666: The Demon Child (2004 Video) User Reviews

You thought it was bad watching it...

[david-2119 · 1/10 · 15 July 2005]

Try being one of the actors in it. I played Daryl and thank god I died first. It was being shot all through the night in Arizona (100+ degrees at night) in August. I must agree, the acting was horrible for the most part. The characters that did well I thought were Karen and Steve. Other than that, the rest of us were horrible, including myself. I never did get paid for my role and it is a good thing, otherwise I would be compelled to give the money back.

Having said that and basically apologizing to those who spent money to rent it, it was great experience and I had the opportunity to work with great people. Cary the director had very little budget for this film. His concept was great, but he had no technology and very little time to complete. Just about every night we heard, "If I don't get this scene now, we are going to have to bag it!". A lot of scenes were 1 takes and it showed. I looked like George the Monkey driving an RV and some of the lines were so mechanical it wasn't close to being real.

To be honest, it was great fun to make but painful to watch. Cary is a really nice guy, but I hope he gets more support and better actors in the future. It is kinda fun to know that I was in probably the worst movie of all time, so I guess I will be famous for that. Watch just for the novelty of it, but don't watch to compare it to real horror films or to be "Spooked". Enjoy! Daryl

It was Awesome(ly bad)

[haruka_makkura · 1/10 · 30 June 2005]

I started watching the opening credits, and could barely believe it was a real movie, that I had found at Blockbuster. How on Earth did it get on the shelves! It looks like something from a high school video production class, even then, put together at the last minute. There was nothing memorable about this movie except that it is one I will only recommend to people I loathe. The sound was turned up as high as it would go on my TV, but I was *still* straining to hear the script. Which was horrible, too, anyway. It was just so unbelievable and stupid. All the characters were idiots! And they were supposed to be archeology students, for crying out loud! The saddest part was the Demon Child itself: it looks like an old, used Cabbage Patch doll with a hole in it's forehead to shoot out "blood." It doesn't even move on it's own, and so it "attacks" people only when the "victim" holds it to their own neck and pretends to thrash around with it for a bit. Feel free to watch it only if you have NOTHING ELSE TO DO and money you could burn, but for some reason you would rather spend it renting this atrocity. You have been warned!

This movie is a piece of s**t

[vampire-23 · 1/10 · 23 November 2004]

The acting was horrible, the music was awful and the demon child was ridiculous. This movie should never have been released. I can't believe it ever made it to the video stores. We watched about 20-30 minutes and couldn't take it anymore. It is absolutely awful. They show the motor home moving on a road and then they show the same road with the same motor home, but, they are supposed to be farther away. Where they got these supposed actors at, I'll never know and don't want to. This movie must have cost about $500.00 to produce. The producer should be brought up on some kind of criminal charges. I can't believe I rented this terrible movie. Don't waste your time.

Pathetic

[Al_dg · 4/10 · 27 May 2005]

I rented this video for a bit of a laugh, after all, just looking at the front cover made me think that this would be the most pathetic horror film I'd ever seen, and indeed, it was.

For starters, the budget for this film must have been in minus figures, and as mentioned in another review, they just replay the same driving clip about twice.

The demon 'child' isn't even the thing we see on the cover. It looks like a very large and angry caterpillar which makes hilarious sound effects whenever it 'attacks' (or should I say cuddles) someone.

Don't even get me started on the plot either. And *possible spoilers* the sword that finally kills it has to be the most pathetic thing I've ever seen (and I've even seen bananas killing the monster in a film!) Overall, get this film is you want a laugh. If you want a scare, don't bother (but the fact that this is actually a film is enough to scare me) (I would give this film a high rating if it was under the comedy category.)

waste of film

[vampire_kittie666 · 1/10 · 10 October 2004]

This movie was so awful I couldn't even finish it. I only got past the first 30 minutes, if even that. What was the plot? Some rubber looking baby eating people. Wow can we say, dumb as I can't even think of something because it was so stupid. I have no words to express how dumb this movie was and I recommend you just keep it on the shelf if you ever see it in stores or in movie rentals. It looked like a really bad mini movie that bored college kids make. The effects were so stupid, there were a lot of bloopers, the baby's eyes looked huge when they did close ups, and most of all, the characters had to hold the baby to them and act like they were having a seizure or something along those lines. For those of who voted this movie as an 8 out of 10 you either had to be drunk or high to watch it.

