A priest discovers his old friend traded his soul to Satan for Hollywood fame. Now remorseful, the friend seeks the priest's help to battle Satan and reclaim his soul.A priest discovers his old friend traded his soul to Satan for Hollywood fame. Now remorseful, the friend seeks the priest's help to battle Satan and reclaim his soul.A priest discovers his old friend traded his soul to Satan for Hollywood fame. Now remorseful, the friend seeks the priest's help to battle Satan and reclaim his soul.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
i couldn't beleive they released this,first off the acting is the worst i've ever seen the main character jack remained calm throughout the movie even when a cop stuck forks in his arm while he was tied down but yet after the priest shoots the cop that was tormenting jack he pulls five forks out of his arm and has full use of it ,doesnt complain about it and you never see any fork marks on his arm then to top it off a bunch of satanic ninjas are going around trying to help satan take over the world and jack made a deal with the devil ,he sold his soul to become famous so when ever he looks into someones eyes they want to kill him so the demon he made the deal with can have his soul. then theres a bunch of cheap fighting sequences against the satanic ninjas,my favorite is when they are in the woods and the priest has a chainsaw so he sees a ninja and all the sudden the camera blacks out for a second and it is a wooden dummy dressed as a ninja supposed to be the one he was fighting and he cuts off its arm. then at the end after the big budget fight scene in the woods a ninja calls jack's name and jack says "how did you know my name"? i dont know if the writer snorted crank along with the cast members on this one but jack sold his soul to be famous so wasnt the ninja supposed to know his name well i just gave you a couple good ones from this great big budget blockbuster you have to rent it to see the ending and also for a good laugh it doesnt get any worse than this
Back from Hell is something of a mess. The premise is entertainingly subversive--it's even quite compelling and alternately funny at times. Matt Jaissle is a one-man band (he directs, writes, produces, composes the score, does the cinematography, edits, mixes the Kool-Aid, etc.) who definitely exhibits passion about the genre and a great, enthusiastic attitude towards his material, but the technical and artistic elements of the film make it plod along like jalopy with square tires that's also missing a door, two fenders, and has three coats of primer over gaping rust holes.
The story is simple as long as you do not mind glossing over the details. Basically, Back from Hell is about two guys who were school buddies, but who have gone their separate ways. The one who became a preacher, Aaron (Shawn Scarbrough), is driving out to meet the one who tried to make it big in Hollywood, Jack (Larry Dubois). Jack has returned home to the Ann Arbor area after his Hollywood bid didn't go so well. He made a deal with Satan for success, but when Satan asked for human sacrifices as collateral, Jack backed out. From that point, the film is basically an excuse to introduce zombies and incompetent ninja Satanists (apparently they're big in Michigan) whom Jack and Aaron must battle.
I found Aaron an attractive character. He's a preacher who has come out to hear confession from his friend, and despite his weakly stated reservations, he ends up becoming an ass-kicking, murdering mercenary. Of course, if we pay close attention to the plot, it makes very little sense. Jack expressed reservations about offering human sacrifices, but in the flashback scene, he's shown killing some bum or something. It's almost hilarious how wanton Jack is about killing people throughout the film, and even more hilarious how easily Aaron joins him. The ninja Satanist guys remain fairly inexplicable. Jack seems involved with them somehow, but it remains a mystery. That's just the tip of the iceberg of the plot confusions and inconsistencies on a fine-grained look.
It doesn't help that the cinematography and lighting throughout the film are poor. The visual design could be compared to any random low-budget porno film from the early 1970s. On the other hand, the film's grunginess is an appropriate atmosphere, and Jaissle chose a couple attractive locations for exterior shots.
Also not helping are the horrible performances. DuBois, in particular, sounds like someone semi-literate trying to read their lines. On the other hand, the performances are occasionally hilarious. The standout on this end is the "cop demon"--I was laughing so hard at this over-the-top, almost Lynchian performance (it reminded me a bit of the Garmonbozia midget from Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)) that I had to pause the DVD.
The dialogue is usually banal, but there are also some catchy lines, if mainly because they're so ridiculous or ridiculously delivered. "Tell me I didn't just murder a man in cold blood", answered with, "You just performed a fast exorcism, pal" was amusing, as was "They say that (the) more things change, the more they stay the same . . . if Satan has taken over, things will certainly change, and things do seem to be the same", and of course, "Tell Satan I said . . . kiss my black ass!"
Jaissle tries to be John Carpenter by composing his own music. Unfortunately, he doesn't have quite the skill needed to write compelling, simple music that can be repeated throughout the film without becoming grating, in contrast to Carpenter's approach on films like Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) and Halloween (1978).
But as I mentioned, the attitude of the film is laudable, even if the extremely clunky technical abilities keep getting in the way. Jaissle does his best to get plenty of blood and gore in the film. Cutaway shots to one of our two "heroes" getting sprayed with blood pumping from the fresh jugular wound of an opponent is a big motif.
