The Devils (1971) User Reviews

A movie that purposely shocks you to make a point.

[rondine · 8/10 · 21 January 2001]

I saw this movie late at night by myself and I was absolutely terrified. I was house sitting for a friend who's house was in the boonies in Anchorage and it was a dark & snowy night. I watched this movie totally engrossed & unable to turn away - kinda like a train wreck! I slept with the light on that night.

I went out & got the out of print book at the library. The book by Huxley is totally different, although the movie was faithful to most of the historical aspects of the story. The book is a beautiful testament of faith. You really should try to get a copy if the film piqued your interest in this slice of history. There is also an opera that is based on this story (as well as a John Whiting play) and all of this is based on historical facts. Obviously, I have done some research since seeing the movie. That's how much it affected me.

The story is one of politics versus spiritual redemption; desire versus despair. The acting is wonderful - especially Oliver Reed. To me, this is his best performance ever. In addition, it's a Ken Russell film so the presentation is wild to say the least. But for this story, it works. Derek Jarman's sets also lend a modern-retro kind of feel to the movie. Watch this one late at night when you are all alone. It's a one of a kind that I have never seen duplicated since. Not even the Exorcist has the same kind of horrific darkness as this movie (if you watch the credits of the Exorcist, they use some music from the Penderecki opera, The Devils of Loudun).

SPOILER BEYOND HERE **************

This movie is not for everyone. If you get the imported copy from England, there is the restored "Rape of Christ" scene that some will find not only horrific, but absolutely revolting. This movie is not for everyone - but the same can be said of any movie really. I'd prefer to watch this rather than "Dumb and Dumbmer." I recommend this movie to those with an open mind & a taste for the unusual. It is a movie FAR ahead of its time - in fact, Warner Brothers STILL will not release the restored copy - that's how controversial it is. A controversial movies doesn't always equate with a great movie - but this movie is singular in its achievement.

Religious fundamentalism goes mad

[ExpendableMan · 9/10 · 26 April 2007]

When reading the following review, please keep in mind that I saw this film in slightly unorthodox circumstances. Without meaning to sound smug, the screening I attended took place at my University, was chaired by Ken Russell and was of a restored version of The Devils. The missing footage found by the critic Mark Kermode had been spliced back in and the film restored to the director's vision as close as possible. Given that I've never seen the original edit released to cinemas back in the 1970s and that this was only the second time this version had been screened, I think its fair to estimate that the film I'm reviewing will be significantly different to the one that is widely available so please keep that in mind.

Anyway...starting with a bizarre sequence involving an androgynous, foppish King prancing around a theatre stage done up like an Egyptian Queen, Ken Russell's The Devils is a film that over the course of its subsequent hour and forty minutes is liable to offend as many people as it will entertain. The extravagance of the Royal French Court filled with laughing nobles and brown nosing politicians resplendent in the very finest dark ages fashion is soon juxtaposed when the film turns a stark gaze on a rotting countryside filled with pestilence and disease. Maggot infested corpses line the road and the attention is quickly turned on the town of Loudun, where Priest Father Grandier battles not only the plague, but the political schemers who want to demolish the walls. Grandier is such a charismatic public figure however that the politicians are powerless, until they elaborate a plan to have him tarnished with accusations of blasphemy.

Central to this conspiracy is a chapter of Nuns living near by, of whom the hunched Sister Jeanne proves instrumental. Scared of her own sexual desires, the woman is driven mad by her very human nature and soon, the inquisition are knocking on her door and every woman in the building is being tortured and brain washed in the name of Christianity. The evils of religious fanaticism are plain to see, with Michael Gothard's scene stealing extremist Father Barre being the most disgusting example of a Priest you are ever likely to see on film. He batters and humiliates women for the sake of getting his own way and is so inflexible that he will send people to their deaths rather than admit his own fallibility. Controversial scenes abound as Barre's determination brings about nothing but misery, with the brainwashed nuns stripping off and indulging in a mass orgy, culminating in perhaps the most offensive scene when a statue of Christ is pulled down from the chapel walls and used by the nuns as a sexual play thing.

While it may depict blasphemy though, the film itself is not blasphemous and believe it or not, actually celebrates Christianity. It does so through the figure of Grandier (Oliver Reed at his very best), a man whose faith in God is so strong that he will not allow the misled elders of the Church deviate him from his path. He isn't a perfect man and has a weakness for the fairer sex, but he will not bow down to pressure or allow physical pain to weaken his love of God, he is a fine depiction of a Priest of which the Church can be proud.

However, religious sermonising isn't the chief attraction because let's face it, the reason most of us would want to see this movie is because it's controversial. With the aforementioned cavorting on the cross and nun orgies it's not hard to see why and the Inquisition don't exactly come off particularly well either as they stride around the countryside, bullying and torturing and ultimately teaching their flock to hate, not to love. Furthermore, The Devils is possessed (pun very much intended) by a ceaseless, madcap energy that is easy to get swept up in and over the course of the film, you will witness flagellation, nun on nun lesbian action, deranged inquisitors chanting "confess" as they beat people with hammers and (perhaps most bizarrely of all), Oliver Reed duelling with a man using a stuffed crocodile in place of a sword.

