Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Alistair Olson After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Scott LeBrun Although absolutely nothing special, this documentary by Ray Laurent takes us inside the Church of Satan, founded in California in the 1960s by Anton Szandor LaVey, a former circus lion tamer. It has no narrator, and isn't really attempting to tell a story. It's more a series of interviews - with subjects either standing and talking or sitting down and talking - and therefore, it may be rather boring to some viewers. But the material does have a certain fascination and interest level going for it. At least, that was the case for this viewer. Laurent films the perspectives of various witnesses to this phenomenon: neighbors, flock members, opponents, etc., as well as the man himself.It's not overwhelmingly cinematic, but there are some decent camera angles and movements throughout; the lighting is also noteworthy. The main reason to watch is to see this vintage footage of Mr. LaVey, who comes across as a fairly charismatic, fairly easygoing individual. He based his "religion", if one can call it that, on the idea that humans are basically flawed anyway, and that these flaws could be celebrated and even encouraged. He felt that most organized religion spent too much time condemning people and insisting that they do / not do certain things.If nothing else, "Satanis: The Devil's Mass" is an amusing enough look at an alternative lifestyle, no matter what one may think of Mr. Lavey's personal beliefs. We are witness to some entertaining decadence: nude women on altars, ass whippings, the expected incantations and rituals, etc. Among the major topics covered are public reactions to the goings-on at LaVey's "Black House" in San Francisco in the 60s, the hassles with the law due to Mr. LaVey having a pet lion at his residence, and his response when confronted with the notion that he may be nothing more than a big phony.This is worth a look for curiosity seekers, provided they don't get their hopes up too high about it.Six out of 10.

Vornoff-3 This movie doesn't contain much that's really exciting, much less surprising, about the early Church of Satan, but it does show LaVey and his cronies at a time when he was still optimistic and not cynical about the future of his organization. There are also great shots of the Black House during its heyday (before the "androids" took over) and some interesting footage of Togare the lion. The filmmakers seem to have decided that Satanism wasn't as shocking as they'd hoped, so they went for humor where possible, and that wears thin after a while. The interviews where LaVey speaks for himself are fairly good, but the interviews with other Church members are annoying and at times you can see the embarrassment on Anton's face when someone else speaks – nobody in this film, aside from LaVey and his family, went on to become any kind of leader in the tiny marginalized world of the Left Hand Path, and that should tell you something about the quality of membership in SF at the time. I still find it an interesting piece, but I think about 40 minutes could be shaved off without losing anything.

Scarecrow-88 Anton LaVey and his followers in the Church of Satan(..lovingly called "the Black House") are the focus of this rambling, flatly photographed documentary featuring interviews from them and neighbors who live nearby in San Francisco. We listen to them explain their philosophy in detail, how they feel about Christianity(..and Christians themselves) and how it relates to Satanism, performing various ceremonial rituals, not to mention the documentary visualizes the decor and lifestyle of those who are a part of this church. The interviews range from interesting and informative, to tedious and long-winded. The ceremonies they perform are rather unflattering(..mainly because those involved in the church, the women often nude, aren't exactly beauty queens)and vulgar, LaVey reading from texts, wardrobed in a black cap, wearing horns. Neighbors offer their tales regarding the church, the documentarian Ray Laurent getting points of view besides the Satanists. This is the kind of documentary which allows those interviewed a platform to speak their minds. The sound isn't the best in the world, and it's quite a free exercise in a lack of restraint, not polished, in need of some work regarding voices overlapping(..it's bad enough that the sound is poor, but to not hear what the subjects are saying because they are talking over each other makes matters more difficult). This is quite an obscure relic, a peek into a very different way of life, where those interviewed consider themselves not the abnormal sect of society, but right the opposite. An opinion well established and repeated time and again, particularly by LaVey, is the idea of embracing your carnal thoughts and feelings, despite how others as a whole might react to engaging in such lusts and activity. Laurent, to his credit, doesn't judge either side, and merely films those interviewed, allowing us to hear from different people. The situation with the lion is rather amusing, but I had grown intolerant(..an emotional feeling LaVey wasn't fond of)with the repulsive nakedness after a while.

MartinHafer The Church of Satan was a very small and quirky organization that began in, where else, San Francisco, by Anton LaVey. This film is a documentary about the church, their beliefs, the neighbors' attitudes towards them and those who attend. While this is an interesting topic, the fact that it's such a small and insignificant organization makes it of marginal historical and social interest.Other than showing some of the ceremonies of this organization, this documentary simply lets people within and outside the organization talk with very, very little direction from the film makers. In fact, the entire film seems rather non-planned and not particularly structured. Because of this, the film tends to wander at times and many of the interviews look as if they should be edited heavily. Simply recording people and stringing the interviews together is not great film making and some might find the whole thing tedious after a while. I truly believe the film could have been half as long or even shorter and been much more interesting and effective. There are also some nudes (mostly quite unattractive) and a bare butt being flogged. They don't particularly seem interesting or necessary and I wonder if they were added to try to "spice up" an otherwise dull film.What I would have enjoyed a lot more would have been more of a biographical study of LaVey or Alistair Crowley--to figure out what made them tick, so to speak. Otherwise, just listening to everyone talk and talk and talk became quite a strain on most people's patience. If only they could get Louis Theroux to interview the current members and high priest of the Church of Satan--now THAT would be interesting.