Obsession: An Indie Success Story about the Intoxication of Power 76%

By Elsie Carson49%

7/14/2026, 5:54:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 71.5% saturation with 683 hits. Analysis detected 2,658 faulty-reasoning hits from 955 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.8% and a BS Rank of 76% (6,678 of 26,821 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.10% of the article peer group.

Obsession, the word, has a clear negative connotation. 
It conjures up images of sleepless nights, wide-eyed enthusiasm, and frantic possession. 
Yet also a coy self awareness. “omg I’m obsessed.” 
To know that indulgence is wrong but to indulge nonetheless. 
The film Obsession , fully delivers on the promise of its title, presenting a narrative of selfish desire and exploitation that has left moviegoers appropriately obsessed with this film. 
The premise speaks to a common trope in fantasy literature that has obvious problematic implications. 
A love potion, a spell, a genie’s wish, either way the outcome is the same. 
To magically force someone to love you, circumventing their free will. 
It’s a situation often regarded with comedy, as the infatuated victim dotes over their new love’s every insignificant whim, but Obsession sees this premise to its extreme, the last word on the familiar setup. 
In the film, Baron “Bear” Bailey, a timid exemplar of the deceptive “nice guy” archetype, played by Michael Johnston, wishes that his crush, Nikki Freeman (yes that’s her last name) would love him more “than anyone in the f*cking world.” 
With the help of some supernatural magic, this time in the form of an enchanted stick called a “One Wish Willow,” Nikki is transformed from Bear’s grounded and self assured bestie into his clingy, volatile puddle of a girlfriend. 
While a comedy might make her newfound love obnoxious and slightly overbearing, Obsession takes a wildly different approach, twisting this already warped scenario as Nikki comes up with every manner of unnerving display of affection in the possession playbook. 
From watching Bear sleep to turning his recently deceased pet into a lunchtime snack, her misguided attempts to constantly woo him are both familiar yet horrifyingly original. 
As is the case with the premise, common scenarios are flawlessly executed, building morbid curiosity before every reveal only for you to recoil with disgust as the film tops your subverted expectations. 
At first these unsettling bits of mania are peppered throughout normal lovey dovey scenes, paired with more comedic scenarios played for uncomfortable laughs. 
But the tone throughout is one of overwhelmingly foreboding unease. 
Everyone is aware of what is actually going on, but no one wants to address the infatuated elephant in the room. 
Subtle makeup tricks turn dark lighting into demonic displays of uncanny terror, and clever post production make Nikki’s movements go from subtly unusual to inhumanely puppeteered in the blink of an eye. 
Inde Navarrette’s performance as Nikki is what really sells the narrative, bridging the gap between Bear’s male fantasy and its eerily stilted reality. 
Occasionally, she will snap out of the spell she’s under in a violently confused state, asking where she is and what’s going on. 
These moments are truly some of the scariest in the film, accomplished entirely without practical effects or traditional horror elements. 
Just pure performance. 
Crazy possession antics are one thing, but seeing the confused, helpless victim break through for just a moment, only to be shoved back down into the sunken place, adds a disconcerting duality to every interaction. 
It paints Bear in an increasingly predatory light, as he sleeps with a woman he clearly knows cannot act upon her own will. 
Watching him convince himself that everything is fine, that what he’s doing isn’t awful, is as disheartening as it is realistic. 
His character is a sobering glimpse into the mindset of abusers who cyclically convince themselves that their actions are justified, no matter how many warning signs explicitly call them out. 
Bear isn’t the only wrongdoer in this film either. 
What appears to be a normal group of friends quickly unravels as Nikki’s “love” dramatically changes the dynamic. 
From the beginning, their friendship is seeded with details that seem innocuous at first but come tumbling apart as Nikki’s possession pulls at the strings of their precarious relationships. 
The subtle balancing act of love and deceit is thrown into survival mode as each person’s desires are complicated by Nikki’s abrupt personality shift. 
What follows is a selfish scramble as each of their friends attempt to fulfill their own wishes, but without the help of the supernatural, resorting instead to good old fashioned manipulation. 
Nikki isn’t the villain in Obsession . 
And neither is the One Wish Willow.” 
The normal, unpossessed people are what make this story the resonant horror that it is. 
It’s an impressive feat for director and internet content creator Curry Barker, who managed to make the film with a budget of only $750,000. 
A truly Herculean feat, even more impressive with the seamless practical effects and the film’s incredible commercial success. 
