Devil Seed

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.

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.

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

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