Yes, it is a bit uneasy to watch sometimes. Yes, at times it does resemble little more than visual extremity taken to the limit and no its not likely to find it's way into the Pope's DVD collection any time soon. The underlying message is ultimately a pure one though and it has the added benefit of being one of the most insane films you're ever likely to see, as well as making you glad you don't live in the middle ages. If you ever get a chance to see the restored version I couldn't recommend it higher.

Russell ruffles feathers.

[BA_Harrison · 8/10 · 11 June 2020]

Writing a review for a film as outlandish as The Devils while still remaining within IMDb's guidelines is proving very difficult: when describing the film, it's hard to avoid phrases that will offend - it's THAT eccentric, anarchic, and blasphemous. Controversial director Ken Russell's work is clearly still capable of pushing buttons after all of these years.

Oliver Reed stars as womanising priest Urbain Grandier, the actor putting in a commanding turn that cannot be ignored, scandalous at first, but ultimately admirable for his stoicism and the purity of his love for Madeleine De Brou (Gemma Jones); on the other end of the scale is Father Pierre Barre (Michael Gothard), a character with no redeeming qualities, a loathsome witch-hunter tasked with proving Grandier guilty of heresy so that power-hungry Cardinal Richelieu (Christopher Logue) can take control of the town of Loudun.

Chock full of visually stunning and often provocative imagery, The Devils, based on a book by Aldous Huxley, is an assault on the senses that is hard to forget. It's not at all surprising that the film was heavily criticised on its release for its semi-pornographic content, nightmarish grotesquery, and general debauchery, but for all of its deliberate shock tactics, there's a great story to be told and it is done so in a stylish and unforgettable manner.

Even when the film isn't being deliberately offensive, it's still an audacious treat: Russell opens with a preposterous scene in which Louis XIII (Graham Armitage) participates in a comically absurd play (the King of France dressed as Botticelli's Venus); Grandier uses a stuffed crocodile to fight Trincant (John Woodvine), father of one of the priest's conquests; King Louis playfully shoots protestants dressed as crows; and Vanessa Redgrave is delightfully OTT as Sister Jeanne, the nun whose unrequited obsession over Grandier leads to his downfall. In keeping with the film's unconventionality, the set design by Derek Jarman -- medieval meets futurism -- is blatantly anachronistic, but a marvel to behold.

Ken Russell's little known masterpiece

[jweiglein · 1 June 2004]

A few movies are so controversial that the Movie industry does their best to kill them off (see Terry Gilliams' "Brazil"). Such was the case with "The Devils" First, to clear a few things up...this did NOT come from a play, nor was it a novel. It is based on Aldous Huxley's painstakingly researched religious history of the famous Loudun exorcisms during the time of Richelieu. The book may be out of print, but my wife found a copy published in 1952 by Chatto & Windus. There are some more recent publications, but this one is lovely, with an engraving of Bishop Urban Grandier(the main character) dating back to 1627. Huxley actually includes original letters, which still exist, written by the participants of this travesty. Much of the dialogue of the film is directly from Huxley. The vision however is uniquely Russell's. When this movie was originally released, it was given an X rating, not due to sex, or even violence, although there is some of each. The plain fact is that the film in its original form is simply overpowering. The Movie Review board thought so! I was fortunate enough to see the original uncut version, rated X at the local art-house upon its release. This film is a shortened version. While still worthwhile, this film absolutely SCREAMS for a Criterion Collection restoration to its original (brilliant) form.

Shocking, beautifully elegant, a truly provocative masterpiece that induces raw emotions. 10/10

[vassl1 · 10/10 · 20 January 2003]

Shocking, beautifully elegant, a truly provocative masterpiece that induces raw emotions. 10/10

Two years before 'The Exorcist' hits the screen, Ken Russell puts the Catholic Church in the spotlight by filming one of the most disturbing films of all times. Except from being a sheer technical and aesthetic masterpiece, 'The Devils' provokes as a film with its relentless sense of anarchy. Religious hysteria and illusions, the horror of human arrogance and depravity and the love that turns to cherishing that turns to hatred. It's hard to put it in words, one must simply watch it to understand the simple splendor of this film. For open-minded viewers only...

Genius; The greatest film of church corruption ever conceived.

[degelb · 10/10 · 22 May 2004]

Cited by director Alex Cox and critic Mark Kermode as one of the ten greatest achievements in cinema of all time, The Devils is based on a true story set in France in 1634 about the evils of the union of church and state controlled by power hungry, perverse men who prey on faith and fear, and one priest, Father Grandier, who tries to protect the liberties and walls of his city, Loudun.

This film was met with great controversy and opposition due to its contents and depictions of blasphemy. Hardly available today, the current VHS release suffers from trigger happy censors with no desire to leave the plot intact. The video translation is appalling, with only a fraction of the resolution and quality of film, and the fullscreen framing mauls at least 60% of the compositions. If you can attain this on widescreen on DVD, you are a lucky person. Unfortunately, as is reflected by another comment on this board, most people see the crappy version and judge the film based on that.

