MamaGravity
good back-story, and good acting
Konterr
Brilliant and touching
filippaberry84
I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.
sempremilanista
To start, can we agree that the three user reviewers that gave this film one star must have written by the same person? I think I am a pretty discerning horror fan and know this is far from a one star film. Devil's Mercy is surely not that bad.While not some brilliant masterpiece of horror, it is still really effective and a fun watch. Stephen Rea shines in his role as the sinister landlord who is not all that he seems, and the dynamic he shares with his young partner is well done and adds an interetsing twist. There are notes of Rosemary's Baby and other films where the creepiest moments do not rely on cheap special effects, dark lighting or shaky camera shots. In fact, it's that sense of things feeling normal and safe which lends to a nice increase in suspense when we realize things are hardly what they seem on the outside. If you like movies with themes of dark witchcraft, sinister intentions, spooky old houses, and possession than you might find this worth the watch.
celtavigo19
This film is ridiculous, boring and i think that i've been losing my time during just about ninety minutes.The synopsis doesn't exist because there are many things about the theme that aren't explained.The acting is bad, and the end is simply...quick and silly, because all is ridiculous and i don't feel fear in any moment.I read other comments and i think like luisfelipe: this film is the worst joke that someone can do.The only actor that i recognise is Stephen Rea, but everything in this film is disastrous, including his acting. My desire: i want that a second part never exist...because i think in all the people viewing again a history like this...and i will be very sad. Devil's Mercy:the worst film i saw in my life.
Luís Felipe Rasmuss de Almeida
This movie really sucks. I do not know how a person could call it a thriller. The history is ridiculous. You can only find a little piece of thriller on the final parts. This movie has 1 hour and 30 minutes. At 1:10, I thought I was really watching the wrong movie. There was no fear. There was no thriller history. When I saw the last scene, I laughed a lot. It was really ridiculous how this movie ends -- starts... and you know, everything. I won't recommend this trash to anyone. It's a really trash-triller from Hollywood suburbs. I cannot believe a person who liked this movie. It's kinda boring. I've never seen those actors and actresses before. This movie is a big joke.
flagg_01
Very Boring, ending very anti-climatic, don't bother. The movie was 1 1/2 hours long, the first three quarters of the move were extremely slow and painful. The ending was pathetic at best. Don't know exactly what happened to this one, but it was bad. Wait until it comes out on late night movie, don't bother paying for it. The first 1/3 of the move was a complete boring beating while they built the characters and introduced. The second third, was a waste of time, really didn't do anything for the movie. The Last third of the movie started showing signs of something scary and then the pathetic hump of a scary part (not even worth calling it a climax) was a complete boring let down.