However, there is usually no suspense in the attack scenes. This can be blamed on a confluence of less-than-satisfactory elements, from the awkward directing to the bad performances and the lack of timing when it comes to editing. The gore is decent, but it usually comes across as stagy, which is not what you want to shoot for in a visceral horror film. This could be improved by better lighting and editing to hide some of the fakeness, but again, the directing and performances have a lot to do with it, too. It also doesn't help that some of the effects are painfully bad. A throat slashing with a knife couldn't look more fake, and the "evil Bible hand" couldn't be more obviously inanimate as Scarbrough "fights" against it.
On the positive side, Jaissle does enough admirably unusual things that I had a mini-epiphany while watching. I came to a better realization of why I love horror so much. What other genre can take such left turns and be so experimental when it comes to characterization, plot developments, actions, cinematography and so on? It's very unlikely that you'd see a romance, comedy, drama, etc.--at any budget level--suddenly start an extended sequence in negative colors with heavily processed, purposefully unintelligible dialogue (one of the better sequences of Back from Hell). You wouldn't even see other genres with a long late-film dialogue-free sequence of a principal character just walking through the woods, shot from a number of unusual angles (another good sequence). In horror, maybe because it isn't very well respected by the mainstream, filmmakers are truly free to do just about anything they can imagine. You can have any disposition and fate you like for any character, and you can do all kinds of experimental, "rule-breaking", artistic and technical things along the way. In this respect, Back from Hell is admirable, even if it's a mess.
The story is simple as long as you do not mind glossing over the details. Basically, Back from Hell is about two guys who were school buddies, but who have gone their separate ways. The one who became a preacher, Aaron (Shawn Scarbrough), is driving out to meet the one who tried to make it big in Hollywood, Jack (Larry Dubois). Jack has returned home to the Ann Arbor area after his Hollywood bid didn't go so well. He made a deal with Satan for success, but when Satan asked for human sacrifices as collateral, Jack backed out. From that point, the film is basically an excuse to introduce zombies and incompetent ninja Satanists (apparently they're big in Michigan) whom Jack and Aaron must battle.
I found Aaron an attractive character. He's a preacher who has come out to hear confession from his friend, and despite his weakly stated reservations, he ends up becoming an ass-kicking, murdering mercenary. Of course, if we pay close attention to the plot, it makes very little sense. Jack expressed reservations about offering human sacrifices, but in the flashback scene, he's shown killing some bum or something. It's almost hilarious how wanton Jack is about killing people throughout the film, and even more hilarious how easily Aaron joins him. The ninja Satanist guys remain fairly inexplicable. Jack seems involved with them somehow, but it remains a mystery. That's just the tip of the iceberg of the plot confusions and inconsistencies on a fine-grained look.
It doesn't help that the cinematography and lighting throughout the film are poor. The visual design could be compared to any random low-budget porno film from the early 1970s. On the other hand, the film's grunginess is an appropriate atmosphere, and Jaissle chose a couple attractive locations for exterior shots.
Also not helping are the horrible performances. DuBois, in particular, sounds like someone semi-literate trying to read their lines. On the other hand, the performances are occasionally hilarious. The standout on this end is the "cop demon"--I was laughing so hard at this over-the-top, almost Lynchian performance (it reminded me a bit of the Garmonbozia midget from Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)) that I had to pause the DVD.
The dialogue is usually banal, but there are also some catchy lines, if mainly because they're so ridiculous or ridiculously delivered. "Tell me I didn't just murder a man in cold blood", answered with, "You just performed a fast exorcism, pal" was amusing, as was "They say that (the) more things change, the more they stay the same . . . if Satan has taken over, things will certainly change, and things do seem to be the same", and of course, "Tell Satan I said . . . kiss my black ass!"
Jaissle tries to be John Carpenter by composing his own music. Unfortunately, he doesn't have quite the skill needed to write compelling, simple music that can be repeated throughout the film without becoming grating, in contrast to Carpenter's approach on films like Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) and Halloween (1978).
But as I mentioned, the attitude of the film is laudable, even if the extremely clunky technical abilities keep getting in the way. Jaissle does his best to get plenty of blood and gore in the film. Cutaway shots to one of our two "heroes" getting sprayed with blood pumping from the fresh jugular wound of an opponent is a big motif.
However, there is usually no suspense in the attack scenes. This can be blamed on a confluence of less-than-satisfactory elements, from the awkward directing to the bad performances and the lack of timing when it comes to editing. The gore is decent, but it usually comes across as stagy, which is not what you want to shoot for in a visceral horror film. This could be improved by better lighting and editing to hide some of the fakeness, but again, the directing and performances have a lot to do with it, too. It also doesn't help that some of the effects are painfully bad. A throat slashing with a knife couldn't look more fake, and the "evil Bible hand" couldn't be more obviously inanimate as Scarbrough "fights" against it.
