Devil Seed

Watching this film, I was constantly struck by the way the director inserted himself into the project with such a loud thud.

Playing camera and light tricks that seem designed only to showboat his technique, what is really revealed is an object lesson in the old phrase "Knowing just enough to get oneself in trouble." I can only hope that with the passage of time, the director/writer/editor/Svengali behind this wet splat comes to be humiliated by how amateurish he once was as he's grown into creating valid works.

Plotwise, NO new ground is covered here. Not a centimeter of fresh ideas, but a fairly sizable contribution to teen-boy gratification fantasies wherein pretty girls say the c-word and a bleach blonde gives generously to the public nipple fund and the heroine is ...naturally, a virgin. Completely gratuitous gazongas (In the shower, of course!) is a sign someone has lost focus. This film doesn't ever seem to have bothered so much as looking for its reading glasses.

To get performances this poor on film requires determination in casting, extraordinary bad-luck or a George Lucas level micro-managerial determination to suck any kind of reality out of the otherwise human-shaped beings verbalizing and mugging on the beleaguered screen. Add to that a series of times where you can literally speak the dialogue before the characters do, and you have a morbid product to foist upon people who could have otherwise put that hour and a half of their fleeting lives into anything and found it more worthwhile.

The question of why it was made has been tossed out in a few reviews and while it seems like a bit of a mystery, I don't think it is at all. The answer lies in the opening of this review. It was a vanity piece created by a would-be auteur without talent or technique enough to assemble a film worth watching. I just hope he's able to grow using this film as experience. Another film this bad and Ewe Boll is going to be hiring hit people to come after this guy for working his stretch of sidewalk.

Best recommendation is for 12 year-old boys who've never heard of horror films before. THAT would be a happy group. Anyone else is going to find themselves checking their phones during most of this digital face-palm.

I will put up with a lot to watch a horror.... it's hard to find a really good one and I understand, accept and even like that you have to watch a lot of B's, C's and D's to find one that might rate higher.

This one rates way, way lower.

If the main actor wheeze-breathed any more I think I would have to rip my ears off. She has 3 expressions - blank, concerned/worried/scared (they're all the same), and devil face.

The only redeeming feature about this film was the supporting actor, the brunette friend. The rest of the cast acted like they were in a school play and they'd had about 3 days to rehearse.

There were no real scares, no jolts, and certainly nothing unexpected. My friend and I were anticipating the dialogue and most of the time we got it right.... there are no new premises here! I really would rather have re-watched nearly any other movie than see this for the first time..... Give this one a big ol' miss.

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

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.