Le diable dans le sang

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.

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!

Aleister Crowley, one of the greatest of the magicians, is dead. But what if someone were to synthesize his essence in a computer program, and import it into the human mind... could Crowley be reborn, or at least simulated? England is about to find out, thanks to a program called Z93. As one might expect from Crowley (and Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickinson), chaos ensues.

My background on this film was mixed. I had heard largely unkind things said about it, including suggestions that it wasn't even worth viewing. As for the subject matter, my knowledge is relatively minimal. I've never been an Iron Maiden fan, and although I have read Crowley's "Diary of a Drug Fiend", that is more or less the extent of my awareness of him. I do, however, know a bit about Eliphas Levi, who is referenced in the film.

Despite the rash of bad reviews this film received, I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it beginning to end. I found the idea very clever and original, Simon Callow's portrayal of Crowley to be flawless (especially playing two diverse characters), and the film's pushing of the limits to be a welcome surprise. I've seen the limits of violence pushed, but rarely in horror do we see sexual magick pursued with such graphic imagery. One scene involving a fax machine is particularly interesting. The images in general are vivid and alluring. Director Julian Doyle knows how to get his vision on film and does it here.

Besides Callow, the other performances are also top notch. The professors and the female lead are superb. The lead in particular was both sexy and graceful and had all the skills of a seasoned actress. I am not familiar with her work, but if we see her more often, this wouldn't be a surprise at all and may be a pleasant addition to the list of recurring actresses working in cinema today.

I had two minor concerns. First, why is getting a photo of Crowley so hard? One of the subplots involves the school's newspaper looking for a photo and they either never find one or fail to for several scenes. The film takes place in 2000, so the Internet should be available, and even without it, any occult book should have one of the more common photos (such as with Crowley wearing the pyramid on his head). Also, maybe it's me (it's probably me), but I found Mathers and Victor to be confusing. Once Victor gets scarred, there's no problem, but before that I wasn't always clear which one was on screen. Am I alone on this?

I encourage you to see "Crowley" as soon as you can. I find more and more often the few enjoyable films I view are re-issues of classic or forgotten titles, usually foreign. "Crowley" departs from that, breaking the mold... it may just be the first good horror film of 2009 (excluding re-issues). And based on what I'm seeing on the horizon, it will likely not have much competition.

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.

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).