A Beautifully disturbing film

[bdpennington · 10/10 · 21 December 2000]

Ken Russell is one of those filmmakers whose work you can immediately identify. Whether your first was "Altered States" or (like me) "The Devils," you learn early on that if Mr. Russell's name is listed as director and/or writer, you can expect to be at least a little disturbed.

"The Devils" is, in my humble opinion, one of the best films ever made. I wish I hadnt been born so late because I can imagine how truly intense an experience it must've been to view "The Devils" in theater.

This film is the only film I've ever seen, regardless of genre, to take the viewer into the pit of hell and to hold her/him there unrelenting, uncompromising, and to make the viewer feel as s/he has actually experienced hell. I can only imagine how much difficulty Mr. Russell must have had when MPAA members saw this film. It's bleak, horrifying, shocking, disgusting and thoroughly delicious. Aldous Huxley (the author of the book on which this film was based) would have been proud to see that his true story of a Satanic Catholic church translated very well to film.

One last thing: I have never really been able to sit through the entire film since the first time I saw it. That is, odd as it sounds, extreme praise. What kind of hell would it be if I could sit comfortably?

Thank you, Ken Russell!

A grim and masterful tale.

[Autonome · 10/10 · 9 August 1999]

Well the philosophical statements and commentary embedded into this film are far too numerous to evaluate. It's every line of dialog and every character. The overall moral of the story seemed to me that 'If a leader truly departs from the structure of power and refuses to submit to the boot of governance, and then starts to have real power and a following of their own, they will be utterly destroyed.', but there are many other equally ominous themes to choose from. I wish I could say I haven't watched stories which seemed hauntingly similar to Loudon's played out on the news many times.

But beyond the 'moral' as I see it, is the truly very creepy feel to the whole film. The scene in which an entire convent of naked nuns are being exorcised by an inquisitor of the 'demons' that are forcing them into a wild orgy of sex, is genuinely memorable as one of film's most surreal scenes. Amazingly, these events happen in a quite understandable sequence for logical (if nightmarish) reasons under Russell's direction. These people really seemed from a whole different world, as if they weren't human but they obviously were all-too human, and the sudden realization that this might actually be closer to the heritage of my own culture than what I was taught REALLY creeped me out. A very effective device. Almost made me ill to imagine it. A very powerful film, one of my picks for an all time best film.

An extraordinarily disturbing and memorable picture

[barnabyrudge · 7/10 · 8 January 2003]

After seeing The Devils, one thing is for sure: it will stay with you forever. For some, it's a horrific and unwatchable display of savagery, while for others it's an intense yet rewarding ride into a city beseiged with madness. It is Ken Russell's most tolerable film to sit through, because it is always interesting and contains many memorables scenes and images, but at the same time it is highly controversial and challenging, often making you want to turn away from the screen.

The story is of a highly influential priest in the French city of Loudon. He is a magnetic man with strong opinions and pride, lusted after by many women, including a disfigured nun. The authorities decide that he is a risk to their plans, and have him falsely accused of various disgusting sexual crimes for which he is burned at the stake.

There are some extraordinary moments in this film. The burning at the end is the most unforgettable of all, with Oliver Reed literally blackening and bubbling in front of your very eyes as he burns away. The scenes involving Vanessa Redgrave as the amorous nun are equally haunting, and the torture scenes with Michael Gothard as an exorcist trying to force a confession out of Reed are truly painful to watch. This film is certainly not for all tastes, but if you can bear the more gruesome moments, then you will find it fascinating viewing, and no matter how hard you try you won't be able to ignore its intensity.

Ken Russell's most controversial film, but also one of his best and most fascinating

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 24 November 2013]

The Devils is, admittedly like Ken Russell's style itself, is not for all tastes, it is one of those films that you will be transfixed by straightaway or be repulsed by it. With me, it was the former and while Russell's style was a quite unique one to begin with The Devils is most likely unlike anything you've seen before. It is an incredibly well-made film, the sets are simply spectacular and the photography is both beautiful and harrowing. Peter Maxwell Davies' music score is hypnotic and haunting, it has a genuine eeriness but doesn't overbear things. The story is a ceaselessly compelling one, a lot of it is incredibly shocking(with the most disturbing torture scenes on film) yet with the fascinating imagery and the different themes the film has it is overwhelming in how stunning it is. With Russell's direction, this is not restrained Russell(if you want restrained look to his biographies on Elgar and Delius) but hard-hitting and somewhat eccentric Russell, but there is much more focus and atmosphere than there was with Lisztomania, a fairly similar directing style but The Devils is so much more structured and cinematic and less music-video-like and tasteless(at times). Nonetheless he does a great job directing, it has his style all over it but he handles it in a gripping and intelligent way. Oliver Reed gives a career-best performance, while Vanessa Redgrave is deeply touching and somewhat grotesque in appearance(the character that is not her) and Gemma Jones is entrancing. Overall, The Devils is one of Russell's best and most fascinating films but it is very easy to see why it caused so much controversy at the time of release(it was very different for the time and the audience weren't prepared to be that shocked, the same treatment happened with Witchfinder General with Vincent Price as well). 10/10 Bethany Cox

