Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def
Director(s): William Brent Bell
IMDB Rating: 3.6
In Italy, a woman becomes involved in a series of unauthorized exorcisms during her mission to discover what happened to her mother, who allegedly murdered three people during her own exorcism.
|The Devil Inside (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1920x1080 px||Total Size: 3026 Mb|
|The Devil Inside (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1280x720 px||Total Size: 545 Mb|
|The Devil Inside (DivX)||Resolution: 640x352 px||Total Size: 700 Mb|
moviewizguy (19 May 2013)
In 1989, emergency responders received a 9-1-1 call from Maria Rossiconfessing that she had brutally killed three people. 20 years later,her daughter Isabella seeks to understand the truth about what happenedthat night. She travels to the Centrino Hospital for the CriminallyInsane in Italy where her mother has been locked away to determine ifher mother is mentally ill or demonically possessed. When she recruitstwo young exorcists to cure her mom using unconventional methodscombining both science and religion, they come face-to-face with pureevil in the form of four powerful demons possessing Maria. Many havebeen possessed by one; only one has been possessed by many. (ParamountPictures)Just recently, Paramount Pictures was named the studio that topped the2011 box office above all the other major studios. If they want anymore people to show up to their films in 2012, they should stopgreen-lighting films like THE DEVIL INSIDE, although dumping it inJanuary seems like the best decision to forget the film ever existed bythe end of the year. Yes, the film produces more unintentional laughsthan actual scares. Yes, many people will walk out feeling ripped offonce the credits roll. And yes, THE DEVIL INSIDE is a bad film,unfortunately, although the incredible red band trailer suggestsotherwise. However, the trailer spoils all the "good," jolting parts inthe film. Surprise, surprise.As you can tell, there are many problems regarding the film. However,some of the ones that stand out are the incredibly slow pacing and thedull execution. The few, lazy, cheap scares the film has to offer, theonly things left to salvage this dreck from a total waste, are few andfar between. To say that the film was tedious to watch would be anunderstatement. Also, the documentary style serves more to harm thanhelp the film, as every scene that should feel spontaneous andauthentic, instead, feel rather staged. With the many problems the filmhas, the film's biggest crime is the abrupt ending, which is likegetting slapped in the face. Just as the film is starting to pick upmomentum, it ends as if the filmmakers ran out of budget. Note to allfilmmakers: You don't want to anger audiences like that.The cast don't do much to help elevate the film either. FernandaAndrade, the female lead, is merely serviceable although nothingmemorable. However, Suzan Crowley, in the few scenes that she's in, israther good for what she had to work with. I can't say much for therest of the supporting cast, which includes Simon Quarterman, EvanHelmuth, and Ionut Grama. Grama, in particular, is incredibly bad as hetries to make his reactions and emotions feel real that it comes off asforced and awkward.I suppose the film will open reasonably well in the box office likemost found footage films with low budgets and make a cheap buck beforedisappearing off in the world. However, I'm here to warn you not togive in to what appears to be a fun, scary night at the movie theater.It's a slow, dull film with barely any scares at all. Yes, thepotential for the idea is there, but the execution is just bad. THEEXORCIST this is not.
pahaake (18 May 2013)
First, I have to agree with the other positive reviews. You have tolike this style of film, if you don't then then you shouldn't have goneto see it in the first place.Second, I am a fan of all three PA movies - but I actually found thisone better. The look and feel is somehow more believable. The acting isfar above anything I expected, and even the editing and direction werequite for what this film is.If you enjoy this type of film, it is easily as good as any that camebefore it. Lots of tension, quite a few good surprises, and of course adisappointing ending. But I supposed one that gives the audiencesomething to consider on their way home.
