The Devils (1971)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Good movie but grossly overrated

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Absolutely Fantastic

Ken Russell's 1971 movie was released in a year that saw the directors of the counter culture movement bringing intense violent imagery to the screen that caused massive controversy. While its' brethren from that year, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and STRAW DOGS have been re-assessed and come to be adored by film fans, THE DEVILS has remained an embarrassment for the studio that released it, almost impossible to find on DVD in the US and still having only been shown uncut on a handful of occasions. The reason for that is probably not due to any of the often violent images in the movie, or for the copious nudity or masturbatory fantasies, it is mostly because the movie ticked off the wrong entity, the Catholic church.The movie is the story of Father Grandier, a priest of the people who holds great power in his town of Loudun. He is, also, not your typical priest, as he is more than willing to let loose his lustful cravings. He's, also, not a bad looking guy and that combination of those looks and that lust ends up in his ultimate downfall, as women who want him, or come to despise him end up playing a big part in tearing him down. Seems that a Cardinal is trying to gain power by sitting at the right hand of the king. The cardinal wants to bring an end to local power, but Grandier stands in his way by refusing to allow the walls of Loudun to be torn down. So, like many a leader in history, they use religion to tear those walls down. The accusal of witchcraft and possession from a nun who is clearly crazy sets the wheels in motion and from there bedlam breaks loose. A maniacal witch hunter whips the convent into a frenzy, a convent that just happens to be full of nubile, young women, who gladly unleash their sexual repression to display the work of the devil. Eventually, we get a farce of a trial and a horrifying execution.Forgetting the obvious subjects for a moment, the movie is beautiful and stylistic. This is the kind of movie that you could watch on mute, knowing nothing of what is being said, and still come away with a profound admiration of the movie because the imagery is that remarkable. Ken Russell said that he wanted to play with the idea of modernity. Though the movie is hundreds of years ago, the people in the movie think they are the height of modern times and the movie feels that way. The sets, such as the stark white nunnery, the striking walls of Loudun itself and the statue garden look of Grandier's home all seem like places from another world and time. The costumes are remarkable as well, from Grandier's flowing priest robes, to the frightening visage of the court judges and executioner and the rock star garb of the witch hunter. To contrast all of that are some of the images that really stick with the viewer, whether they are the horrific images of rotting protestants hanging on wheels or Grandier's burning, bubbled skin in the execution scene, or the sexually explicit images of naked nuns doing obscene things with candles and crucifixes or diabolic douches. People will be drawn to the movie because of the controversy and some will love it for the nature of the images, but it's the artistry of the film that sunk in for me.The acting is, also, incredible. Oliver Reed leads the show as Grandier. He is charismatic when needed, sensual in other scenes and movingly dramatic. He carries a power in his role that heightens the movie greatly. Vanessa Redgrave is, also, captivating, as a deformed nun who obsesses over Grandier. She teeters on the edge of madness and, perhaps, falls right off the edge. From the beginning, it is evident that she's not quite all there, but as she unravels, Redgrave plays the role as a woman that we never quite feel any sympathy for, yet do not see as a villain either. She is a complex character with a pivotal role. Perhaps my favorite character, though, is Michael Gothard as Father Barre, the witch hunter. He is a rock star of his time. He looks like it, he carries himself like it. He has an almost cartoonish quality, so over the top and animated, yet so intense. He is a maelstrom of wicked belief, so devout in his religion, so in love with his power.I guess that you can't review this movie without speaking of the controversy to some degree. Frankly, the movie is far more tame than I expected. Maybe that says something about me. Maybe that says something about how much times have changed since this movie's release. The version I have has the "Grandier's Bone" scene and the "Rape of Christ" scene as bonus features, not spliced in. Other than that, it is the full length BFI version that (to my novice knowledge) is the most complete version available for home release. While the movie certainly has its' share of shocking images and pushed the envelope in violence and sexuality, I don't think the movie would carry anything more than an "R" rating in today's world.I have seen a lot of controversial movies, in my time, that flat out suck. Movies like CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST or I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE would have disappeared into the dustbins of forgotten history a long time ago were it not for the controversy they stirred up. This movie is the polar opposite, in some ways. It is an absolute shame that this movie isn't celebrated. Controversy has allowed this movie to be not lost, but locked up, and it's time that it gets its' proper respect.

I thought that Clockwork Orange was sick...This movie is not nearly famous as Clockwork, but it should be. It is probably the sickest movie I ever watched. After this, Clockwork Orange looks like picture book for kids.And at the same time it is essentially good movie. Unlike Human Centipede and similar nonsense movies that try to cover absence of any quality by tons of abominations, this movie is equally nasty and really good piece of cinematography.Just try to put your prejudice aside and you'll enjoy it. Even if it is too much for some of us, it's quality can not be denied.