One tough watch

[st-shot · 7/10 · 13 October 2018]

In 17th Century France Cardinal Richelieu gains allegiance with King Louie Xlll in persecuting the Protestant populace. He finds resistance however in the charismatic Father Grandier (Oliver Reid) of Loudon whose walls and lack of religious strife pose a problem to the Cardinal's grand plan. When a sexually repressed nun falsely accuses Grandier of witchcraft, Richelieu's minions go to work to slander and burn.

It is no small order to make the claim that The Devil's is director Ken Russell's most audacious work. Known for pushing the envelope throughout his career The Devil is a relentless non-stop depiction of witch hunt depravity graphically presented by Russell who takes things to such a fever pitch you wonder if he has control during moments as the literal orgiastic trial runs into overtime. Featuring some of Russell's most outlandish as well as outstanding scenes and compositions it's devastating brutality never let's up with the opening portion of the film dealing with a plague. Even comedy relief such as the King's target practice having a very dark tone to it.

As Grandier, Reid effectively shows both virility and sensitivity as he defends the city while left vulnerable to carnal delight and love. Vanessa Redgrave's horny hunch back nun may be the most challenging role of her career that she gruesomely surmounts, the results riveting. Max Adrian as a quack doctor leads a supporting cast of well defined misanthropes bent on revenge and power.

Russell's interpretation of actual history ( with a mighty contribution from wife Shirley's outstanding costuming) paints some remarkable canvases throughout the Devils, most of it hard to look at and you walk away from it amazed and appalled; impressed and ill. The Devils is one tough watch.

astounding

[tbyrne4 · 10/10 · 22 January 2006]

I love love love love love this movie. Ken Russell (along with Greg Araki) is probably my favorite director of all time. He is an absolute showboat! The Wagner of film. Russell never met a line he couldn't bend into a circle and a light bulb he didn't explode into a star burst supernova. Where most directors are ascetic, Russell is a glutton. Where many whisper their convictions with hushed words, Russell screams through a megaphone. This I adore about him.

And "The Devils" is (drum roll please) his masterpiece! Yes, this film is savage. It is shocking. It is perverse and violent and all of that. But it is also one of the greatest films ever made. Very similar to "The Crucible" (and if you haven't read that, stop what you're doing and read it instead of this).

A priest (brilliantly played by Oliver Reed) in rennaisance era France is caught in a political squeeze play and becomes the subject of a (literal) witch hunt. He is put on trial for being a demon and a group of nuns are bullied by a crazy exorcist into claiming themselves possessed. The whole thing plays out with the maximum amount of grotesque-ness imaginable. Even if one is used to Russell's films what is shown here could prove unwatchable for some.

We get: nuns ripping their clothes off and running around naked (pretending to be possessed), people burned at the stake, forced vomiting, nuns copulating with Jesus (just a hallucination though), physical torture of many different varieties. It's very in your face. However, the subject is topical (obviously) and it really deserves to be seen by more people.

Another great reason to see this movie is Vanessa Redgrave, who plays a hunchbacked mother superior. A very conflicted character attracted to Oliver Reed. I've never liked Vanessa Redgrave much, but she is magnificent in this movie. And her performance is one of the creepiest I have ever seen, rivalling Paul Smith's sweating smiling sinister jail-guard in "Midnight Express".

However, my selfish view remains: I hope this movie never ever gets released on DVD that way it will stay unknown and I (and the rest of the smart people on earth) will get to enjoy it as our treasure and ours alone. It will not spread to the masses and be diluted and trod upon and destroyed. This film is art. It is not junk put out by your local movie studio. This is a film of passion and meaning and sweat and blood. If you are reading this and you have no idea what I am talking about: stop reading and go away and never watch this film. Ever! You will merely dilute it with your stupid, reality-TV watching fingers.

Thank you.

Also, some of Ken Russell's other great beautiful films include: Savage Messiah, Altered States, The Music Lovers, Women in Love, and Mahler.

Strange Mixture of the Meretricious and the Brilliant

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 30 April 2005]

The loosening of censorship restrictions in the late sixties and seventies led to a frenetic period in the history of the cinema, when nothing exceeded like excess and when filmmakers tried to break as many taboos as they could in the course of one movie, often egged on by critics who assumed that a controversial film was automatically a good one. Of course, a controversial film is not automatically a bad one, and there were many films which were rubbished at the time by the Moral Majority or the Mary Whitehouse tendency but which can now be seen as very good ones, even masterpieces. Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is a good example. Many others, however, Tinto Brass's "Caligula" being a notorious offender, simply seem to have been made according to the standard recipe in the Beginner's Guide to Making an Instant Art-house Classic; add a bit of kinky sex here, a bit more gruesome violence there, stir in a touch of blasphemy, garnish with a spurious intellectual justification and then sit back and wait for the howls of protest from the outraged bourgeoisie.

