La cosecha del diablo

Devil's Harvest is one of two thematically similar films I just watched back to back (the other being Black Gate (aka The Darkening), 1995) that owe a strong debt to the classic "seaside haunted house films", ala Alfred Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940), Lewis Allen's The Uninvited (1944) and Joseph L. Mankiewicz' The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947). They both mix a lot of semi-Satanic mythology with their relatively more hyperactive, modernized styles. This was the good film of the two.

Daniel King (Chris John) is an artist who has just come back with his girlfriend, Laura Peters (Lara Clancy), to the small English village of Cornwall where he grew up. He was an orphan who was close to fellow orphan Mary Henson (Julie T. Wallace). Mary was fortunate to be adopted by a wealthy family. Daniel has had a much harder time of it, but Mary is letting him stay in an older house she owns, and she's just commissioned him to do a religious painting for the local church. From the beginning we sense (as does Laura) that there's something odd about Daniel and Mary's relationship, and there's something odd about the village folk, too--when Daniel and Laura stop in for a pint, they get the infamous An American Werewolf in London (1981) treatment. On top of all of this, it seems that the house just may be haunted, there is a local crazy priest wandering about, a local "evil legend", and Daniel has to run away with Mary to an exhibition, leaving Laura at home with Daniel's old pal Mike Taylor (David Snow), who may be just as fishy in his relationship to Laura as Daniel is with Mary.

That all sounds a bit too complicated maybe, but for me, at least, this was a superbly acted, relatively taut film, with a great mythological basis employing the little-referenced Philistine "fish deity" of Dagon. This gives the film a thematic connection to Stuart Gordon's Dagon (2001), which was based on the work of horror author H.P. Lovecraft. If you're familiar with Lovecraft or Dagon, they give Devil's Harvest deeper significance by association.

In fact, writer/director James Shanks seems quite fond of such intriguing, pithy thematic references, as they permeate the film. For example, the Cornwall setting connects Devil's Harvest to films such as Jacques Tourneur's The City Under the Sea (1965) and Hammer's The Plague of the Zombies (1966). These are tonal references, as well. Devil's Harvest has more of a late 1960s or 1970s Hammer feel than a contemporary feel--this could almost be an extended episode of Hammer's lamentably short-lived "Hammer House of Horror" television show (1980). If you've seen that, it's a good way to gauge if you're likely to enjoy Devil's Harvest. I loved "Hammer House of Horror".

For such a low budget film (estimated at £800,000), Devil's Harvest has remarkably impressive cinematography. Shanks employs helicopter shots, crane shots, consistently unique almost comic book-like angles, and a lot of beautifully photographed English countryside and village architecture. The film also has very good performances from its attractive, young cast--even more amazing considering that the two principals are so inexperienced. This is John's first film and Clancy's second.

Although some aspects of the story may seem less than perfect for some viewers because they'll seem a trifle clichéd or convoluted, Shanks keeps a relatively tight rein on a plot that could have easily become a mess in lesser hands, and he incorporates a number of very unusual, unexpected elements, including the nihilistic ending and nice doses of subtle humor. Like its 1940s haunted house by the sea precursors, Devil's Harvest's more Amityville Horror-ish moments tend to be understated. They're also often psychological and sometimes hallucinogenic.

There is a unique subtext possible where much of the film, including the horror material, is an exploration/representation of strained, twisted and interconnecting relationships between Daniel, Laura, Mary and Mike. On this reading, Devil's Harvest is an examination of how deceit and subversion affect romantic involvements.

How in the name of decency did this film ever get made?

One presumes the subtitles merely say 'awful' on every single frame of this truly dismal effort.

Horrendous acting, woeful dialogue and the lack of talent from everyone involved in this nightmare make for an excruciating 90 minutes.

Overall impression?

A bunch of excitable drama students got lucky with a lottery grant and proceeded to make one of the most painful films ever made.

This makes Hammer Horror TV shows look like Oscar material.

And don't for a second think this falls into the 'so bad it's good' category. It's not even that bad.

But the fart lighting scene is probably worth another look.

I just wanted to leave a quick comment as its not listen on here ,but i have just seen this movie,the version I just rented was released in 2005 as far as I know and it was actually called "Don't go into the attic" I only realized it was the same movie as Devils Harvest upon searching for some of the actors who looked familiar in the movie. Anyways I'm in Ireland so maybe this has only been released over here and in the UK now,but thats what its called over here..........not really like it matters because I would not recommend this movie.The only words that spring to mind watching it are CHEESE CHEESE CHEESE!! My one mark out of ten is purely for the one little jumpy bit :o)

Hi everybody, I'm just taking time out of my busy day to warn you about a little sale they have on at Woolies at the moment. This is a shop in the UK, so for everyone residing outside our great shores this doesn't apply. Go and read a comic, or something. The cheapest item within, are DVDs all reduced in price... and there are some real good ones too. The Full Monty for £3? The Sting for £2?? BARGAIN!! However, I'm not here to recommend you take advantage any of these no doubt great offers. If you look deep in the video section, you will find the dregs of the discount counter. You know, all the budget flicks that no-ones ever heard of for a quid each. Most of which will be crappy horror films. Somewhere in this pool of slime, you might find a case. What it says on the front will be ' Don't Go In The Attic'. This is deceptive, as what it should really read as is 'Don't watch this unless you want to waste 90 minutes of your life'.

For what we have here, is a prince among bad motion pictures, a wart on the bum that is the world of B-movies. Or should that be Z-movies as in: falling asleep because it is so bloody boring. I made a funny. Ha ha. Guess what else? It's British. For shame, for shame. Someone should have pulled the plug early on, and donated all the monies from production to people suffering from the handicap that is the third nipple. Yep, a pretty minor charity, but it would still have been better spent on those poor souls than on this pile of camel dung. This is literally the type of film where you scratch your head afterwards, while saying out loud: WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING?! The dialogue! The special effects! The plot! The acting! The ugly leading guy with a pony-tail who somehow gets two sexy English roses to sleep with him! Everything about it screams WRONG WRONG WRONG and yet here I am, reviewing it still in absolute awe at its sheer dreadfulness. My parameters of how terrible movies can be have been changed forever, and calling it Devil's Harvest in other countries is not going to make sitting through the spectacle a less painful experience. Nice try though, guys.

So class, what have we learnt today? 1. I am a pathetic comedian, 2. Using the CAPS button in the middle of a paragraph is foolish and 3. By no means, even if your sorry life depended on it, touch DGITA with a 60 foot bargepole. Unless that bargepole has a stick of dynamite attached to it. In which case, you have my 100% support. That's about it for it now, DISMISSED! Oh yeah, my end of term grade is 0/10. Wear it with pride, and GET OUT OF MY SIGHT!!

Wow! Bad movie. Total waste of time. Conclusion was idiotic. Acting subpar.