Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This movie is another Christian propaganda film in the line of The Omega Code. Not that that is necessarily bad but for the fact that most propaganda films sacrifice sincerity and realism for the message they wish to deliver. If you enjoy a styrofoam portrayal of life on the streets and the way the Gospel can change a life, than perhaps you may enjoy this movie. I say, save your money and rent The Cross and The Switchblade or The Mission. When will Christian directors learn that sometimes people say bad words? It was frustrating to see criminals depicted who are not allowed to swear (huh? criminals say bad words?) and flat characters I really could not relate to. Also, it would've been great if the movie had shown some T&A. Now that would be something I'd like to pay to see. Who was the blockhead who compared this communion wafer-thin story of a movie with The Boondock Saints and The Sting?

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: *I mark where there are spoilers! Overall comments: If you can take a serious movie, go see this. Have an open mind and you will enjoy it. Don't leave the theater because you get confused as to what is going on! The movie fits together nicely in the second half. I will be taking my mom to see it again when the movie officially opens.

I was lucky to see this at a screening a couple of weeks ago, when Will was going around promoting the movie. He was great--spent a lot of time with the fans. Thank you for the picture Will! About Will's performance: A lot of times when you see a movie with an actor really famous for some other movie/show, you always think of them in their current performance much like you think of them for their past performance. This is not the case with Will Smith in this movie. I didn't picture the Fresh Prince (lol) when I was watching this movie. He was completely and utterly convincing in this very, very serious role. He has grown immensely as an actor. I think he will at least get an Oscar nod for this performance.

About his character: Ben is very conflicted and tormented. He's sad...guilt-ridden...very determined, but very scared. Very true to himself. His character has a lot of depth...and somehow, Will managed to bring that to life.

About Emily (Rosario): Rosario did a nice job portraying Emily, a woman very much behind on her taxes. Maybe she's not the shining star Will is in this movie, but she was very convincing. I think her character just did not have as much to work with as Will's did.

About the plot (no spoilers): I admit that I did NOT like the movie until the second half of it. I knew absolutely nothing about the movie going into it, and nothing made sense until the second part of it or so. But when things eventually fit together, wow. Surprisingly well written and well thought out. It's an extremely intense movie that really sticks with you.

It actually takes a lot out of you to watch. In the theater I was in, most people were crying towards the end--even grown men. When you realize what Ben is doing, and why, it's a very powerful moment...

******* Minor SPOILERS***** Which is why it's really hard to talk about the plot without giving major things away. I feel like knowing too much about this movie really ruins it. There was a lot of symbolism in the movie that I enjoyed, though. I will mention some of it here (without trying to give a lot away).

-The fish that Ben was keeping in his hotel room. At first, it makes no sense whatsoever. There was a LOT of chatter in the movie theater when people realized the reality of the fish.

-I hated Ben at the beginning of the movie. By the end of it, I loved him and hated him. That's how convincing Will was. I thought Ben was being a huge jerk to Ezra, a blind man just trying to make his way in the world. Why he was treating Ezra like that also became abundantly clear later in the movie. Wait it out though. Everything in this movie: wait it out.

-Ben is a fundamentally good person who made a big mistake that he won't forgive himself for. It's still unclear to me if he was doing what he was doing because he was trying to rid himself of his own guilt, or if he genuinely wanted to help people. I think it's a little bit of both...I think he wanted to help people but also rid himself of his past. I love his character. You love him and hate him because you realize that what he is doing is nothing short of amazing. You hate him because of what he is doing to himself (as a very good person), both physically and emotionally. Nice job Will.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Well, there you have it, another disillusion on my account. Two, actually! First of all, even though I like to think of myself that I know a little something about 70's euro-exploitation and its most prolific contributors, I never heard about Joseph W. Sarno before. Here's a guy who made over seventy rancid and cult-laden exploitation movies and I haven't seen a single one! How? Why? What happened here? Secondly, and even worse, just when you think to have found a new source for obscure cult movies, that director's most famous and supposed "masterpiece" turns out to be an irredeemably dull and irritating film. Admittedly, lesbian vampire movies form a pretty insignificant sub genre as a whole, but some of them bath in ominous atmosphere and curious sensuality (like Jose Larraz' "Vampyres" or Harry Kummel's "Daughters of Darkness"). Joseph Sarno's film has nothing to offer, except copious amounts of gratuitous nudity and even that becomes boring rather quickly. The events take place in a secluded old castle, hidden deep in the German mountains, where five centuries ago lived a malicious and bloodthirsty (literally) baroness. Her loyal disciples still throw naked dance parties in the castle's catacombs, which are lit by penis-shaped candlesAUCH, and hope to resurrect the baroness any time soon now. Suddenly (don't even ask how) the castle is full of young and sexy female guests, so even more erotic rites ensue. Sounds delicious and entertaining enough, but "The Devil's Plaything" contains a massive number of sequences where literally nothing happens and where the cast members' ignorant facial expressions are simply unendurable! Sarno isn't capable of creating suspense or building a Gothic atmosphere (or maybe he just didn't bother to) and the actresses' capacities restrict themselves to standing in front the camera topless and pull a really pathetic face. Please do yourself a favor: no matter how desperately you strive to see all lurid lesbian-vampire movies of the 70's, this one isn't worth a penny! Even the repertoires of Jess Franco and Jean Rollin are pure art compared to this dud.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.

This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.

Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).

Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies.