Devil Seed

One of the hardest, yet most popular horror genre's to get films made is of possession. Most of them are either silly or just rehashes of everything else that has come before it. The latest Devil Seed doesn't seem to have much new to offer, but those are sometimes the ones that step out of the shadows to surprise you.

Devil Seed follows a college student who moves in with girlfriends after the holidays. After having a few drinks out on the town and visit a psychic causing her to freak her friend out after having some sort of episode. With no memory of what happened, she slowly starts experience changes both sexual and violent leading her and everyone else to wonder what is inside her. At first this movie flows pretty well delivering an interesting take on the genre, but then slowly starts to fall somewhat apart. The story and performances seem to take a downward spiral into bad as if everyone lost track of what they were trying to do. There are some really well done possession moments that elevates the film and give you hope that it's back on track, but end just as quick as they begin. Luckily they keep returning to keep you interested just long enough for it to end. The real issue here is the sometimes over acting and other times played down performances that really do not keep a good feel of what these characters are trying to convey.

While this is in no way one of the worst films in this genre, it just didn't take advantage of the film it had. The story itself would have worked fine had they just thinned out the story a bit. Either way if you are a fan of the possession genre and trying to find one that will finally work for you, give Devil Seed a chance. Compared to most of those that hit the shelves on a weekly basis this one is way better.

http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-dallas/bobby-blakey

I wasn't really expecting much, but this film did a good job. The topic, like most scary movies, has been done to death already. All Exorcism movies basically rip off--- I mean, "are inspired by" the Exorcist. They don't seem to venture into real world claims about the topic much, they just take what they know from watching other films. It's a missed opportunity, but it is what it is. Here it is handled pretty well. Three woman are living together, two are set up as close friends, and two are set up us rivals. The main character is a virgin, which means the demon just hanging around (it must have gotten bored waiting 50 years) wants to possess her most. Which I don't really get as far as real world logic, but, again, the trope is true to film logic. They handle it well. Her anguish makes it seem more likely at first that it is just mental illness, and it works when you think about the implications of losing your mind like that. When she goes full on demonic it's a dramatic contrast to her normal innocent behavior. All the men in the film are set up as losers, but it's not about the men. The film also has that weird logic about nudity that is prevalent where one scene seems to have skin very briefly for no reason and others, based upon what's transpiring in the film, would make a lot more sense to show nudity but are framed meticulously so that they don't. There are a couple of scenes later that aren't prolonged but aren't unrealistically short either. Overall, it's still kind of mild, at least for these kind of movies. Sill, if you like demonic possession films, this is slightly better than average. If you still have the itch after watching the classics, it makes a decent diversion.

Well, this is a horror flick I have a few difficulties with. It all looked well done but the budget makes it sometimes laughable and the scariness goes away by that.

A lot of effects is 100% CGI and it shows that it was the cheap kind of CGI. And some CGI is seen but the next shot is isn't there anymore, just watch the all crackle, next shot the wall is in excellent shape. When Alex (Michelle Argyris) is possessed you can easily spot the make-up. But it's not all that bad. The acting was rather good. I would recommend it for teenagers, not that creepy and bloody but with a lot of girls walking around in their underwear. The flick starts off very hot with Bree (Vanessa Broze) having sex but you can see what you will get, she's fully naked but you only see her for behind getting her ride. She makes it good in a shower scene were she goes full frontal when the camera zooms out.

All clichés from possessed flicks are here to see, the changing of the voice and face. Even the spiderwalk is here just like in The Exorcist (1973), of course the original is still the best. It's low on gore and on red stuff, it do has it's good moments but overall it's sometimes a bit laughable due the effects.

Ideal for teenagers to watch but buffs and geeks must stay away from it before they get possessed.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 2/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

"The Devil In Me" (Not Devil Seed, more on that later) is a cliché ridden, hilarious mess, and the only way I can come to terms with it is by compiling one of my infamous lists. So, here goes...

1. Why is the victim of these atrocities always 'The new girl in town?'

2. Why is the only one doing nude scenes the bimbo with the boob job with a bit part?

3. Why would you break into a psychics for a 60 dollar reading after a heavy night out drinking?

4. Why is it the initial SHOCK when you hear a noise turns out to be nothing, but it always followed by the REAL SCARE?

5. Why bother possessing someone you're raping so she'll give birth to THE ANTICHRIST?

6. Why is it so convenient that the school councellor's father turns out to be A BLOOMIN' EXORCIST?!

7. Why can a demonic spirit in flight be stopped by A SHOWER CURTAIN?!

8. Why is this marketed as a horror when it should be a comedy? (18 you say?! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA etc)

9. Why bother changing the name of the film in the UK? (Might have been better if they'd changed the director, writer, actors, caterers...)

10. Why, in this genre, do the credits ALWAYS begin with an appalling loud cacophony of noise by a metal band you've never heard of?

I'm sure there are more, many more, but I'm off now to take some paracetamol and have a lie down. I've just got time for perhaps the most important question of them all: 11. Why was this ever made?! 4/10

Plain & simple: a horrible movie.

It tries to rip-off better movies, like The Exorcist or The Entity and fails miserably.

The opening credits are something straight out of YouTube. Wait, no, that's unfair...I've seen better opening credits in YouTube.

This was Greg A. Sager's first attempt at making professional movies...and I have an advice for him: please Mr. Sager, don't quit your day job yet. He is the Director, Writer & Editor of this abomination. At least he did an "ok" job in the editing dept.

The script is awful and completely ridiculous. It's filled with plot holes and full of ludicrous situations.

The acting is simply atrociously bad. There's not 1 good actor in the whole movie. I'm serious: sometimes it feels like a homemade movie, as if some friends just grabbed one camera and said "let's make a scary movie, you guys!".

Photography is a mess and I'm starting to feel like they didn't do the catering right.

The FX are complete trash. And most of them are just CGI. Bad CGI.

The only "redeeming factor" of the whole movie is that they took one of YouTube's most infamous "scary clips" and remade it almost exactly. So yeah, it's that unoriginal. But hey, at least they've proved that the YouTube video was a hoax...right?

Seriously...don't watch this poorly made and very badly acted piece of garbage. Remember that life is finite. You've been warned.