Diabolically Bad

[ghoulieguru · 1/10 · 8 November 2004]

Ah, the return of the Monster Baby Movie! Thank God somebody out there is thinking outside the box. In this camcorder retelling of "It's Alive", a bunch of people are terrorized on a sound stage by a really ferocious hand puppet. There are a lot of scenes that take place in the Winnebago, which is supposed to be moving I think. I've seen some bad Poor Man's Process shots, but this was ridiculous. Couldn't they have at least gotten someone to shake the camper back and forth? Oh, the humanity. Personally, I think they should have gone the extra distance and had a scene where someone changes the Devil Baby's diaper. Now that would be horrifying! Diabolical Devil Diapers!

Awful

[extra-box · 22 February 2005]

This movie is so bad I wish the demon child would have killed me and put me out of my misery of sitting through one of the worst movies I have seen in years. The Demon Child looks like one of those plastic baby dolls my sister had as a child and glued horns to it. Although those look fake to. Some movies are bad enough to be funny. This movies was just plain awful. The most redeeming quality of the film was win my DVD screen went blank. The sound of the Demon child was annoying and not at all scary. I think the only scary part of the movie was the bad acting. I found the movie in blockbuster under new movies so I thought it had to reach a certain quality. I was wrong. I thought the picture was a little grainy and the sound was low. They should have spent a little money and got a decent microphone.

10 times worse than 666: The Child

[mmcafeend · 2/10 · 9 March 2008]

When I started this movie, I was greeted with a long opening, & terrible acting. This movie was basically a low budget terrible film with many bloopers, a fake baby, & kitty-cat sound effects. This definitely makes my bottom ten horror movies ever. I rate my movies with Plot, acting, fitting its genre, and graphics. graphics and acting both get ones & plot gets a 2. Fitting it's genre gets a 7. That would round to a 3 but minus one point for it being bad, and the reason it doesn't get a one is because it had 1 small scare. The deaths were also incapable of actually being in the movie. Definitely leave this one on the shelf unless you're just watching it for the history, like me. But Im starting to regret picking up a movie with fake seizures all over it. Definitely avoid it.

The world deserves to be warned.

[Obliviax · 1/10 · 20 February 2006]

Before you read my comments, please try to understand that I try to see the good in all horror films. "Elves", for instance, was at least funny. I own a DVD of "The Stuff". I'm not one to write off a film just because it has a low budget or a silly premise. However, I have never, in all my years of rabid horror film consumption, seen a movie as bad as "666: The Demon Child". Not only do we have the typical low-budget issues (lousy acting, poorly constructed creature effects, et cetera), we have a host of technical issues of which the production crew really should be ashamed. Through much of the film, the dialogue is inaudible. What can be heard is disjointed, non-sensical, and downright awful. The editing, lighting and story are similarly piteous. I cannot make my point clear enough: I have _never_ seen a film as bad as this. Not "House of the Dead", not "Strangeland", not "Silent Night, Deadly Night 4"... not even "Werewolf". Please spare yourself the agony. You would be better served to sniff glue for an hour and a half.

Citizen Kane Part II: This Time it's Personal

[amazing_sincodek · 1/10 · 29 May 2006]

A little known fact: this movie was originally written as a sequel to Citizen Kane. The result is a movie so good that it deserves 11 stars. Haha! Just kidding! Oh boy, I'm funny.

This may be the most poorly produced film I've ever seen, and as a Troma fan, I like to think I'm very tolerant of low-budget films. There are some exciting action sequences, and the very end is kind of fun, but there is absolutely nothing original in the film, and what is borrowed is borrowed poorly. Imagine "The Hills Have Eyes" with an angry baby instead of a bunch of angry mutants, the DV treatment, and awful acting, ridiculous special effects...I'm tired of writing this comment. It's a really bad movie, I want my hour and a half back, etc etc etc.

Never judge a low budget horror movie - by how good the cover looks

[halloween9-1 · 1/10 · 29 July 2007]

I bought this movie for 3 British pounds from a DVD bin (that price in itself is a rip off). I saw the half decent Artcover and thought 'Hey this could be a cool cheesy movie' Well the cheese was definitely past it's expiry date.

