Chemical Wedding

I want to like this movie more as it is connected to Bruce Dickinson.

I liked the concept and the basic story structure enough to make up for the massive flaws in this movie. I thought at times the movie was more gratuitous than it needed to be for no good reason... and I hate to say it, but the music was done poorly. That's not to say I don't like it, but that there were points in the movie where dialogue was impossible to understand because the music was louder. I also got confused at the end, but to be fair it's probably because the copy I watched was scratched during about three minutes- right at the climax of the movie.

I thought it was interesting though. The plot was well thought-out even if it was a bit scrunched. I liked all the references to occultism and quantum physics. If Bruce Dickinson writes another movie, I'll watch it... but I'll hope for better next time.

The premise was interesting though a bit convoluted.

The acting and directing were acceptable.

The one thing that ruined this film for me was the sound editing. Perhaps it was the copy I watched.

Perhaps it is really the way it was edited.

Dialog so low you cannot hear followed by a crappy musical score that blared every time it came in. If you are a fan of the music guy, and I am not, it may work for you. To me, the balance between music and dialog was totally amateur at best and ruined what could have been a very interesting movie.

If you have read anything by Crowley, the Satanic Bible, or Marquis de Sade, this movie will fall along those kind of lines and not upset you too much. However, if you can't handle a weird mixture of sadism (both sexual and other), a perversion of the Christian religion (mostly in the distortion of Biblical verses to emphasize sexual things), and (just for kicks) a little Sci-Fi (kinda like "The Mangler 2"), then do not watch. But, I found it entertaining, although a bit confusing trying to mix so many genres into one movie. Basically, a professor becomes possessed by Alastair Crowley, via virtual reality, which is being tested by (basically) an American Tech Support guy. Prof. Hallow completely changes. Most of the movie is about spouting Crowley's rhetoric, with a few deaths thrown in for good measure. The movie also quotes and/or refers to many ideas regarding thoughts about space, time, philosophy, etc. I cannot expand too much because it has been a very long time since I studied any of the points that are brought up in the movie. But I will say that the ones I remember (and the ones I looked up for a refresher), were accurately presented and expressed from an educated (for one opinion or another) point of view.

I do love the acting from the character Hallow. His descent into madness and deviance is great. The other actors are good as well, but his performance steals the show. Also note: do NOT let children watch this movie. There is at least one scene that is very "Fifty Shades".

I'm sorry I do not know any of the actors names.

I was torn when I watched this film - on the one hand, it's a very average film, mostly confusing and random, sometimes poorly acted (and sometimes not) and of a subject matter that I am very critical; on the other hand, if you view it as a (relatively) low-budget, British B-movie it's actually quite good. Not entertaining, mind you, it never actually manages to fight its way out of the swamp of "too many ideas, crammed into too little time with no coherence". But the production and direction of the film is commendable.

The basic plot of the film is that Aleister Crowley, "the wickedest man in Britain" (in the early part of the last century - I doubt he'd rank above "dirty old perv" these days) manages to get reincarnated into the body of a Cambridge professor (played by Simon Callow - by far the best part of the film) and starts a 4-day (? - the query is because a lot happens, but little relevant, over the 4 days) campaign to become wholly physical again.

Basically, stuff happens; lots of it random, and I'm sure was more meaningful to the writers than it was to me as a viewer (and that as an educated and informed viewer). Unfortunately, as good as it looks at times, and as many good ideas are just screaming to to be exploited, it just ends up being a B-movie. I'd still watch it though, just the once.

I realise that this constitutes a critique rather than a review, but it's difficult to sum up what happens in the film other than what I've just said - it's a bit random, and if you're into thelemic mysticism you'll probably enjoy it, but unfortunately I view the whole subject as occultism for people who are too scared to throw off the shackles of catholic Judaism, and compensate for their reticence to abandon Christianity for something more pure with an unhealthy interest in the Christian devil. But you're talking about a film about an early 20th century English occultist raised in a strict Christian family, so what can you expect? Anyway, if you're in the mood for a British B-movie (well made, but not exactly stimulating) - this is the movie for you (or watch Razorblade Smile or Dead Mans Shoes instead).

I would not pay too much attention to our American friend's review.One surely cannot have an opinion when he knows nothing of the film makers main character, who's nature and role, played an influential part in the world of the occult!

I could make a few assumptions that would lean on inadequate notions but lets get back to the film.

I found it quirky and at times a little to jazzed up.If you're into magik you will adore any scene that features the beast.If you are not into the man or magik, than it's not really for you.

You will just end up writing something silly like the gentleman from America and start waffling on about politics!