Devilreaux

Right, well the cover for the 2023 horror movie "Devilreaux" definitely seemed interesting, and the fact that the movie had Tony Todd on the cast list certainly also helped to peak my interest.

I had never actually heard about this movie from writers Thomas J. Churchill and Vincent M. Ward priot to sitting down and watching it. But that hardly mattered, because I have a preference for the horror genre in general. The storyline in "Devilreaux" was fair enough, and by that I mean there was definitely potential here. Just a shame that director Thomas J. Churchill didn't utilize it to the fullest. The movie started out fair enough, but then rapidly started to lose its momentum about halfway through, and from that it never recovered.

The acting in "Devilreaux" was adequate, for the most parts. I get why Tony Todd is billed on the cover/poster, because he is the only familiar face on the cast list, but the guy was hardly in the movie. And why they opted to cast Jackie Quinones for such a major role in the movie was just beyond my comprehension, because acting wasn't her strongest side.

Visually then "Devilreaux" was okay. It was not a movie that used a whole lot of special effects, for better or worse. But I have to say that the design of Devilreaux was actually good, though his eyes were not milky as on the cover.

"Devilreaux" came and went without leaving a lasting impression, and it was actually just another one of those Tony Todd movies. You know, the horror movies that show up and disappear just as quickly.

My rating of "Devilreaux" lands on a generous four out of ten stars.

I genuinely made it 5-6 minutes into the movie and wanted to gouge my own eyes out with hot needles. The acting couldn't have been worse. The special effects are some of the worst I've ever seen. If I would've rented this, I would've sued someone for emotional and financial damages. How absolutely dare y'all do Papa Legba like this? I could've got behind the plot of the movie, but what the absolute hell did y'all do? The bag was fumbled. I would truly rather binge watch the " horror movie" Slaxx for 365 days straight than get through the first 10 minutes of that movie. I kind of wanted to give this the shortest review ever... But there was a minimum character limit, and I think y'all needed to know what NOT to watch. 😭😂💀

Holy crow this movie is BAAADDDDDD.

Starts off with some really bad acting store owners who for some reason are opening a shop devoted solel to Devileaux -- whomever THAT is. You'd think that they might want to diversify a little in the product line, but nooooooo.

What happens next are a series of cuts all over the place, hospital, restaurant, and 1800's. The so called "teenagers" all look like they are pushing 30.

The acting is dismal. Thes are trul 4th rate actors. You are not prepared for how bad the acting is. I was wondering if these were just friends who wanted to make a direct to video film or if these people are actually pursuing an acting career. For most of them, it's too late.

The Candyman guy akes an appearance. He must need money. But frankly, his acting is no better than the rest of the cast.

Devilreux is a low budget- borderline homemade horror- featuring a shovel-wielding Baron Samedi type character, with a backstory about being the son of a Voodoo witch, that was murdered by a family of racist slaveowners, before being brought back by his mother...to reap vengeance from beyond the grave.

The character, himself, is alright.

But the rest of the acting is so laughingly bad.

It makes it hard to take the film seriously.

Especially considering the poor plot structure around which the story is based.

Which I'd chock up to director Thomas J Churchill having way too many projects on the go at once.

Because it jumps around way too much, and lacks cohesion.

Going from the opening sequence; to a completely unrelated case, used to introduce the backstory of the character; followed by a lengthy (much too drawn out) flashback sequence, that comes off as a bit redundant- and feels like it should have been the basis for the film as a whole (as opposed to taking place on the two different timelines).

The flashback needed to be much shorter, and more succinct, to prevent it from ruining the flow of the film.

Considering the length it is, it should, at least, have been used as the opening- before jumping forward in time, to the present- with a bunch of scenes cut for lack of importance.

The main problem is, that they take no time at all, to develop the characters we are supposed to care about.

So it never manages to fully engage you on any front.

A condemnation that results from the overuse of time and resources on the development of the backstory.

And it's lack of cohesion, overall.

The best things about the film are definitely the sets and costumes.

Which come off as impressive, in relation to the low budget feel the rest of the film gives off.

However, they aren't enough to save this from being the travesty it is.

Because it flows so badly...that it's impossible to care about any of the plethora of characters that are introduced.

So this gets a hard pass from me.

2 out of 10.

So many of the scenes in this film were acted as if they were filming a low budget p**no. I am a huge Tony Todd fan, like epically huge, and this is hands down the worst performance of his career. It's like he saw that the rest of the acting was so bad that he decided to make his acting be bad to match theirs. They tried to jump the storyline around to make the point interesting I guess but they just jumped the story around and made it stupid and convoluted. I'm genuinely mad that I spent $6 to watch this movie. Like I genuinely want my money back. I was very hyped for this movie and now I'm very disappointed. Some of the scenes were well done. The set for the house was very beautiful and realistic. Most of the other sets not realistic.