Abbie Bevan (03 May 2013)
I'll admit that I am a fifteen year old girl but I've seen almost allof the good and bad scary movies (that does not include the movies thatwere so bad and cheaply made that I had no intention of evenremembering the names of them). Let me just tell you my story. You mayskip over if you like.When I went to go see this movie I was not with an adult but with twoof my teenage friends and yes we did decide to sneak in. We boughttickets to Gulliver's Travels and to our shock they had not just oneperson but, two staff members standing out in front of the doors ofthis movie. But, we were determined to see this movie. So we had a"stake out" and waited for them to leave by each of us going to thebathroom at different times. Finally, a half an hour in to Gulliver'sTravels they had finally left and we made our way into the theaterforced to sit in one of the front rows because it was packed.We came in mid movie but we could tell that we hadn't missed much. Sowe watched and my friends were at the edge of their seats and I satthere laughing because when I am startled, that is my first reaction.Now I'll confess that this did scare me at points but anyone can dothat with fast moving cameras and very loud sudden noises. Anyways, I'm sitting here watching and I can say that the story hadsome potential but most of that was lost with the countless moments inthe film that I immediately recognized from other films. It's almost asif someone with the vague idea of a mother being possessed and thechild worried, went to a movie buff and made a movie with nooriginality. --SPOILER ALERT--The only thing that I hadn't really seen before was when one of thepossessed girls had her period while the demon inside went crazy.Though there have been similar things. They must have been going for agross out factor but I found it quite immature actually. --END SPOILER--The end is what disappointed me most of all. I won't reveal much butlet's just say it didn't surprised me and actually made my friends andI quite angry when we left the theater. We actually wished that weweren't able to sneak in. That way, we could see Gulliver's Travelswhich by the time we left, was actually shaping up quite nicely. Overall it was okay and overdone. It's good to freak your friends outfor a few moments but definitely not something to watch for a qualityhorror film. I've seen worse so this was basically average in myopinion since I have seen so many horror films. Of course I wasreminded a lot of The Exorcist but that film also had me laughing andthat was not because of fear. I guess you had to see that movie when itcame out for it to actually freak you out. I found The Exorcisthilarious and The Devil Inside jumpy but not new or of good quality.
Stefano Girolimetti (02 May 2013)
Only go watch this movie if you don't mind seeing a movie set in Italybut shot in Romania. The characters speak Italian with a strongRomanian accent and fly Tarom to Rome from the U.S. (which isimpossible). Even the departure airport, which is supposed to besomewhere in the U.S., is clearly a Romanian airport. Throughout themovie, you can recognize iconic places and buildings in Bucharest, suchas the "Ateneul Roman". What were they thinking?? Other than the totallack of attention to detail, this movie is short and dull. At the endof the movie, everyone in my row wanted their money back. You're betteroff renting The Last Exorcism if you want to see something more decentand original. Something similar (although not about demonic possessionsbut aliens) is The Fourth Kind, which was extremely well executedcompared to The Devil Inside. Try to do everything in your power toresist going to see this movie; you'll never get those 83 minutes ofyour life back.
Chandller Okard (28 April 2013)
OK, I understand why people would think that the ending is bad. It is abad ending for a movie, sure, but the thing is it made sense. That iswhat demons do. If you were to look up demonology, and I'm not sayingthat it is real, that is what Demons do to people. So yes, the endingwas bad from a movie point of view, but from a logical point of view,it was real, and that is what I think they were going for. The movieitself was good, mostly surprise things, and the one exorcism wasmainly for shock value. I give the movie 8/10, for minor flaws, butoverall a good movie. Scared the hell out of me a few times. And as Isaid, for all of the nay sayers, the behaviour of this movie was forwhat Demons really do, by demonology reports and lore.
SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain (28 April 2013)
What a God-awful pile of crap this was. And that's coming from a hugefan of mockumentary/found footage films. The Devil Inside follows a ayoung woman trying to discover why her mum killed three people duringan exorcism. She teams up with two rogue priests that perform exorcismsoutside of the church's jurisdiction. What makes this film so bad?Mostly it's how unconvincing it is as a documentary. Why bother withthis facade if you are completely moronic when it comes todocumentaries? WIthin the first 20 minutes we see a number of instancesthat break the film's own rules. First of all the girl starts askingabout the cameras in the car. No documentary would include this moment,it's just an example of a fake documentary reminding you of what it'ssupposed to be. Next, a doctor walks down a doctor sneaks up on theprotagonist with no sounds of footsteps, a second later he startswalking and yes, we hear footsteps again. Then we have a set-up in aroom where we see CCTV and no cameraman, and suddenly footage from thecameraman's perspective. Is he invisible? Does he run in and out of theroom? Hell if I know. It gets no better with the awful performances andidiotic characters. They act as though this is a normal scriptednarrative, and forget to be real. I'm guessing zero amount ofimprovisation went into this film. Later we also see blood splat on thecamera lens and then it vanishes. It isn't wiped away, it justdisappears. Finally we get to the end. Well, actually we don't. Thereis no end to this film. It just finishes and gives you a website linkto "read up on the case". Would you like to do that once you've wastedyour money? No, didn't think so. Make sure this film dies a horribleand painful death. It truly is disgusting, and doesn't even bother totry and entertain. When the most enjoyable part of the movie involvesthe attempted drowning of a baby and the audience wishes they were thebaby, then you don't deserve to make films.
