Leofwine_draca Stephen Rea seems to be making quite the career of propping up low budget horrors like this and OUT OF THE DARK, although it's hardly the illustrious kind of filmography he'd probably hoped for at the outset of his career. THE DEVIL'S MERCY is one of the most awful of all low budget horrors that I've seen lately.It's your usual run-of-the-mill haunted house nonsense, shot in the dark for most of the time so you won't be bored by the on-screen antics because you won't even see them. Rea plays the supporting role of a sinister father who lives next door to a family new to the area (this central family is the most boring ever, with bad acting all round). THE DEVIL'S MERCY is one of those films that's so cheap it needs to do everything by the power of suggestion, which means that there's little action or incident up on screen. Sadly, due to the inefficiency of the filming techniques, it turns out to be one of the worst ever.

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.

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.