Le diable dans le sang

AKA: Chemical Wedding

Rating: 3 out of 5

Genre: Horror, Science Fiction, Occult

Director: Julian Doyle

Stars: Robert Ashby, Jared Ashe, Terence Bayler, Antonia Beamish, Esmé Bianco, Geoff Breton, Simon Callow, Jud Charlton, Lucy Cudden, Lily Dumont, Richard Franklin

Synopsis: At an English academy the most powerful computer in the world is used to perform time sensitive experiments. When an experiment goes awry and the spirit of Aleister Crowley inhabits a professor participating in the experiment.

Thoughts: I could explain the plot but I can't really do it justice. The detailed script written by the director and Bruce Dickinson (from the metal legends Iron Maiden) is pretty good with you enough twisted Crowley debauchery to keep you engaged. The first thirty or so minutes are a bit slow so hang in. As you can guess a horror film that borrows from the depraved life of the "Wickedest Man in the World" gives you such perverted pleasures as orgies and canning. The script does get a bit bogged down in the final act when its more lofty, SciFi conventions kick in but hey it delivers the weird goods.

In Conclusion: Yup we get treated to Iron Maiden and Dickinson tunes throughout the film. Not enough but that's just me. Say didn't the mighty Bruce become a born-again Christian? An odd choice and subject for a horror movie I believe. 

On the whole I like this movie because its about the only film I know that deals with Alaistor Crowley - an incredible man who is long overdue for a major film of his life. Unfortunately the makers of this film go for the easy option and make Crowley into a right evil sod..........killing people whenever it takes his fancy.........all in pursuit of the "chemical wedding".

Now in reality Crowley sounds like he was a man to be feared and avoided but he didn't go around killing people - despite all the newspaper garbage of the time about him being the most wicked man in the world, etc, etc. Why the makers chose this approach to an interesting subject is anybody's guess - but it probably comes down to box-office! Dress up Crowley as the occult's answer to Hannibal Lector and it will ring up megabucks at the box-office........or at least the makers hope! However despite those reservations its still quite an unusual film and well worth seeing - even if its just for Simon Callows marvellous OTT turn as Crowley. But as I've indicated the definitive film on the Great Beast is still to be made. Lets hope British film-makers do it before Hollywood does!

"To pee or not to pee?" Aleister Crowley, infamous British occultist who liked to be called The Beast 666, was something of a boyhood hero of mine, I read numerous books and articles about his fascinating life and beliefs. This movie starts off in his final year of 1947, two young scholars drive a vintage car to the residential home where he spent his final days. Those road markings look awfully modern, oh dear! Move on 43 or 50 years into the future (different websites give different years but I can't be bothered to re-watch the film to find out. What I do know is that there are some cars shown that wouldn't have been built yet!). An experiment about virtual reality takes place at Trinity College, Cambridge, and Crowley is reincarnated, taking the place of a Prof Haddo. It's a fairly interesting and ambitious idea but it is also very confusing which in my opinion ultimately fails. Simon Callow plays both Crowley and Haddo. He is a lot of fun to watch as The Beast but his Haddo character is quietly spoken and has a bad - in more ways than one - stutter, which I found annoying. Crowley is actually played by two actors, the other one being John Shrapnel, I don't know why. Fans of Iron Maiden may be drawn to this film because it was part written by frontman Bruce Dickinson. He also plays a couple of small parts and the soundtrack features a few Maiden tracks - plus George Formby! In the DVD extras he and director Julian Doyle explain that they didn't have the budget to do a period film about Crowley, hence the idea of saving money by bringing him to the modern day. Fair enough. Crowley liked to shock and he used a lot of sex in his magick. Rated BBFC 18 the movie features a great deal of swearing and sexual language, nudity, drug taking and some violence. Those with weak stomachs may not like the bodily fluids of urine, semen and excrement on display (all fake). Callow gives good value playing Crowley but this is a million miles from being a biographic account of the man. Chemical Wedding is a curiosity of science fiction, horror and magick, if you are curious about the real Crowley then I would suggest reading something like "The Great Beast" by John Symonds. For me this film proved to be a mixed bag, Crowley himself was entertaining but the plot was silly, some of the acting was poor and after 107 minutes I'd had enough.

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!