ravindra36 (26 April 2013)
The first time I saw the trailer, I felt like the movie will fall underthe genre of Paranormal Activity stuff. I was very impressed andinsisted few of my friends and went to watch the movie on the releaseday itself. The introduction was pretty decent and I thought that thestory has kicked off at the beginning itself. But I was completelywrong as this crap is not a movie. It is a complete documentary typeand there is no scope of so called horror/suspense/thriller. All alongthe movie, the characters talk about exorcism which you don't feel atall. I spent 14$ to watch this movie and this is not even worth of asingle dollar. It is better to watch the Ghost Hunters serial on theTV. You will be fooled and will be ripped off for sure.
delacroixkim (26 April 2013)
Uneventful. Read reviews prior to watching and was prepared for a majordisappointment, which it delivered! About as interesting as watchingpaint dry! Disconnected ending (i.e. not connected to the film!). Can'twait for the next one - not! I am not in the habit of writing reviewsbut was compelled to write one for this. The Box Office should givepeople their money back. The trailer was a misrepresentation of thefilm. The film was a misrepresentation of the meaning of the word"film". The review needs 10 lines minimum. There is no more to sayother than this film stinks. If you go watch the film after readingthis review then you are a f00l. Nothing positive about the filmexperience apart from the popcorn was nice but overpriced.
Abbas Khan (23 April 2013)
I don't get why the hell are some people ranting like idiots on aboutthis movie, It had no fault in it. But it was kinda lengthy. But goingas far and saying that this movie sucks is pure Madness! It gave melots scares and many moments that I Could not forget. AND THE ENDING DID NOT SUCK!!!They've said the Demon can transfer from one person to another in themovie. And the girl's mother had more than one demon inside her. Sobasically that was the reason the Demon kept jumping from one person toanother. It Didn't disappoint me at all. I rate this movie 8.5/10 forthe lenghty talking scenes in it. But all in all it was great.I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS A GOOD SCARE FROM A MOVIE,AND THEY WON"T REGRET IT.
Raul Faust (22 April 2013)
After the insistence of some friends of mine to see this picture, I sawno other thing to do, but give it a try. When people told me this moviewould involve exorcisms and Catholic church, I thought they wouldn't beso lazy and would make a new story for this genre-- how naive I am. Thefirst part of the movie is basically the same as "The Rite"; a schoolof priests in Rome and one of the students not believing anything he'sbeen taught. Other than that, the film is a completely rip off of somemainstream movies, such as "The Exorcist", "Paranormal Activity","Exorcism of Emily Rose", among others. I have to admit some scenes area little frightening, specially with that woman screaming all of asudden and making me jump out of the cinema's seat. Also, I can't denySuzan Crowley is good; that first scene when her daughter when to visither proves that-- even thought I indeed LAUGHED in that scene because Ifind crazy people really funny. But the hugest complaint of mine is thedisappointing ending, which I believe NOBODY will enjoy! Avoid thisfilm and stuck with the old versions of this saturated subject.
