Devil

Devil certainly isn't a catastrophe and can even be considered decently above-average within its genre. However, it is important to emphasize that horror has long been a genre of popular entertainment, which is largely composed of ultra-low quality video productions and semi-amateur attempts by various hopefuls, so the average is somewhere else in terms of filmmaking quality compared to other genres. The basic plot works reasonably well - if, of course, we generously overlook the crucial error in logic on which the story is built, as well as a few smaller logical leaps. But if we were so narrow-minded about every horror film, what would be left of the genre in the end? Thanks to the sounds and editing, the film occasionally achieves a decent atmosphere. However, it suffers from the fact that it takes a different direction than the viewer expects. It creates the idea of an intimate psycho-horror, where in the claustrophobic atmosphere of an elevator cabin with no escape, passengers gradually realize that one of them is not who they claim to be, leading to paranoid mutual accusations and increasingly ominous signs of an inevitable end. However, the film develops differently and sets up a different, less effective, game. If the devil came into the world because of this kind of event, then it is a disgraceful waste of his talent, because a similar effect could be achieved by a demon of the third category somewhere from the depths of hell's basement. Overall, it is a B-movie with average acting performances and unused potential. Nevertheless, I have no problem giving it three stars. Overall impression: 55%. (12/03/2010)

A likeable, if disposable, film with great technical aspects (Velázquez's music in particular is really excellent) and little-known actors who were very good. If it wasn't for the devil specifically, I would have called it a thriller rather than a horror film - it was suspenseful, but it didn't scare me and I wasn't afraid... The "Lights out - lights on - someone's dead" scenes reminded me of an Agatha Christie - Monty Python detective sketch. (03/21/2011)

It takes seventy minutes carefully building a disconcerting atmosphere, relationships and tension between characters, only for all this to fizzle out, instead of reaching a climax and hitting hard with a message. Too bad, because it’s the ending/punchline of these genre snacks that separates the wheat from the chaff; leaving just the bold deeds of those who we can remember. (05/08/2011)

Precise direction and a really fast script with lots of ideas and flashy stunts that elevate this horror B-movie above many of its clichéd ghostly brethren. The atmosphere is not very chilling, but it’s enough to keep your attention, and the actors are decent and convincing to the extent of their possibilities. And the final twist, which I was increasingly curious about as time went on and I found out more and more, was delivered quite sensibly and did not disrupt the carefully constructed story based on one simple central idea, which, by the way, was so well delivered that it provided me with an (un)enjoyable and unrelenting spectacle. (08/01/2011)

The classic problem of Satanic horror films (why does the lord of all evil give such a shit?) is of course present. Fortunately, it's made up for by fairly decent direction and very good cinematography. Plus, with this film, I realized after Cloverfield that the MPAA is becoming more tolerant of violence. (01/03/2011)