Nonureva Really Surprised!

Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

moonspinner55 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 an earlier scene with Redgrave, horrified at the news that Grandier has taken a wife, nearly shoving 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 (startling at first) eventually no longer highlight individual sequences. Russell doesn't necessarily allow the picture to get away from him as much as he lets it become a nightmarish blur, 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 ****

Mr_Ectoplasma And I'm serious. Ken Russell's infamous masterpiece, "The Devils," focuses on a seventeenth century French village where a group of Ursuline nuns incite chaos, sacrilege, and full-blown Catholic hysteria after they accuse a local priest of witchcraft.If anyone has read Aldous Huxley's brilliant historical novel on which the film is based, then they are well familiar with the story, which is actually based on historical fact. Was it possession, or merely good old-fashioned religious mania? Ken Russell would contest the latter, and he's probably right.In any case, this oft-discussed, little-seen film is Russell's magnum opus, and it's disgusting that he never lived to see the film receive proper treatment from the Warner Bros. cronies who have vainly kept the film under wraps for decades. "The Devils," in all of its controversial imagery, histrionics, and shocking thematics, is truly a work of high art, and deserves to be treated as such. In a perfect world, this film would be regarded with the same level of praise we give "The Exorcist." The problem is that, in spite of all its vulgarities, a film like "The Exorcist" reifies the religious establishment, while "The Devils, at the very least, challenges it; at the most, it seeks to dismantle it; and that is the reason it's had so much opposition from its corporate containers.As far as the film itself is concerned, the cinematography here is surreal and at times hallucinogenic, with bizarre frames of desert landscapes, and the stone, white-walled dwellings of the nuns which evoke the sanitized environs of a psych ward. The narrative unspools at an even pace, and the audience sees a car crash coming from a mile away, yet the entire ride there is engrossing, both visually and thematically. Oliver Reed turns in a fantastic performance as Father Grandier, though I feel that Vanessa Redgrave is the real star here; her performance is terrifying and electric. She is perhaps the most vulnerable character in the film, and yet the most dangerous; the worlds she inhabits are projected by Redgrave with unbelievable dynamism. Counter to her is Gemma Jones as Grandier's naive "bride." Michael Gothard is even more over-the-top than Reed, playing a mad witch hunter, and Georgina Hale is fantastic and sinister as Grandier's sidelined sexual exploitee.As far as my claim that "The Devils" may be the most religious film ever made, by that I mean that it is profoundly critical of institutionalized religion and its turning in on itself. The film is admittedly vulgar, over-the-top, and profane—but it plays out the extreme, unchecked hysteria that threatens the integrity of a religious populace. The film is not so much "anti-religion" or "anti-Christian" as it is anti-institution (and anti-nationalist, while we're at it). The film is highly critical of not just the church, but is also laden with various themes of nationalism, church and state relations, governance and secession, and various other political topics. The film is rife with these various commentaries, and this is likely one of several reasons aside from its more blasphemous elements that Warner Bros. have padlocked it."The Devils" is one of the most spiritually politically significant films I've ever seen, yet, as of 2016, your only odds of watching it in North America are via a widely-circulated bootleg, or a scant VHS put out by Warner in the eighties (which features a heavily edited version of the film, no less). I pray the film will someday be given the credit and treatment it deserves (pun intended). Russell didn't live to see it happen. 10/10.

jlgAltman Let's get one thing out of the way, I adore Ken Russell. Something about his aesthetic is totally in sync with my world view. From WOMEN IN LOVE to WHORE, Russell always impresses. His rambunctious, over the top, more is more style should be ideal for THE DEVILS. Unfortunately, the film simply grows tiresome. You get what Russell is up to--group think, religious hysteria, sexual repression, etc... It takes about 30 minutes to get the point but the film goes on for another 90 piling on the atrocities and turning up the craziness. THE DEVILS feels like a madcap Hammer Horror which is a huge compliment. THE DEVILS also looks amazing with a white brick set that is totally modern and nothing to do with 17th century France, and yet it never feels as obvious as the film. Bravo Vanessa Redgrave for a no-holds-bar performance. She is spectacular and displays a restraint at moments that you wish the film had.

petarmatic Just like film Caligula and Brazil which film establishment tried so hard to sideline from the mainstream of the film history.Sometimes they make films on the borderline what is acceptable not to be given X rating. This is one of the films which is worth watching because film art rearly ventures in these waters.Plot is based on the historical events, but it has been given a modern touch which so well interacts with the plot. Well done! Acting is also excellent, I can not single out any of the actors, the whole ensemble is just fantastic.I strongly recommend that you obtain copy of this film and watch it, since it so rare that film making goes on the edge like it did with this film.