The Devonsville Terror

This movie had a nice old feeling to it as the commentator before me said, but that's it. The story is stupid, the acting is mediocre, and the effects are horrible. And the whole arm/worm thing is disgusting might I add. And many of the things just look fake....I love horror movies, and on a scale of 1-10 compared to Children of the Corn (which was made just a year after this;1984)...I'd give it a 1.5 for the lonely feeling, and the .5 for effort.

The little town of Devonsville, 1683. Three slightly eccentric, yet innocent women are gruesomely tortured and executed. Devonsville, 1983…around the same time three hundred years later 3 single women come to settle in the town that is still congested by Puritan, superficial villagers. The 20th century-inhabitants of Devonsville simply seem like reincarnations of their forefathers and they quickly begin to suspect the newly arrived ladies of witchery. The gorgeous new teacher (Suzanna Love) in particular.

Ulli Lommel's The Devonsville Terror is cheap 80's taking on the gruesome subject of the Inquisition and witchery, a horror sub genre that I personally cherish highly. Obviously, the atmosphere and tension doesn't come near the classic titles in this sub genre, like 'The Witchfinder General' or 'Mark of the Devil' but it does feature some chilling scenery and ingenious horror moments. Veteran horror actor Donald Pleasance stars as the town's doctor who constantly has to pick living worms out of his own flesh (due to a curse placed on his family, centuries ago). The film is overall decent and certainly worth a watch if you're an undemanding horror lover. Too bad about the bad ending, though…Well, it isn't exactly a BAD ending. More like an unsatisfying one. Just when the plot takes a vicious new twist, the end-credits start rolling over the screen and you're left behind with an empty feeling in your stomach.

Director Ulli Lommel this time created the idea of three women back in 1683 who are arrested for crimes that they obviously did not commit and are sentenced to death in three different gruesome ways which I will not describe (watch it!) Then the movie goes three hundred years into the present (1983) where in the town of Devonsville, there are all of the sudden three young beautiful women who mysteriously arrive to the town. This town is your average small-town where everyone knows your name 'cheers' style. Lommel does capture that small-town feel very successfully and I found myself drawn into the complex web of ignoramuses inhabiting this town. The only smart one in my opinion was Dr. Worley (Donald Pleasance), Pleasance always provides an utterly fantastic performance in any work he does and he didn't let up in this movie. The ending is a perfectly blatant ripoff or homage if you will, of the Raiders of the Lost Ark. You would think Lommel would pay homage to another slasher flick but oh well. Otherwise this movie wasn't too bad, Suzanna Love is great as always but I wasn't to keen about her short hair, what do I know? It was 1983 and I guess that was the big 'thing' then. Witch fans will love this flick no doubt. Peace

As much as the horror genre at large tends to victimize women, some titles particularly zero in on misogyny to the point that it can be hard to convince oneself to watch them. Rarely is that more true than when the tale on hand is one of witchcraft, and the appalling, bogus violence of "witch trials," with clear indication of pitting female characters against men. Suffice to say that I've held off for awhile on watching 'The Devonsville terror' for just this reason. Then again, maybe there are more specific reasons to have had reservations about this. One can't fault a production for being on the more indie and low-budget end of the spectrum, though without especial points of brilliance for counterbalance, the evident shortcomings will be foremost. On that note, while stunts and practical effects look great, the more grandiose visuals show their limits. Ulli Lommel's direction feels kind of limpid, or at least highly variable, with the result of some stilted acting and pacing. Even Donald Pleasence, a legend in and of himself and the highlight of no few otherwise tepid features, seems to struggle some in a role that is distinctly small and limited. Suffice to say this falls well short of perfect by any measure, and I can understand how it hasn't been regarded well.

