Devil Seed

A college student moves in with her extremely annoying friends before getting possessed in this unoriginal horror flick that brings nothing new, nor entertaining to the table. This movie is over 90 minutes of pure asinine tedium. It's the sort of teen scream film that gives a bad name to that aforementioned sub-genre. No scares, no good characterization, no good anything for that matter save for some minor nudity that may sedate the most forgiving watcher, but those that actually care about what they choose to watch, steer clear of this one. You'll thank me later.

Eye Candy: Vanessa Broze shows T&A

Just another routine possession movie. Noting really groundbreaking. Was really wanting a good supernatural movie. This wasn't it. It killed some time though. And every so often a good possession movie does come out and surprise us. Nothing will ever top the Exorcist IMO but I have enjoyed several including recent ones like Deliver Us from Evil, The Devil Inside. The Exorcism of Emily Rose, A Haunting in Connecticut, amongst others including older classics This just doesn't come close to any of them. Yu can pass by this one unless like me you want to kill time watching am OK possession film. Just don't expect much.

"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

Thing that I can truly give this movie is that it at least isn't being like your average horror movie, in which a girl gets possessed by the devil. It does some new stuff and takes some good approaches to its subject. Well, in its first half at least. The second half of the movie unfortunately is far more clichéd and 'borrows' from several other well known genre movies. The more the movie progresses, the worser it gets.

The movie is only about 90 minutes short but it still feels way too long. It stretches things out, which cause the movie to get a bit tiresome after a while. OK, we get it! She is possessed, now get back to the story and tell us why and how it can be undone. It stalls for as long as possible and unfortunately there also isn't a good payoff to any of it.

It's all a real shame, since I actually was quite into the movie at first. I liked that it wasn't being like a typical modern horror-flick, involving teenagers. It seemed to take a far more clever and classy approach, despite its low-budget. Guess they forget about the script though, or perhaps they thought that half a good and originally written story would be enough to make a great genre movie out of.

It's weird how the movie successfully seems to avoid all of the genre clichés at first but then suddenly starts using every cliché out of the book and begins doing stuff that we have all seen before in different and far better genre movies. Yes, it doesn't look like it at first but in the end this movie is being nothing more than just another "The Exorcist" wannabe and knockoff.

The movie also becomes a totally unlikely one after a while, when its story starts doing some stupid things. Some of the events that happen in this movie are so unlikely and silly that they start taking away some of the suspension of disbelief. This especially goes for its very ending.

Still a good and original enough movie in some ways but in the end it's being nothing more than just another cheap and lazy "The Exorcist" ripoff.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

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