If you like movies shot on video - You will like Demon Child

If you like movies where the cast continually leave there water and bags behind - You will like Demon Child

If you like movies where the blood squirts out in a straight line - You will like Demon Child

If you like movies with the same shot of a van moving repeated again and again(chitterly of course) -You will like Demon Child

If you like girls that look like guys... - You will like Demon Child

If you like Indians with torrets syndrome - You will like Demon Child

If you like shots of a person walking for 10 minutes - You will like Demon Child

If animal bone ghosts scare you - You will like Demon Child - You will like Demon Child

If you like a baby crying audio repeated over and over again - You will like Demon Child

If you like old men with there trousers pulled up very high - You will like Demon Child

If you like women roles who just get blankets - you will like Demon Child

If you like getting told 'you'll see soon enough' 5 times before getting anywhere - You will like Demon Child

If you like actors holding a dummy against their neck with open mouths but not screaming - You will like Demon Child

If you like the same piece of music played throughout the whole film - You will like Demon Child

If you like demon child - You need help

Alex

Not so bad...excellent photography and lighting

[susancaroll · 8/10 · 27 January 2005]

The acting was not that bad. True, it was campy...but it was trying to be. The director could have done a better job of laying out the scenes and the background sound effects left much to be desired, but the lighting and the camera work enhanced the eeriness and suspense to the point that this film will be an ageless classic at Halloween. I thought the actors did an excellent job considering that the script was so shallow. The crew members obviously did their best with what they had to work with. It was obvious that conditions on the set were grueling, as this apparently was all shot on location. All in all, I'd say the actors and crew did the best job they could do and definitely made this movie worth buying.

Sidesplitting funny!

[whammy666 · 6/10 · 7 September 2006]

I heard this was the worst movie ever, so naturally I HAD to see it. I love bad movies. Well, every bad movie except The Item. Okay, okay. This movie is really bad. The scenes on top of the camper with "smoke" or something blowing is hilarious, it looks like the camper is moving! Scenes are shown twice, and the baby...the baby MAKES the film. It is this rubber (!) baby with horns coming out of it's head, and as said before, the actors hold the baby to their neck and pretend to be getting eaten. The sounds the baby makes is classic...this really loud chewing noise and this...I don't even know what sound. The best scene is the shower scene by all means. Just...sooo funny. THe acting is purely awful. But really funny. Not sure which girl, the one who is second last to die, she cracked me up, very bad acting. It is sad though, when given a lot of thought this really could of been an interesting and good film. If you really think about the ending, what if something like that was happening, and how do we know what creatures were before us? Sadly, this movie still sucks. WORTH A LOOK!!!!

It was rubbish

[ellie_1993 · 1/10 · 31 March 2006]

this film was absolutely rubbish i can't believe i finished it it was the worst film i have ever seen. this scenery looked like it was a picture and the people had been stuck in front of it. the baby on the front cover wasn't Even in the film . the demon child was a plastic doll that you could tell wasn't attacking any1 my and my friends said it was more like scary movie taking d Mic out of another film. be warned this film is crap don't watch it. they can't ov spent more than $400 making it because all the backgrounds were fake and the demon child must ov cost 50p because they were pulling it about it never moved. this film should be rated pg it was rubbish pls don't rent it out you will regret it

Demonic

[xredgarnetx · 2/10 · 3 October 2006]

DEMON CHILD is a desert-based rehash of IT'S ALIVE, and all that's lacking is the presence of the legendary John P. Ryan to liven things up. Unfortunately, what we get are a half-dozen nonactors stumbling over their lines, and one of them is an aging mad scientist who mutters his lines in a whispery, unintelligible accent. These zany folks are traveling across a desert landscape when they encounter an old Indian and his giant egg. Guess what's in the egg. "It's a killer infink!" as Popeye might exclaim. This 2004 STV is badly photographed, lighted, directed, written and edited, but it is good for a couple of laughs. The demon child is actually an unclothed rubber doll with horns glued on. The actors have to hold the doll to them to simulate its attacks, and we never once see the doll do anything on its own. At one point, it races through the night, but what we get is the doll's blurry POV as it supposedly rapidly waddles across the terrain. And wait until you hear its growl. Another hilarious bit has to do with the camper the actors are traveling in. The driver drives in a very casual way, mostly looking away from the road as he yaks, and we never actually see the landscape moving around him. Plus every time we see the actors gathered in the camper, bright sunlight is pouring through the windows. But whenever they step outside, it is night time and they need flashlights. I got this beauty at Wal-Mart for $3.88 as part of an updated Halloween video collection. There were a dozen other titles all looking about as scary and professional as this one. Clearly, DEMON CHILD was someone's home movie, pure and simple. If only John Ryan had been available!

zero stars rating

[scotmcesler · 4 August 2011]

I played the part of Bryce. The production people were no better than amateurs. Except the make up lady, she was totally professional and above excellent in skill. Like others I did not get paid, until I brought a civil action against them. I don't think the actors were as bad as the movie showed them. The director was terrible (turrible - if you like Charles Berkley) the associate producer didn't have a clue to even keep quiet on the set while shooting. One quite cheap camcorder. One take shooting. Not because it was good, they never took a look at the video they shot. The worst editing ever. No run through before shooting. I'll take my bad review lumps as an actor.