The acting isn't all bad, not by any means, and some actors come off better on average than others despite the weak direction. True, maybe they're aided by having their characters spotlighted as sympathetic figures, but I think this goes primarily for star Suzanna Love, and co-stars Mary Walden and Deanna Haas. Paul Willson makes an unexpected impression with the nervous energy he carries as Mr. Gibbs, reminding of Philip Seymour Hoffman in 'Synecdoche, New York.' Meanwhile, there is some directness in the writing that comes across as a result of inexperience (or to be less kind, plain amateurism) - though even with definite rough edges, I'm pleased to say that more than not the screenplay whipped up between Lommel, Love, and George T. Lindsey is kind of terrific, or at least strikes some major chords. The primary thrust is undeniable as three women, fresh faces around the sleepy backwoods town of Devonsville, raise the hackles of the almost uniformly provincial and reactionary residents. The newcomers' progressive and free-thinking values concerning religion, the environment, education, feminism, gender equality, and more are met by staunch, stubborn, and aggressive conservativism, selfishness, antiquated values, and outright ignorance, not to mention attitudes of patriarchy, male entitlement to women's bodies, homophobia, and that simple-minded misogyny. Such notions could surely be utilized to greater effect, and have been elsewhere, but 'The Devonsville terror' nevertheless boasts firm foundations with the themes and Big Ideas with which it plays.

From that foundation is built a tale of curses, superstition, and the past repeating itself - not to mention genuinely disturbing violence, specifically male violence against women, and the all too real and dangerous ideas and beliefs that precipitate that violence. And it must surely be said that there are some fantastic thoughts in play in terms of the characters, scene writing, and overall narrative, even setting aside the most substantial themes on and. Unfortunately, here is where the picture meets with its biggest problems of all, because when it comes to the fundamentals of storytelling, the writing is possibly the weakest part of all. When events come to a head in third act we trust that, as per conventions of the genre, the principal women will exact sweet revenge, or even if that is not true, then at least the outcome will be hugely horrifying and satisfying for we viewers. What happens instead is that the climax seems to come from out of nowhere, a climax during which one supporting character who has been no more than a footnote all this time plays a large part. That climax is followed by an exceptionally curt ending that is deeply unsatisfying and begs the question of what purpose there was to the plot in the first place. There is no true resolution for two of three crucial figures. In the meantime, I repeat that the practical effects are splendid, but Lommel makes the regrettable choice of holding one shot so long during the climax that the artifice of those effects is betrayed, and this follows on the most tawdry and unconvincing use of all of those would-be grandiose post-production special effects. Right where it matters the most, 'The Devonsville terror' falls apart and leaves a bad taste in our mouths.

It's a shame, because there was enormous potential here. Other movies have played with like-minded material, and the same themes and ideas, to tremendous profit. In too many ways, however, this one flounders, and squanders the best possibilities. Lommel's direction is unreliable, with some discrete bad decisions, and other facets are subsequently lowered. And beyond the admirable core notions of the screenplay the team of writers had no more than very mixed success in summoning forth a workable story, or even just workable individual scenes. So much of the tale that has been presented to us is just left hanging when all is said and done, with even those underlying themes left somewhat unused; in generosity I assume Lommel, Love, and Lindsey recognized the deficiency, but hadn't the time or budget to rewrite, let alone shoot and edit more footage. In one manner or another the final product is the same, and for all that 'The Devonsville terror' could have been - and from the outside looking in, sounds like it should be - the film is less than one might hope or expect. There is value here, and I'm glad for those who like it more than I do, but I'm just disappointed. I anticipated a viewing experience that would be unpleasant, but ultimately rewarding, and when all is said and done only one of those descriptors holds true. There are worse things you could watch, but the sad fact of the matter is that there are much better things, too, and there's not much reason to spend time with this.

I watched this film completely sober, which is never a great idea when you're watching low-budget horror films. But this one was alright. The plot was firmly established, the death scenes were obviously amateur but at least creative in their methods. And Donald Pleasance, who can really do no wrong (I watched this film about a week after seeing "Alone in the Dark" - I should have made it a double feature). Other critics of this film might say it is not original. Maybe so, but the director and the actors were able to establish a "creepy level" unparalleled in any other film. Almost every two minutes some character acted in a way that weirded me out. What was made into a 90-minute film should have been a Twin Peaks-esque television show. The only thing really missing in this film is a woman talking to a log. Were there plot holes and other flaws? Sure. The laser beams from the eyes were a bit unusual, and the weekly meetings with the drunk priest, and the unexplained need for hypnotized people to be naked, and the obvious fact the wormy arm was not a real arm... but I digress. A fine film ion its own right - 6 out of 10.