moviemaniac008 (20 April 2013)
Where do I begin? This movie is awful, in every aspect of the word.Further justifications: Every thing sucked in this film. The acting wasvery wooden. Fernanda Andrade is not a good lead actress, but she ishot, so I guess the film could score mild points for that...but therest of the cast is just incredibly bad (Hmm...That's a bit of astretch...Suzan Crowley is pretty freaky as Maria Rossi), but everyother actor looks like they couldn't care less about the film. Theylook annoyed, even more annoyed than the audience watching it. It's asif the project was something very boring for them and they couldn'twait to get the hell off of it.I understand this is mockumentary, but whoever was handling the camerasucked. Did he just discover the zoom button? Because the fact that thecamera would close up on faces and then back continuously reallyannoyed the $h!t out of me. Finally, I felt there was a lack of scares:I jumped once, which is the same place I jumped in the trailer (the onewhere Maria Rossi starts to laugh suddenly). The scriptwriters decidedto get lazy as well, I suppose, because right when the movie is aboutto get interesting, it cuts to black and ends, telling us to check awebsite. What's that if it's not telling the audience to f--k off. Ifelt like I had been insulted.Bottom line: I knew from the start that this movie would be bad. Afriend of mine convinced me to go with a few girls, who chose to seethis movie. If only I had listened to my first instinct.Look, this movie made 33 times it's budget on opening weekend (33million dollars for a 1 million dollar budget). The studios don't careabout the people who watch this film anymore, and quite frankly, youshouldn't care about this movie either. It's not worth seeing intheatres - wait - It's not worth seeing at all! When is Hollywood goingto realize that over doing mockumentaries just gets annoying becausethey don't scare us anymore. Hollywood, never, ever, release a filmthis bad again! 1/10
rivertam26 (20 April 2013)
I can't believe this is the movie starting off my new year. Geez, Ihope it's not a bad omen of the films to come. Than again it is thecraptastic month of January one of the two months of the year(the otherbeing September) where they release their throwaway films. Made forless than a million dollars by a company named Insurge films that I'venever heard of "The Devil Inside" is a boring, generic rehash of horrorclichÃ©s with a lot of imagination but left effectless by badperformances, confused direction and well tiresome horror clichÃ©s. Thefilm tells the tale of a young woman who comes to Rome to visit hermother in a mental hospital. After not having seen her the betterportion of her life. Because she was committed there after she murderedthree people while they were performing an exorcism on her. Of coursethe daughter arrives with a cameraman to document the experience andshe discovers her mother is indeed possessed. With the help of twopriests who conduct unapproved exorcisms she is invited to attendexorcisms so that she may better understand her mothers situation. Thebig problem with this film above all others even though it has many, Isthat it's not believable in the least. Their are such huge gaps in thelogic of the film that leave you feeling confused. Such as the factthat we are supposed to believe that they would commit her to a mentalinstitution in Rome despite the fact that she lives in America or thatanyone would think it would be a good idea for someone to tag along forexorcisms or that any of the characters in this film could gain anytype of authority to visit any of these places or conduct any of thesituations that appear on film. Most notably the exorcism of her motherin a different hospital room than in which the one she stays, and thereare many many more. None of the performances are very effective, thecharacters are not well drawn, the film making feels shorted, the spfxlook cheesy and there are really no scares. All of which is sad becausethe film has moments where you can see the potential it has of becominga much better film. Had they further developed the characters and storylines which in tail would have heightened the films suspense level andmade the film more effective overall they could have really hitsomething great with this concept. Instead what we are left with is amishmash of sordid horror clichÃ©s and stolen scenes from much betterfilms that would have served better had they been re-released in theiroriginal counterparts. That being said I'm a big fan of the foundfootage film and it's very rare that I don't enjoy them. I find thewhole execution to be very immersive and engaging but a bad movie is abad movie and despite some promise "The Devil Inside" is just that.*.5/5
Rann B (15 April 2013)
I am completely 100% obsessed with horror films, these are the onlymovies I see in theaters ever. I wish I hadn't of ever hear'three..three people' on the radio, making me want to see the movie. Itwas a waste of my time and my money. The ending was set up so theycould make a sequel but it was awful. I understand the need to have acliffhanger but at least try to leave the audience begging to know whathappens next. Instead I just saw credits..SPOILER! (more like a recommendation) I recommend leaving as soon asher back bends/breaks in the hospital and then just imagine a scaryending as you're leaving the theater. Then the movie would befantastic. The ending just ruined everything in my opinion.SPOILER! I didn't like when the priest killed himself, I thought it wasextremely disturbing, and I live and breath horror films, it justlooked too real, which is the point but it rubbed me the wrong way. Could have been a fantastic movie, the ending just ruined it all.