Ken Russell's "The Devils" falls somewhere between these two extremes. It is set in the French city of Loudun during the reign of Louis XIII. The King's ruthless Chief Minister, Cardinal Richelieu, is determined to bring the whole country under his centralised rule and to put an end to the privileges of self-government enjoyed by the country's towns and cities. The Cardinal's men arrive in Loudun to tear down the city walls, the symbols of its independence and freedom from central control, but are opposed by the local people under the leadership of a charismatic Catholic priest, Urbain Grandier. The Cardinal therefore decides to destroy Grandier by accusing him of heresy, a capital offence at that time.

There were some things about the film which I disliked. In tune with the spirit of his age, Russell tries to pile in as many shocking elements as he can. (It is not a film for those of a nervous disposition). The scenes showing graphically the sufferings of plague victims could be justified as giving an authentic picture of the seventeenth century, and the scenes of torture as driving home the message about the cruelty of the Inquisition, but I doubt if we needed such a stress on the sexuality of nuns. (Along with the neuroses of famous composers, this seems to be one of Russell's obsessions; there is a reference to masturbating nuns in "The Lair of the White Worm"). "Nunsploitation" films seem to have been in vogue in the seventies, but there is a long and unlovely history of convent-set pornography, mostly based upon a toxic mixture of prurience and anti-Catholic bigotry. "The Devils" falls within this tradition; one of its themes is the idea that Grandier is irresistible to women, including the nuns in the local convent who continually fantasise about him. I also disliked the modernistic sets; there seems little point in setting a film in seventeenth century France if you are going to film it against a backdrop that looks like a 1960s housing estate in Milton Keynes. At times the plot, particularly in the first half of the film, seems confusing. And did Louis XIII really wear a silver bikini when taking part in Court masques?

This film is, however, something more than the standard seventies mixture of sex, gore and pretentiousness. Russell was never a subtle director, and "The Devils", with its hectic visual style, is at times deliriously over the top. There are, however, two things which make it worth watching. Firstly, Russell does have some genuinely serious points to make about political power and the misuse of religion for political ends. Secondly, whatever his faults, Russell had the ability to bring out the best in his actors. His previous film "The Music Lovers" is otherwise of dubious artistic quality, but it does contain one very fine performance from Glenda Jackson. Jackson had turned down the chance to appear in "The Devils", but her replacement Vanessa Redgrave is also good here. The star performance, however, is from Oliver Reed as Grandier. Reed's reputation as a playboy and bon viveur has, rather unfairly, tended to overshadow his reputation as an actor, but at his best, as here, he could be brilliant.

Although Grandier is capable of great courage and integrity, his character is not idealised. He is a flawed hero, a man with something of the religious fanatic about him. He is also a sensual man who enjoys the pleasures of the flesh and has had affairs with several women. Contrary to the discipline of the Catholic priesthood, he has entered into an illegal marriage with a young woman. Although a Catholic, Grandier clearly has some sympathy with the city's Protestants, adopting their criticisms of priestly celibacy and endeavouring to protect them from persecution. Reed is able to convey all these conflicting elements in Grandier's character.

The resulting film is a strange mixture of the near-comic and the deeply serious, the meretricious and the brilliant. In my view it never quite justifies the very high regard in which Russell was once held as a director, but it is nevertheless fascinating to watch. 6/10

Greed, power, lust, religious hypocrisy, sexual repression...Ken Russell 101

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 30 July 2017]

Ken Russell's inflamed, flamboyant masochistic fantasies belong to their own sub-genre: nihilistic mini-epics designed to shock and repulse. Of course, it isn't Russell's thing to simply be shocking--he's much too tickled by his own blasphemies to stop there. The filmmaker wants to transcend cinematic controversy by desecrating everything mainstream audiences hold sacred. I imagine the crowds seeing "The Devils" in the early 1970s left the theater beaten and bowed (or, perhaps morbidly amused), most-assuredly talking about the director's visual conception of the material rather than the story or the performances. Too bad, as Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave are boldly compelling here, oozing sex and hysterical charisma as a whore-loving Catholic priest and a disfigured nun in 17th century France. In the town of Loudun, Father Grandier runs roughshod over the sniveling, power-seeking Baron de Laubardemont, who seeks to discredit the popular priest with an accusation of witchcraft by exploiting a confession of lust from the hunchbacked Sister Jeanne. Soon, the Baron and a lunatic 'exorcist' have all the nuns in the convent believing they are bewitched, leading to the film's most infamous sequence, a mass sham exorcism (naked nuns writhing in lust, slavering at the mouth and desecrating a statue of Christ). It is to Russell's credit that his actors do not come off looking foolish (except for a scene in which Redgrave, horrified at the news that Grandier has taken a wife, nearly shoves an entire rosary in her mouth); however, the film is monstrously ugly in a monotonous way that Russell probably didn't intend. The recklessly brazen, freakishly surreal images eventually blur together in one's mind, no longer highlighting individual sequences. Russell doesn't necessarily let the picture to get away from him as much as he allows it to become one big heap of horrors. Alas, "The Devils" is no longer disturbing because the audience is systemically benumbed by the director's check-list of atrocities. By the time we get to an elongated public burning, our thoughts may have moved on to other matters...such as, "Just how did Russell talk his actors into doing these things?" ** from ****

