Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Wizard-8 In 1980, movie maker Ulli Lommel made an impression with audiences thanks to his movie "The Boogeyman", but in subsequent years his films slowly became unwatchable. Though "The Devonsville Terror" was made just three years later, already Lommel's inability to even get remotely close to his earlier success was evident. I admit it's not among the worst of Lommel's movies. Lommel does manage to generate a little atmosphere - you really feel the cold and isolation of this small town. And the opening sequence is okay. But after that opening sequence is over, viewers will have to suffer through the next sixty or so minutes with practically NOTHING of significance or importance happening. Eventually things do start moving a little again, but as it turns out, this last part of the movie is too little and too late. By the way, if you are thinking of watching this movie because Donald Pleasence is in it, be warned - it's clear that his limited footage (with all of his scenes taking place in the same location) was knocked off in just one or two days of shooting.

lost-in-limbo Weak, ponderous cheap-jack horror by Ulli Lommel that never really gets going and ends up with so many holes, unexplained details that only confuse and make things plod from one disconnected scene to another. So many questions, very little answers. The sloppy execution doesn't fair up any better, but the decent concept was never entirely realised and given minor treatment. Gladly there's an unpleasant side cooking up some hokey low-budget make-up FX with icky and over-the-top side-effects. Add a dash of gratuitous topless nudity too. There's an effectively bloody gore scene or two (and laser eyes?!) at the end, but it's all soon but forgotten with an uninspired ending. Watch as an memorizing Donald Pleasance slums about in a role, which he spends most of the time picking out maggots from his arm (due to a witch's curse) or hypnotizing patients to recall those good old times of witch-burning in Devonsville to hopefully rid him of this curse. The obscure superstitious framework manages to paint all shades of greys and help settle in a disquieting atmospheric tone. The rural country setting oozes organic creepiness and an ominously crawling score is another added addition. The alluring Suzanna Love is nothing more than sound and others such as Robert Walker and Paul Wilson are droningly okay. Far from terrible, just unwarrantably stilted modern-day (although there's reminiscent flashbacks of the past that we learn that there just might be a little more to the new teacher in town) witchcraft nonsense.

The_Void Every time I see a film like this, I become less of a fan of the genre. The idea of a witch coming back from the grave for revenge centuries after being put to death is not a bad idea; but it's featured in too many films and it's rarely, if ever, done well. Despite sounding promising, The Devonsville Terror is yet another bad example of this type of film. A big clue to this film being bad is the director - Ulli Lommel was the genius behind the awful Video Nasty The Bogey Man and it's even worse sequel Revenge of the Bogey Man three years later. His directorial skills didn't improve for this film either, although it's probably a minor improvement over his last two. The film starts with the killing of three possible witches. Anyone familiar with this stuff will know what's coming next as the story advances three hundred years and there are three new women in town. Naturally, it's no coincidence and pretty soon the villagers, who seem to be stuck in the same century that the witches were originally killed in, come to believe that three are back for revenge...One of the plot devices used in this film is a storyboarded voice-over in which certain things are explained. This sums the film up completely as the guy they got reading it sounds completely bored and the rest of the film carries on that same lacklustre tone. The standout member of the cast is Donald Pleasence, who unfortunately carries on with "starring in drivel" theme that the formerly great actor started after starring in Halloween five years before this film. His character is the most interesting in the film and he suffers from a curse that means he continually has to remove worms from beneath his skin (...but still practices as a doctor). This is really the film's only good idea but it's not well done as the director simply shows the same bit of film again and again to portray it. The plot has several holes in it and it seems that Lommel didn't have enough money to complete the film as it is short and there's a lot left out. There's no atmosphere, suspense or tension in the film; which kills the horror elements and despite the odd splash of gore, this is a very underwhelming horror movie that I would not recommend to anyone!

jagerhans Well I've been watching a lot of really weird stuff but this one is worser than awful. Pityful. The plot is so stupid it's hard to believe; special effects are crappy and hilarious; characters are stereotypical to the extent that the moviegoer feels offended; nothing makes the least sense in this movie which is a pile of badly rearranged commonplaces of horror. More than this the setting is squalid and depressive, and the whole movie looks close to some very ugly TV series. Expect boredom to its highest. A completely unexplained end stops the audience's sufferings. And there is Donald Pleasance in the cast, too. Yuck.