bret_phaneuf (15 April 2013)
Went to see this movie with my girlfriend. We went to the Thursdaymidnight opening. She has been wanting to watch it for awhile fromseeing the previews. I had a bad feeling about it when we startedwatching and I had Blair Witch flashbacks coming into play. The MariaRossi character was about the only thing I thought was remotely playedout well. Save yourself some money and don't bother going to watch thismovie. Oh, and virtually everyone booed at the ending of movies.Please take my advice and don't waste your money. What more can I sayabout how bad this movie is to fill up 10 lines of text to get myreview in. It was so bad I bothered to setup an account just so I couldmake a bad review of it.
greensjjat (29 March 2013)
This was one of the worse movies I have ever seen. The commercialsshowed the only "good" parts and they weren't even good. Save your timeand your money. I would say wait for the DVD but it's not even worththe $ to rent. After the movie, our group was wondering why we didn'tjust leave and I can say no one leaving that movie had a good thing tosay about it. So your waiting and you think okay something good isfinally going to happen, you will be waiting for nothing! If you likethese kinds of movies, skip it, you will be very disappointed. Irealize that the trailers they show for movies can reflect something alittle different but the trailer for this movie was so deceptive. In anutshell I hated this movie, hated wasting my time and money and basedon other reviews I've read, pretty much everyone who sees this moviehas the same opinion in the end :(
Fields201 (29 March 2013)
I wasn't all that impressed with that trailers but a friend of minewanted to go and his mom's anniversary of her passing was that day so Ifelt I should be along with him. I didn't think this film would be toobad and I was wrong. The problem is that the film is boring and not very scary, at least tome. Now I'm one of those people who love the Paranormal Activity filmsbut, for me, those films got it right because it created suspense evenif it was false ones. You expect something to jump out at you andgoshdarnit those films were fun to watch. This one, on the other hand,was just plain boring. It acts as a documentary on a fake story theycreated, and pretends as if the events was recorded on the spot. Iusually like these kind of things but here, I just felt there was noreal establishment of the characters. I never felt like I knew themenough to care about them. I guess there's that Angelina Jolielookalike daughter but she just wasn't developed enough for me otherthan she had an abortion and she's the daughter of some devil mom.The worst offender was the ending. First off, there's a built momentumafter the first hour and it piqued my interest but then, all of asudden, it was over. Me and the rest of the audience was like, "Thatcan't be the ending. No way." And it was. My personal belief is that ifyou don't have a good ending, it could put a serious negative effect onyour movie. This applies here.The Devil Within isn't the worst movie I've seen but it will contributeto a lot of people's distaste for the found footage films. If manypeople are sick of found footage films, this film may be at the top oftheir list as of why.But my friend liked the film.
fromtill (26 March 2013)
This is a realistic review of this movie. I read all of these reviewsand am astonished by the amount of hate this movie has received. Itsnothing ground breaking and it is your average found footage film.Although I found the concept they implied to be quite original. Themixture of science and religion shown in the film is quite unique. Itrepresents what you might imagine modern exorcists actually doing.The film itself did have its share of scares. I personally find moviesof this type to be really scary. Just the thought of this happening tosomeone is a terrifying thought alone. The execution was good. You aretaken into the underworld of Rome. Behind closed doors of stuff thatmight actually be going on. Yes the plot was not extremely strong butthe acting for this type of film wasn't bad at all. I never once lostfocus on the movie because of bad acting or seemingly scripted lines.The Ending. I won't give away exactly what happens. The moviethroughout does foreshadow this a lot so I saw it coming. A lot ofpeople are complaining and saying it was a terrible way to end themovie. I was expecting something much worse. I will admit there couldhave been a lot more closure in the ending of this film. There are alot of things we would have liked to see happen. The ending had a lotof potential to be excellent and I could have thought of about tenbetter ways to end it. It just so happens though that I am not thedirector of this film nor the writer. There are plenty of good filmswith not so good endings. Except it for what it is and just enjoy themovie. Did it make me turn away? Yes. Will I sleep with the light ontonight? More than likely.This is a horror flick and it did its job.
