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.

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.

This film is the worst film I have seen in many moons. Like RIP Tony Todd but he was in his late 60s when This was made. And whhhhhaaattt?? The acting is so so so bad - and who proof read the script??? There is a line that literally says and I quote " we went to the origins - the starting place " hahaha anyways I love Tony Todd and I'm sad he is gone. But my lord this is so so bad. Like I want to get drunk ( am trying to right now ) and write a script and it will be at least less painful.

I guess my review is too short so I am adding extra words so I can fill this in. My boyfriend said that should not be a problem considering I talk too much about nothing.

So hopefully I will be able to post this.

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.

Where to start? Story line is like so many and one wonders when people will learn. I mean seriously: a curse from the 18th century? Just a tad too corny. The whole feel is like Jumanji, using a ouija board and then the nasty ghost arrives holding Mike Myers ax.

Nothing against the main characte, Tony Todd, but he's a poor mans Geoffrey Holder/Baron Samedi from Live and Let Die.or as someone else put it: Papa Shango getting ready for the Royal Rumble!

Is there something positive....it's not filmed with a handheld camera and thus has a professional feel to it. That's why I gave it 4 stars instead of 3.

If you really got nothing else to do, it could be a time killer movie, otherwise save your 1 1/2 hours and do something else.