes was very accurate and well executed; in a real event, an entity is perceived with ones nerve endings not ones eyes.
• Respectfully, the movie never used the offensive, slang "ghost" when referring to Madison's character or spiritual entities overall.
• Yes, even geneticists consult with psychics and parapsychologists probably more often than the general public realizes.
• As the movie portrays incorrectly, murdered entities don't usually have revenge on their minds, but this is a forgivable error in that it is a movie designed for entertainment.
• Clair and Norman's canine companion (Golden Retriever) growls indicating Claire is possessed by Madison and/or that Madison is invisibly present. This occurs too often in the movie. Animals are more sensitive than human creatures because they are less inhibited and less psychologically conditioned about what they sensing and so, react strongly and quickly simply because they don't have the social hang ups we do. However, domestic (and wild) animals are often caught by surprise just as humans are, they don't always notice a difference in the person experiencing the "possession" rather they are sensing the change in the normally perceived energy near and around the possessed person and the spiritual entity both (though they usually recognize the spiritual entity's energy after noticing their human companion's). The pet's reaction to a possession and an entity is not always a negative or fearful response. If the dog knew the spiritual entity and liked he or she when "alive" (3D) , then the dog would not respond with a growl, rather it would most likely react with a sniff or sign of a welcoming greeting.
• The movie makes too much of environmental temperature changes, they don't always happen and it's only about a 30% ratio in actual cases - which sounds like a lot but isn't.
• Quija is dangerous and this movie could have been a lesson in that regard. Rather, Quija got a big promo out of it and I will not condone the use of the item. I feel Quija, pendulums, etc. are items that lure people (who don't know what they are doing or what they are inviting into their lives) into becoming involved with something they will not be able to control nor discontinue.
• Some of Madison's (dead girl) hair is used by Claire to bring Madison closer. This is used by a psychic to a small degree only for entity PBS identification purposes, but is not significant or necessary to an entity. Remember please, the entity is no longer of flesh and blood body, so what relevance would it have to anyone other than a fleshed person? It is used commonly in Voodoo, Witchcraft, etc. for the most part, and sometimes for psychic beginners who are soon taught not to lean on this unstable and unreliable focus tool. A pendant belonging to Madison is also used in the movie as some magical significance for Clair - to bring her closer to the entity. Well that sounds like it would work but doesn't happen in real situations.
• When cross-dimensional communications (4D to 3D telepathy) or human to human telepathy are in play, words and body language are largely irrelevant and so not used and/or not depended on. Rather "thoughts" are used which crosses the language and physical barriers. Many people believe in the classic definition or descriptions of possession because they are only aware of, or familiar with, the classic concepts rather than the realities of such an event. Those that have actually experienced interdimensional communications even tend to confuse "possession" with a much lesser degree of the concept called a "walk-in". When a normal (i.e.: non-psychic person) experiences telepathic communications with a 4D entity, it can seem like a full blown possession (as it is overwhelming and seems to fit the general definition of possession) - but it isn't. Even the movie's sex scene is not a possession, regardless of what the writers and spin-doctors for the movie promotions said. The sex scene depicted instead, a common "walk-in" of two separate thinking entities (Clair and Madison) with Clair thinking and feeling "with" the entity while the entity is giving directions regarding what she would like Claire to do; much like a carpentry teacher (Madison) standing over an apprentice (Clair) with a power saw giving explicit instructions. In this scenario's case Clair acted upon Madison's suggestions because she was sympathetic to what Madison was presenting telepathically; Claire acted on her own and was not "possessed".