A brilliant, disturbing film

[eunice-4 · 30 November 1999]

I can never understand why "The Devils", which was such a major film and caused such controversy, never became a cult classic being shown every other week on cable TV. This film totally annihilates all the trashy "straight-to-video" horror films. Based on true events in 17th century France, this film is one of the most horrifying tales of man's intolerance: religious and sexual.

The tale begins with an outbreak of the plague, which the folk of the middle ages, with typical misunderstanding of the real cause, rat fleas, believed that someone was to blame. Who more convenient a scapegoat than Father Grandier, played by the notorious Oliver Reed an actor who ended his rambunctious life by dropping dead in a bar. The sexual appeal of Fr. Grandier drives the supposedly celibate clergy into a frenzy of jealousy. A group of nuns, led by a noblewoman who has been forced into the convent due to her physical deformity and therefore, lack of marriageable options, joins in the hysteria which is not satisfied until Fr. Grandier is burned at the stake.

Although set in France in the middle ages, a lot of the hysteria can be seen today, in our more enlightened times. Just witness the periodic witch hunts in the United States, such as the furore over the alleged Satanic cults running day care centers, not to mention the reds under the beds hysteria of the 50's.

This was one of Ken Russell's most controversial films, and definitely very 70's in its style, after all, we had Mick Jagger and Twiggy perfectly cast as decadent French nobility, and it has taken 20+ years to see how right on the mark he was.

Although Russell was the hottest thing in cinema for a while, he faded like a discarded fashion as every wannabe copied his style, but without being able to understand what is was that set Ken Russell apart. Unfortunately Russell did not help his reputation by becoming more and more the icon of bad taste. Eventually he became a parody and the fickle who had formally worshipped his genius could not disassociate themselves quickly enough.

Like Orson Welles, Ken Russell's brilliance will not be realized until a new generation discovers his work. I recommend "The Devils" along with "The Music Lovers" as his best work.

A shocking work of genius

[nikteacher · 10/10 · 28 April 2005]

My opinion of Ken Russell was, like many people, prejudiced before viewing by the many negative reports about his films. Every establishment film critic I read in the 1980s described him as exaggerated, unrealistic, sex-obsessed and vulgar. As a young man I felt these comments to be confirmed when I saw The Music Lovers, which (compared to Amadeus) seemed in my opinion to lack the requisite respectful period drama feel of a composer's biopic (little did I know that Russell had pioneered the composer biopic). However, The Devils blew me away both before and after reading Huxley's excellent history book on which it was based. It is a stunning and vivid recreation of a repressive period in France's religious history which has universal symbolic overtones, and the lack of realism (if it exists) could easily be the critic or viewer's inability to understand another age of history in the way a dedicated filmmaker can. It is a triumph of integrity, scriptwriting, acting, directing, design (by Derek Jarman, no less) and cerebral and visceral entertainment.

Warners Should Release This Film Onto-DVD NOW

[myboigie · 10/10 · 6 November 2006]

Ken Russell is a director you either hate or love--I'm with the latter, and enjoy irritating the same targets Russell does. The simple-fact that many of Ken Russell's films are hated makes me love them all-the-more. This is arguably his best film, and his only political one. As a period-piece, this film is stylized, but looks very convincing, and the cinematography and set-designs by Derek Jarman (another genius of film) are stellar. Consider why films like this one aren't made often, and you have part of the answer as to why this film is still so shocking. Many people dislike his films because of what he reveals about all of us, but that's too-bad. People didn't like what Auschwitz said about humanity, but there it is. Apparently, Warner Brothers has finally-decided to release this film as a director's-cut in 2006, or 2007. It is being-reported that all footage removed by the BBFC and American- censors (mainly Warners) in 1971 will be reinstated in an "unrated-cut" approved by the director. It may have been taken from the Aldous Huxley book, and the 1960s play by John Whiting, but it is Ken Russell's film.

Also-included will be the BBC-documentary by Mark Kermode ("Hell on Earth"), about the making-of the film, and the firestorm it created. The "renegade" DVD by Angelfire is acceptable, and will have to tide-us-over until then. It has the aforementioned Kermode documentary, and a widescreen-transfer (1.85:1, the wrong aspect-ratio, the film was Panavision at 2.35:1) of the film, with some of the deleted-scenes (like "the Rape of Christ") reinstated. It is a flawed-version, but adequate, and is relatively-cheap. This was a film that Warners hated after the executives saw the final-cut. The Warner press book-ads even state it was a hard-sell, with posters marketing the film as horror--it is, but a political-one. Some of the posters warned potential-audiences that it was a film "most people won't like"! In a film that bombards the viewer with violence, decay, plague, and death, it isn't surprising that people miss some of the film's thematic-points, it has a lot to say: the threats to individual-rights and liberties (and spiritual-liberty) are often played-out in the same ways in different times-and-places. You can see this in the parallels made-between Oliver Reed's character Father Grandier, and that of the accepted-Christology in 1600s-France (represented by the characters of Father Mignon, Sister Jeanne and Cardinal Richelieu--an unholy-trilogy?).