Director, Ken Russell's historical drama about womanizing priests, sex-crazed nuns, hypocrisy and hysteria in 17th-century France is a mixed bag for me. I find this nunspolitation film, somewhat smart and sophistical to watch, yet I didn't find it, that enjoyable, due to how much of a joke, it makes the historical events seem to be. It's really hard to watch. Based on the historical essay by author Aldous Huxley's "The Devils of Loudon." and the play, 'The Devils' by playwright, John Whiting, the movie tells the story of Father Urbain Grandier (Oliver Reed) who hopes to clean the city from the exploitation of the Church, only to find himself, accursed of witchcraft by a sexually repressed nun, Sister Jeanne des Anges (Vanessa Redgrave), whom under the control of the very corrupt, local Cardinal, Cardinal Richelieu (Christopher Logue). Without spoiling the movie, too much, one of the film, biggest faults is the fact that this movie is a very loose adaptation of the real-life bygone era. The movie get some of the dates, wrong, like the The movie really made the historical characters of the past, seem a little too outlandish, flamboyant, and cartoony than realistic, both in costumes and the use of language. In many ways, the movie feels more art-house performance gimmicky, than a deep and gritty, genuine depiction of real events. Its extreme use of shock value material like nudity and extreme violence, come out, looking more like a desperate attention ploy, than a great storytelling tool. A good example of this, is how they portray the nuns. I really doubt, the majority of the nuns at that time, went that crazy. There are 12 minutes of footage consisting of naked nuns acting nutty and exposing their genitalia to the cameras, and there are several nuns masturbating themselves on a giant crucifix. One naked woman sits on Christ's face, with Vanessa Redgrave masturbates herself with a candle, and later with the late Father Grandier's fire-blackened and phallic-shaped bone. None of this scenes seem to really happen. After all, in most accounts, the nuns for the most part, shriek for a little bit, did a few violence body convulsions and only a few, make sexual motions toward the priests. There wasn't a nun-orgy, as of what I have, research. Because of that, in my opinion, the film depiction of those events, were feeding too much to the fan service of being a Nunsploitation film. After all, those women in the film, were way too attraction, non-disable and young not to be, unmarriageable. Yet, I give the movie, some credit. The use of the absurd does leave a strong impression of the feeling of hysteria and confusion during the witch craze scenes. However, it was a little too jarring, when you compare, what happening on screen to what really happen. Plus, the music and the bad camera shots that went along with these scenes, are just ear-bleeding and eye-gouging annoying. It's one of the reason, why I didn't really like this movie, so much. Then, there are the bizarre add-ons; that the film added to the Grandier events that never did happen, until years later, such as the demolitions of the city walls to make way for the Catholicism over Protestants. One thing, I wish, the film mention more, was how this case, was just one of many similar witchcraft trials that occurred in the 17th century throughout Western Europe. It would give, this film, a lot more subtext on how hysteria was so easily made at the time. One thing, I kinda wish, this movie had, was a full-length version of the final product. It's really sad to say, that in the time of its release, this rated X movie was cut up, really badly, due to issues with its controversy taboo subject matter. It provoked protest and outrage from Christian groups and viewing audiences everywhere. It was banned outright in Italy and its stars (Redgrave and Reed) were threatened with three years' jail time if they entered the country. Even, some feminist hatred the film for it's over use of nudity, and violence toward women. Indeed, a lot of the explicit scenes were indeed taken out, from both the US & UK film versions and presumed lost or destroyed, because of that. It wasn't until critic Mark Kermode found the majority of the cuts scenes in 2002 and piece it all, together. Although, some material may have been lost forever. Despite that, the acting in the version, I got, was pretty good, somewhat. Speak of the Devil. Oliver Reed as Father Urbain Grandier was compelling. Vanessa Redgrave, while campy in some scenes, was majority, worthy to watch. It's the supporting characters that I really couldn't get, behind. None of them, were good. They play their characters, way too excessive and overdone. I would have nun of them. Check out, 1961's polish film, also based on the Loudon possessions, call, 'Mother Joan of the Angels' for a better depiction. It's a lot better than this film. Overall: This movie will not appeal to mainstream viewers. Even as a niche viewer. This movie has a lukewarm one time watch ability. Not worthy for a second time. It's a film, I really can't recommended.

I know people act grand about films sometimes, like they're the be all end all of life, but sometimes they just are. The Devils is one such film for me. I love everything about it, and I always hope to hear more people are seeing it. Recently I got a copy of it on DVD; though it's not the full version, it does have a few of the cut scenes. I have scene the completely uncut version before, and it was glorious.First of all, this was my introduction to Ken Russell. I've since seen a few more of his films, and I've got to say, at the very least Russell is intriguing. I mean, I know why some people feel how they feel about his work in general; it's all a bit wild when it comes down to it. I haven't seen all his films, but what I've seen has been intense. I think he's got magic in him. The Devils is a visual treat. There's something so medieval even about the way it's filmed.This is also the film where I fell in love with both Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave. There are several really good performances here; it's like an orgy of near over-the-top acting, but just near enough to still be cracking. However, it's Redgrave and Reed who really knock this one out into the parking lot. They're intense, real, raw, emotional. Redgrave, as a fanatical, Manson family-esque nun, is astounding, and though I love her films I really think this is the one role where she really gets me the most. Reed- where do I start? The man is one of the most intense, wild actors on and off the screen in the history of film, as far as I'm concerned. Here he plays the priest Urbain Grandier, accused of possessing a group of nuns and basically sexually destroying them, or so the nuns claim anyways. He does an amazing job, and some of the scenes are just agonizing to watch him in.What gets me here is the plot. It is based on true events; another stellar film, Mother Joan of the Angels, is based upon the same event. What I enjoy is how gritty the story is, and how terrifying the sense of religious power overtaking all these people is. It often reminds me of similar feelings I get while reading or watching Arthur Miller's The Crucible; the injustice and inhumanity, the lack of free thinking, rational thought of any kind, is just mind boggling and so frustrating. It really makes for a great film, combined with Ken Russell's visionary work. I highly recommend anybody seeing this- even if you can't see the fully uncut version, it's still worth it. Yet I still urge you to see it uncut, with The Rape of the Christ scene still in tact; that's the ultimate viewing of Russell's The Devils. 10 out of bloody 10.