Sploich (25 March 2013)
Twenty years after her mother murdered several members of the clothduring her own exorcism, Isabella Rossi (Fernanda Andrade) decides tobring a film crew (namely one camera man, Michael (Ionut Grama)) toItaly and see if she can perform another exorcism on her mother. Sheinducts the help of Fathers Rawlings (Simon Quarterman) and Keane (EvanHelmuth) who work outside the Catholic church's endorsement.I don't really understand this film. It sells itself as beinglegitimate, even going as far as to give a website right before thecredits for "more information." But then it goes on to show all thepeople who worked on the film, including the actors. I understandtrying to engage the audience through the illusion of realism but evenif I do take it as a real thing, I still don't understand the point ofit. The filmmakers seem to have a very negative view of the Catholicchurch, but considering the subject matter I don't really understandtheir motivation. If this were actual footage then it would make sensebut I know it's a screenplay they're working from so there motivesdon't really work.Two or three exorcisms are performed, but they are relatively brief andreally show off how low the budget was for the film. I wouldn't say therest of the film is boring exactly, but it's definitely forgettable. Ilike the twist the film takes after they perform the exorcism onIsabella's mother Maria (Suzan Crowley), but then the movie stops earlyand doesn't give us much reason to care about what happened. If theyhad spent less time preparing us for the mediocre exorcism of themother and focused more on what happens after, this could have been avery interesting and possibly even memorable film. As is though, it'sjust a standard, dull horror flick that's only worth checking out ifyou literally have nothing better to do. www.sploich.com
Alicia Sumpter (25 March 2013)
When I first saw a Preview for The Devil Inside I got excited. I lovethis type of film and really looked forward to seeing it. The reviewsstarted coming and my hopes started dropping. When I finally curled upin the theater to watch it my disappointment was probably visible toeveryone.I'm forty-five years old and have watch a lot ofscary/horror/possession films in my life. The Devil Inside looked likeit was simply a remake of the best moments of all the films that camebefore it. There was absolutely nothing original about this filmincluding the Blair Witch camera work. What a waste of my time andmoney.
Jorgescarlisle (25 March 2013)
109 reviews have been posted IMDb prior to this one. 9 thought it was agood film. 2 thought it was the most hilarious comedy they'd seen inyears.What I'd like to know is, "why is that 10% listed first?" I can onlyassume that these early "good" reviews were written by persons whomwould benefit personally from this film succeeding.The balance of the reviews seem to agree with mine. This movie is awaste of your time and money. Although I found myself continually thinking during the movie "TheBlair Witch Exorcism." Honestly it felt like the film was 6 parts Blairwitch, 3 parts rosemary's baby and one part exorcist--that one partonly because exorcism is the core theme behind the story.Like many poorly made films, this one places a preponderance of scenesinside in dark rooms and basements. This allows inept directors andwriters to hide their inadequacies behind an ill deserved claim ofartistic license. This film is neither artistic, nor scary. The bestthat it manages to deliver is a "creepy" feeling throughout--with a fewreally loud screams and a couple of noteworthy contortions. If you wanta good scare, check out some classic Hitchcock--obviously the creatorsof this film have never seen the kind of real scare Hitchcock coulddeliver on film.If you absolutely loved the Blair witch project, you'll like thisfilm--maybe. The faux Documentary worked for Blair exclusively becauseit hadn't been done before. Well, this film doesn't have thatadvantage. The shaky camera work detracts from what could have been agood storyline--can't these directors figure out that too much of onething isn't good? The same persistent camera work detracted fromcloverfield much in the same way that the long shot detracted fromChildren of Men. either of these types of shots can work well in smalldoses, perhaps even in moderation, but don't do it through the wholefilm.There were a few scenes in this film that DIDN'T use the archival typefootage, probably because they couldn't figure out how to do internalauto scenes with it. This of course disrupts whatever suspension ofdisbelief the audience has managed to maintain because the camera workin these few shots is so dissimilar to the rest of the footage thatit's painfully obvious that the shots are non-archival.Overweighed by the horrible cinematography, it's difficult to discernthe actors and actresses performance. I imagine they, more than thetheatre audiences will be horrified at this movie. They may live infear for years for what this film will do to their careers.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20