Is there much-difference in why Grandier is degraded similarly to Christ? Russell (a Catholic)goes-further: is there any-difference between the political-scapegoating of Urbain Grandier and Jesus? The answer should be obvious, and Richelieu's theocratic-yearnings for power can only be seen as a threat to liberty, just as they are now in the Middle East, and the United States. Even from that remote-year of 1971, Russell could be saying that these political and spiritual-struggles are one-and-the-same, and that they are eternal. This is not an exploitation-film, but it is as dark and horrific as any classic horror film. What is most-terrible is that it is true. Keep-in-mind not one image is in this film "by-mistake," as Russell places an image in a film for a specific-meaning and purpose. The film is a warning to be vigilant against the aims of power, and sheds-light on why Christ was crucified.

The images of people being-tortured, vomiting, acting-hysterically--they are not there to merely shock, but as a warning about social-hysterics of all-sorts. Repression can lead-to perversion, states Russell, resoundingly. Set specifically in 17th Century France after the eight "Hugenot Wars", "The Devils" should be read as a cautionary-tale of how people can willingly give-up their liberties in uncertain times, not-unlike our own. The religious-wars still rage, and will continue to. With the world finally being able see what director Ken Russell intended, we might see this film being very-influential in years-to-come. Italian-filmmakers were inspired--they created the "nunsploitation-genre" from-it! Good lapsed-Catholics, all. This is what the "Grand Guignol" was based-on. From the 1600s-to-now, the threats are the same. Only technology has changed. Bother Warner Bros. into releasing this classic at:

Bizarre and Brilliant

[Rainey-Dawn · 9/10 · 1 July 2014]

One of the best history movies ever made that deals with religion, witchcraft and the occult. The story and visuals are just as bizarre and controversial as the subject matter. And the movie can easily fall into the genre of horror - it is that creepy.

If you are interested in horror movies, religion, occult topics, witchcraft, or in history films in general then you should enjoy the movie "The Devils". It is good.

I do not believe the film is 100% accurate with it's history facts - but I'm sure it comes somewhat close what happened in 17th-century France. I found that I had extreme pity for Father Urbain Grandier played brilliantly by Oliver Reed.

I also think the title of the movie and film's poster does not do justice to the film. They have the movie looking and sounding like a just another b-rated horror flick instead of a good history movie. Change the title and look of the poster then you might have more history lovers wanting to watch it.

9.5/10

Pity so unavailable...

[dougsteckler · 10/10 · 23 July 2021]

...as it is Ken Russell's finest film. Period. So easily dismissed for its majesty without God, but that is its redemption as its blistering horrors are all true. Russell so very desperately wanted to put over the wild insanity of Mass Hysteria that viewers could nay accept that they lived in this world of such agonistic horror. Condemned. Lost. Forgetten.

Have you a copy...post it. NOW.

Torturous mixed bag of a film

[AdrenalinDragon · 6/10 · 2 August 2021]

A film with striking setpieces, interesting ideas, and visuals. The Devils is a famous artsy movie that I can tell is well made and performed, but it didn't really click for me personally and seemed like it meandered in places. Some of the sex/torture stuff felt a bit overblown.

Yes I am aware this is a controversial movie and that's kind of the point, but I dunno it just felt like some of it wasn't needed to be there and was just padding out the runtime. Either way, the film wasn't really my cup of tea, but it has some merit and intrigue that keeps it fairly watchable for me.

6/10.

Criterion. Where are You?

[sb-18109 · 9/10 · 3 August 2022]

I can't believe that someone still hasn't released a definitive version of this film on Blu Ray. I used to work in a video store and the copy we had was cut up so badly that the plot was incomprehensible. I own a DVD that seems to probably be uncut but the picture is faded and the colors aren't very bright. Also, the sound pretty bad. However, as far as I know it's the only uncut version out there. Hell, The Criterion Collection released Salo and that's miles more depraved and offensive (watch it though) than this film. I was raised Catholic and the whole film is blasphemous. When I first read Marquis de Sade's The 120 Days of Sodom (I almost couldn't finish it), the book on which Salo is based, I said to myself alot that I was going to go to Hell for reading this. The Devils gave me the same feeling. I haven't been a practicing Catholic for 45 years but those teachings are still ingrained in your subconscious. Visually, this is an absolutely beautiful film. The stark black and white colors of Loudoun and the Abby have never been duplicated as far as I know. The scene where the hysterical nuns simulate sex with Jesus on a giant cross are a bit much. It brought back the I'm going to hell for watching this. The violence in parts is still shocking even though it's 50 years old. The only flaw is Ken Russell's insistence of putting corny, un funny humor in his films. If there was ever a film that didn't need any humor it's this one. It's here though and it detracts from the flow of the film for no good reason. That's a small quibble though since the film is pretty much a masterpiece. The performances are flawless. It's Oliver Reed's best performance and Vanessa Redgrave is unforgettable as the deranged Sister Jeanne (I hope that's how it's spelled). In fact everyone is absolutely top shelf (except maybe the guy who plays the king and brings the awful humor to the movie). So, Criterion please release a version of this. Everyone else watch it without a doubt unless you hate violence, depravity and general unpleasantness. If you're a practicing Christian (especially Catholic) skip it too unless you want that I'm going to Hell feeling . Ken Russell's best film and one of the best films of all time. Watch it!