I'm gonna regret saying this

[mrmovieview · 5/10 · 4 July 2005]

OK, OK, now before I get bumrushed for saying this, hear me out. I have seen soooooooooo many ,just plain bad horror movies that I actually dug this one. You can tell where they made their little mistakes. I just can't help but wonder, what if those little mistakes were corrected? What kind of movie would we be talking about then? Now I know we can say that for a lot of horror movies, movies period, but I liked 666. It isn't predictable. It's just the stuff that's bad, is just plain bad. Everything else works as good as any other low budget horror film. I can name nine other horror films that would make 666 number one in entertainment value, and horror.

Unbearable Dreck

[BillyRayJohnson · 2/10 · 10 May 2010]

Prepare for the longest 90 minutes of your life. Then again, I suspect normal (non-masochistic) people won't last longer than 20. This is perhaps the ultimate endurance test.

Laughableness: I chuckled at two parts, the baby's first appearance (because of effects, and the actors' portrayals of terror), which is 25 minutes into the movie, and a scene near the end where the baby attacks a brawny guy who screams like mad as he pretends to struggle with the evil demon doll. This equals about 120 seconds of entertainment (admittedly, still more than 'Date Movie'), surrounded by what seems like infinite minutes of mind-numbing blather about six-fingered giants from 500,000 years ago.

Gore: None of note. The blood looks like strawberry syrup. The baby puppet/doll isn't the worst I've seen, but it's hardly animated.

Nudity: There is one shower scene. The girl looks a lot like Dewey from 'Malcolm in the Middle.' Her breasts are conveniently concealed during the whole scene. Her bare buttocks are shown, and I do imagine they looks nicer than Dewey's would. She is seen screaming during most of this scene, but there is no screaming sound. Incidentally, the most attractive girl is also the worst actress in this movie.

Sound: Sound quality, direction, and volume inexplicably varies from scene to scene. Almost 1/3 of the movie is near unintelligible. A generic soundtrack plays almost every second of every scene. The baby has one sound effect (baby cries with added reverb and echo, and a cat hissing) which plays approximately 350 times through the duration of the movie. I promise you this sound effect will test your sanity.

Next time you think SyFy originals are bad, next time you think 'The Room' is bad, think of '666: The Demon Child.' Two stars because of the efforts by the guy who wrote, directed, and produced it. And because there are one or two even more unwatchable movies out there.

Funniest Film of 2004.

[Krackoon · 1/10 · 11 August 2015]

'666: The Demon Child' isn't quite 'Troll 2,' but when it comes to laughs, there's a handful to be had here. My main gripe, other than the horrible acting, is the lighting - it makes it nearly impossible to see the fake rubber doll, when it attacks and crushes it's victims with massive striking blows, and horrifying cat like shrieks... which may be the point, now that I think about it. More on the audio, it's a cross between a cat, mountain lion, and a few other random sounds put on repeat, to save a few cents - because, you know, that budget had to be massive.

The acting is simply atrocious. The only ''known'' actor in this mess, is Jose Rosete - who currently resides on twitter, ignoring those of us who mention this disaster of a film - because, I'm assuming he actually believes he's an... actor. The rest of the cast, I believe, did us all a favor and fell off the face of the earth. You should reconsider your stance, Jose - and join them.

Random Ramblings of a Madman: Seriously, though, '666: The Demon Child' is a film that MUST be seen to believe. The lighting, the acting, the evil rubber doll, and THAT audio. Oh, I didn't mention the cover art - it sucks, too. Maybe I am being a bit harsh here, because like I said, if you're in need of a few laughs, '666 The Demon Child' beats anything Adam Sandler's done in the last 13 years. Find it, watch it, enjoy it!

Don't watch if you need special effects to enjoy a horror flick.

[darth_nax · 6/10 · 2 March 2005]

This is not your average demon child movie, oh no. This child is different. Special even. See, unlink most demon children we see today who are all born of man this one is from an ancient race that lived 500,000 years ago. That race was defeated by another ancient race of giants that was related (distantly) to man. It is up to a Winnebago of co-eds to kill the newly hatched demon child and save humanity.

The plot is pretty original. The acting while not great isn't terrible either. The sound track I thought was overdone and intrusive. The special effects were absolutely out of this world, but in a horrible way. They were really, really lame. The devil child never moves on it's own. It's not at all animated. Same is true for the other monster scenes. Whenever someone is attacked it's basically a case of putting the muppet on the actor and watching them scream and squirm while trying not to knock the poor kid off.

But except for the special effects it's not that terrible. Just don't expect a whole lot but with this title and direct to video why would you.