Devil's Due - Teufelsbrut

The orphan Samantha (Allison Miller) gets married with Zach McCall (Zach Gilford) and they travel in honeymoon to Santo Domingo. In their last night in the Dominican Republic, the newlywed couple is invited by a taxi driver to go to a party in the outskirts of Santo Domingo. They drink too much and do not see that Sam is brought to a weird cult. They return to the United States and soon Sam discovers that she is pregnant. Along the pregnancy, Sam changes her behavior and becomes nervous and aggressive. On the night of the delivery, Zach witnesses weird events at home.

"Devil's Due" is a lame and cheap movie that uses the same storyline of "Rosemary's Baby". This rip-off could have the title "How to Destroy the Storyline of a Masterpiece with a Hand-held Camera and an Absurd Plot". Sam and Zach accepting to go to a slum in an unknown country with a stranger are among the greatest stupidities of the cinema industry. The new doctor uses the office of Dr. J. Ludka and no receptionist or nurse notices. The house of Sam and Zach is completely destroyed in a calm neighborhood and no neighbor observes. The use of camera as if it were Zach is nonsense in most of the situations. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "O Herdeiro do Diabo" ("Devil's Due")

First of all, I am a big fan of the found footage supernatural/horror genre and love watching even the lesser acclaimed films. I am the type of viewer that draws the positives out of a very flawed film and enjoy it. So I expected to enjoy something out of this at the very least.

My god, what a tediously insufferable film this turned out to be.

There is absolutely no innovation or any attempt to try something new. It is so painfully boring.

The concept idea was very promising which is basically a found footage rendition of The Omen or Rosemary's baby. However, this film is so dire at engaging the audience due to the most irritable protagonist I have ever seen so far in a found footage type movie. For more than half of the movie, we are tortured with the sickly saccharine antics of a doting husband on his newly wed wife. There is no natural humour to ease the torment and worse for a film of this type, there were actually no scares until the last act.

As I said, I am the type of film goer that draws the positives and try enjoy that. So are there any? Well, there is a dog that was amusing for 2 seconds but even he looked bored, thereafter. OK, there is a bit more positives. You do get a predictable climax in an attempt to "reward " us for our eternal patience which was efficiently executed but without any unique vision or flair, just the usual creep around corridors and..."boo" oh it was just the dog sort of thing. The actors do perform well but the material they have to work with is revolting.

At the end of the credits there is a piece of text explaining that this film created 200,000 jobs. Well that was nice to know and the only bit that made me feel good knowing that at least it gave a lot of people work but then I wonder if stating that was an indirect apology and their justification to make this dreadfully boring movie?

TO be fair, the film is as polished as it can be for a found footage genre but its all pointless if it fails to engage us in the narrative.

If you haven't seen many horror films or supernatural films such as Paranormal Activity etc, then perhaps you might enjoy this more as long as you can stomach the vomit inducing newly weds for half of the movie.

I give this a 3/10 rating, mostly for the dog that looked fairly convincing in not wanting to be in the movie. Get a new agent doggy, you deserve better.

Absolute Dogsh*t is a term that cannot be used enough to describe this movie. I hated the characters (especially the tw*t of a husband), the stupid shaky-cam, the "scares", the pathetic sub-plot of an ancient cult, the trailer that gave away absolutely everything, and did I mention the tw*t of a husband? No doubt there'll be a sequel, and another, and another. Remember when there were actually good horror found-footage films? Me neither. Hollywood is just saturated with them, none of them good. A complete and terrible rip-off of Rosemary's Baby. Just don't watch it. If I could give it a minus rating I would. Definitely in the category of one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

'DEVIL'S DUE': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

Another low-budget supernatural horror 'found footage' flick. The story is about a recently wed woman who unexpectedly becomes pregnant, with the Antichrist. It's an homage to the classic Roman Polanski thriller 'ROSEMARY'S BABY' but it's presented in a style that's a lot more similar to the 'PARANORMAL ACTIVITY' franchise. It was written by Lindsay Devlin (who's only other film writing credit is the 2013 documentary 'IN SO MANY WORDS') and directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett. Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett are part of a collective filmmakers group called 'Radio Silence'; they previously co-directed, co-wrote and co-starred in a segment of the 2012 'found footage' horror anthology 'V/H/S'. I think the filmmaking duo did an exceptional job on this (their debut feature film) and found it to be much better than a lot of critics (and 'found footage' movie haters) have made it out to be.

The story revolves around a newly wed couple, named Samantha and Zach McCall (played by Allison Miller and Zach Gilford), that go on their honeymoon in the Dominican Republic. After Samantha gets a weird reading from a fortune teller the two are led to a remote bar (outside the city) by a persistent cab driver (Roger Payano). They both get wasted (on shots) and pass out. It then appears that Samantha is taken to a room, beneath the club, where some kind of ritual is performed on her. When they return home they find out she's pregnant, despite the fact that Samantha has always regularly taken her birth control pills. The two decide to keep the child and then things really get strange. It's of course all caught on video and compiled (from many different sources) for the viewer.

The film (like I said) got mostly bad reviews from critics and horror fans (that hate the 'found footage' genre). It did get a few good reviews (though) from some scary movie aficionados (like director Eli Roth and the popular horror website 'Bloody Disgusting'). I enjoyed the movie; I love the horror genre and like 'found footage' flicks, when they're done right. I think this one was done right; it's scary, funny and just a lot of fun to watch. The rookie directors did a great job and the script is smart and clever as well. The two leads were also adequate enough (for a film like this); the lead woman is very beautiful too and the lead guy reminds me a lot of a political radio and internet talk show host (I watch) named David Pakman. It's just an all around good fright flick, especially if you like the genre. Ignore the haters!

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKhLjf_1MKw

This was really deceptive marketing and hype that drew me into this movie. I am very sorry I went. The acting, directing, production design, continuity, editing and of course the story, screen writing and execution were just abysmal. There was nothing of quality in this film. The characters were stupid, the camera work was jarring "handheld reality TV" nonsense and on top of it all, the plot was told in a far superior manner by Roman Polanski in "Rosemary's Baby" forty years ago! It just shows that with some production money, a digital camera and some reality-TV "Blair Witch"/"Paranormal Activity"-type marketing approach, you can sell any kind of garbage to the American public. I urge you not to support this film, or any future endeavours of anyone involved with this project (cast, crew, director or screenwriters)....