Shocking, morbid, and a lesson to any cinema lover

[margotmaesmm · 6/10 · 29 September 2017]

A shocking, morbid story that approaches Satanism and corruption from a new perspective. Even though the debated subject is an interesting one, some people might prove too sensitive for these kind of movies, me being one of them. Not a very enjoyable movie when it comes to plot, but the cinematography is a lesson to any cinema lover.

Brace Yourself, This Is Horrifying

[LeonardKniffel · 8/10 · 29 April 2020]

"The Devils," when it was first released to theaters, is the only movie that I have ever walked out on. I just could not take one more moment of Oliver Reed's face sizzling as he was burned at the stake. It is a movie image I wish I could erase from my memory. I agree with reviewers who call this a disturbing film. It may be a masterpiece of sorts, and it does graphically portray the brutality of the Inquisition but it does so in a way that tries to transport us there. No thanks. This is one of those movies that seems to assume you cannot be moved by anything less than a club over the head. It is great movie making, but I will never watch it again. I'll take Ken Russell's "The Elephant Man" any day.

Russell at his most outrageous, if you like that sort of thing

[cherold · 6/10 · 23 June 2023]

The Devils is nutty movie with lots of naked nuns and torture in it. It features a popular, horny priest who gets in the way of powerful people and hunchbacked, horny nun who's obsessed with him.

I liked this movie at first. It's very over the top but in a fun way, and Vanessa Redgrave is terrific as the disturbed nun. But as it got both more horrific and more confused I found myself losing interest.

The movie seems in conflict with itself. Oliver Reed's part gets continually more serious, like something from Lion in Winter of Man for all Seasons, while the rest of the movie becomes a weird mix of disturbing horror and burlesque comedy. The torture scenes are directed like something from a Richard Lester comedy yet are also disturbing.

At a certain point the movie seemed to explode into randomness. There's a scene where all the nuns go crazy and get naked, but why? I know there were some cuts that Russell said made the film more confusing, so perhaps this wasn't so abrupt and out-of-nowhere originally, but I can only go by what I see and what I saw made zero sense. From that point on everything seemed increasingly random.

By the end the horror and tragedy are the focus, but I didn't feel the movie earned its sense of tragedy.

My feeling is, you can make Holy Grail or you can make Man for All Seasons but you can't make both at the same time, which seems to have been Russell's goal. If I could go back in time I would skip this one.

Horrid

[jimbo-53-186511 · 1/10 · 14 March 2015]

I don't consider myself to be a particularly religious person so the controversial (anti-protestant) stance didn't really faze me (although I can easily understand if others are offended by this film). My main issues with this film extend to the following;

This is quite a chaotic picture and it seemed to me that Russell was more bothered about causing controversy and shocking his audience at the expense of telling a potentially interesting true story. I must admit some of the early scenes were quite disturbing, but for the first hour it was just overkill as the film went from one over the top sequence to another. We're then treated to a lot of incomprehensible dialogue, ridiculous set-pieces, over the top acting. Lots of things happened in the first hour that seemed to do nothing to advance the story. Now I'm not the sort of person to pan a film just because it's controversial (A Clockwork Orange is a great film which also caused a lot of controversy in its day), but the thing that harms this film so much is that it's so boring. No matter how much I tried, I just could not get involved in the story - the shock factor is OK at first, but when there's nothing of substance to back it up, it grows repetitive and starts to feel like a bit of a gimmick.

Russell does start to show some focus in the final 30 minutes or so, but even in these final 30 minutes we're treated to some rather formulaic plot twists that did nothing to improve my opinion of the film as a whole.

Looking at the acting then again I'll use the words 'over the top'. Redgrave spends the whole time with her head cocked to the left and either speaks at about 3 decibels or shouts at about 300 decibels. Reed fared slightly better, although there were many occasions when he seemed to speak then shout when delivering his lines. The worst offender was Michael Gothard as Father Barre whose acting was embarrassingly bad.

This is a shocking film, but there is one thing I can think of that is more shocking than this film and that is..... it's IMDb rating. 7.8 for this monstrosity is taking the proverbial. I found it boring, ridiculous and quite empty if I'm honest. A truly awful film that I have no desire to ever watch again.