So far, it has grossed over $297 million and doesn’t seem to be slowing anytime soon. 
One hell of a return on investment for co-producer Focus Features, who believed in the film enough to invest a ~8 million dollar marketing budget, which helped to catapult it to blockbuster status 
Word of mouth on this film has been overwhelmingly positive, with almost everyone who has seen it instantly asking if their friends have seen it so they can marvel and discuss together like fresh gossip about a mutual acquaintance. 
Recently there has been increasing hype for similar films made by smaller names, like the YouTube creepypasta turned blockbuster horror Backrooms, which is consistently mentioned in the same breath as Obsession. 
It appears that studios are willing to take risks on creators from other mediums, as long as the budgets are relatively small and come with a primed fanbase. 
If Obsession ’s success will teach studios to invest in smaller, more daring talent, or just make carbon copies of the same premise until we cannot stomach anymore, only time will tell. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.6%Elsie Carson: 4.1%The Indypendent: 4.0%Confirmation Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.2%The Indypendent: 0.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Elsie Carson: 2.0%The Indypendent: 1.7%Availability Heuristic13.2%This article: 4.7%Elsie Carson: 0.5%The Indypendent: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.7%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.3%The Indypendent: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Elsie Carson: 1.2%The Indypendent: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias8.6%This article: 8.8%Elsie Carson: 2.7%The Indypendent: 3.0%Framing Effect8.8%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.5%The Indypendent: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.8%The Indypendent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect3.5%This article: 6.9%Elsie Carson: 3.7%The Indypendent: 3.2%Optimism Bias6.9%This article: 12.4%Elsie Carson: 1.3%The Indypendent: 1.0%Pessimism Bias12.4%This article: 41.4%Elsie Carson: 3.5%The Indypendent: 3.1%Negativity Bias41.4%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 1.0%The Indypendent: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Elsie Carson: 0.9%The Indypendent: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error6.6%This article: 2.2%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 1.8%The Indypendent: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.8%The Indypendent: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Elsie Carson: 1.5%The Indypendent: 1.3%Halo Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.0%The Indypendent: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.0%The Indypendent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.0%Elsie Carson: 0.6%The Indypendent: 0.6%Recency Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.0%The Indypendent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Elsie Carson: 0.5%The Indypendent: 0.5%Ad Hominem4.2%This article: 3.6%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Straw Man3.6%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 1.9%The Indypendent: 1.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.9%Elsie Carson: 2.0%The Indypendent: 2.0%False Dilemma6.9%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 1.0%The Indypendent: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 23.0%Elsie Carson: 5.8%The Indypendent: 5.6%Hasty Generalization23.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.4%Elsie Carson: 0.5%The Indypendent: 0.5%Bandwagon7.4%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 2.9%The Indypendent: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.3%The Indypendent: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.9%Elsie Carson: 1.4%The Indypendent: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.9%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.3%The Indypendent: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.0%Elsie Carson: 4.0%The Indypendent: 3.0%Anecdotal6.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.6%Elsie Carson: 0.6%The Indypendent: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.6%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.0%The Indypendent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.2%The Indypendent: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.2%The Indypendent: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.9%Elsie Carson: 0.7%The Indypendent: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.9%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 71.5%Elsie Carson: 2.0%The Indypendent: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice71.5%This article: 6.5%Elsie Carson: 2.0%The Indypendent: 2.0%Indoctrination6.5%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 2.5%The Indypendent: 2.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.0%The Indypendent: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.5%

955 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.