Smoreni Zmaj 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.

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.

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.

danthedanimal I saw this movie when it was first released with all the hoopla and X rating and I wanted to like it. I saw it six more times hoping that all the hype about Ken Russell's photographic genius would sweep me up and make me think this was an iconic piece of cinema. God knows we heard a lot of people say he was brilliant after Women In Love. But time does something to us with perspective and vision. And as beautiful as I think this film was shot... I just couldn't get past how indulgent and obtrusive Ken Russell's camera was to the story. He was so obsessed with creating a visual that story is lost.. emotion is lost.. we are completely extracted from anything that would make us feel "involved." I love Vanessa Redgrave and I think the role she had in this was brilliant if it had been in the hands of someone who made you care rather than someone more concerned about cinematic trickery. I hope at some point in time another director attempts to tell this story in a way that pulls us into it rather than pushes us out of it.