Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Patrick Nackaert "What am I watching?" Is a question you might ask frequently in this film. The story seems simple: in an attempt to centralise power in France, a cardinal orders the walls of a city to be brought down. To do this, a priest defending the city should be convicted of witchcraft.If one would only see the written dialogues, the film could still be 'normal'. However, it isn't.First of all, it's intense. Heavy-worded dialogues follow up on each other and are brought in an almost vicious way. Action happens quickly. The shots are cut at a very quick pace.Second, the amount of nudity, sexual behaviour and profanity might shock many viewers. Their purpose is to show the corruptness of religion.Third, the music is just... disturbing. It adds to the disorientation in the movie as well as the whole photography.Now, the question is: was it all worth it? My opinion: yes. Although this film is not to be viewed by persons who are easily upset or have an aversion for 'weird' films. The pace and profanity were even a little too much for me. But it fits the purpose: to show the hypocrisy and corruption in the heart of the church, leaving you wondering if it really was like that in that period in time.Another thing that left me wondering: why are Cardinal Richelieu and one of his priests wearing John Lennon glasses that could only have been made in the 20th century?

Alana Fu As the movie started I didn't think I'd make it through the whole thing: disturbing images, religion, 17th century. Nothing I'm particularly interested in (I downloaded the movie to watch Vanessa Redgrave, and oh she should have won 20 awards for this movie! So should Oliver Reed!!). Turns out it's an epic, powerful, and in some degrees heart-warming dramatic masterpiece. As a classic Ken Russell movie, it's packed with "fun":orgies, dances, dark humors. The lines are witty, the characters are vivid, the emotions are fiery. To my surprise it is also very relatable: it's about how the system deceives and tortures the people, it's about a man who stands for the truth. The executor scene brought tears to my eyes, and I had to take a few deep breathes afterwards to cool down. Ken Russell once proved that he does not only make "music video" movies, he's truly great story teller, and oh what a story!

jimbo-53-186511 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.

Rainey Dawn 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