On the positive side, Jaissle does enough admirably unusual things that I had a mini-epiphany while watching. I came to a better realization of why I love horror so much. What other genre can take such left turns and be so experimental when it comes to characterization, plot developments, actions, cinematography and so on? It's very unlikely that you'd see a romance, comedy, drama, etc.--at any budget level--suddenly start an extended sequence in negative colors with heavily processed, purposefully unintelligible dialogue (one of the better sequences of Back from Hell). You wouldn't even see other genres with a long late-film dialogue-free sequence of a principal character just walking through the woods, shot from a number of unusual angles (another good sequence). In horror, maybe because it isn't very well respected by the mainstream, filmmakers are truly free to do just about anything they can imagine. You can have any disposition and fate you like for any character, and you can do all kinds of experimental, "rule-breaking", artistic and technical things along the way. In this respect, Back from Hell is admirable, even if it's a mess.
I've seen a lot of junk in my day and I admit it freely. But every now and then a movie stands out for being so hideously inept you can't believe money ever exchanged hands in connection with it. Someone PURCHASED this? Someone spent money MAKING it? It looks for all the world like some dudes got some money together under the erroneous belief that all it takes to make a feature film is enough cash to pay for the film and equipment, and enthusiasm.
No, that's not true here because that's the biggest flaw of the movie--the two leads look more embalmed than any of the animated corpses, so enthusiasm must have been left out too! I wouldn't want to judge, but it's usually a good idea when casting leads to consider their abilities as actors...and their visual appeal! Maybe it's just me, but the sight of a pudgy guy with a mullet running around in late-80's stone-wash jeans (and please, God, if you exist, don't ever let that fashion style be resurrected!!) as a "hero" distracted me too much to enjoy this curdled, disappointing pile of mind-rot. Well, it WAS funny, but probably wasn't meant to be.
However! The filmmakers knew one thing--when you can't afford acting or sets or lights or sound or costumes or a decent script...bring on the splatter! It was the only thing that kept me from shutting this off--it was literally doused in blood, and grotesquely funny and satisfying in that sense. There's something heartwarming to a splatter fan when a filmmaker lets the camera linger on spurting grue, and here the grue sprays all over the actor's faces at every occasion. No, it makes no sense, but it's hilarious and satisfying cinematically to see the suffering actors repeatedly sit there and be drenched in red syrup, like a splatter version of the old show "You Can't Do That On Television" or something! This is one of the bloodier films I've seen, and I've seen some serious crap.
Other than that, utterly worthless, save your time and money for something else...
No, that's not true here because that's the biggest flaw of the movie--the two leads look more embalmed than any of the animated corpses, so enthusiasm must have been left out too! I wouldn't want to judge, but it's usually a good idea when casting leads to consider their abilities as actors...and their visual appeal! Maybe it's just me, but the sight of a pudgy guy with a mullet running around in late-80's stone-wash jeans (and please, God, if you exist, don't ever let that fashion style be resurrected!!) as a "hero" distracted me too much to enjoy this curdled, disappointing pile of mind-rot. Well, it WAS funny, but probably wasn't meant to be.
However! The filmmakers knew one thing--when you can't afford acting or sets or lights or sound or costumes or a decent script...bring on the splatter! It was the only thing that kept me from shutting this off--it was literally doused in blood, and grotesquely funny and satisfying in that sense. There's something heartwarming to a splatter fan when a filmmaker lets the camera linger on spurting grue, and here the grue sprays all over the actor's faces at every occasion. No, it makes no sense, but it's hilarious and satisfying cinematically to see the suffering actors repeatedly sit there and be drenched in red syrup, like a splatter version of the old show "You Can't Do That On Television" or something! This is one of the bloodier films I've seen, and I've seen some serious crap.
Other than that, utterly worthless, save your time and money for something else...
The story is about a priest and an ex actor who returns from Hollywood, the ex actor has sold his soul to Satan, and together they try to get his soul back. They fight against the evil forces which consist of Zombies, Demons, Ninjas who don't have any martial arts skills, Evil cops, Criminals and so on.
The film contains a lot of blood and some gore, stupid ninja costumes, horrible acting, horrible dialogues, however ,it doesn't contain any nudity or good looking chicks. The number of the people involved in this film is very limited, just few people. In short, Demon Apocalypse is a total piece of s**t that is only recommended to bad cinema fans. 2/10
The film contains a lot of blood and some gore, stupid ninja costumes, horrible acting, horrible dialogues, however ,it doesn't contain any nudity or good looking chicks. The number of the people involved in this film is very limited, just few people. In short, Demon Apocalypse is a total piece of s**t that is only recommended to bad cinema fans. 2/10
A priest and his friend must battle the forces of eeevil when Satan gets up to his old tricks again. World domination is his goal, and he'll use any means to attain it.
Or, something like that.
BACK FROM HELL is an astonishingly awful "film", complete with thrift store costumes, "actors" that must have been pulled right off the street moments before filming, and severely idiotic dialogue.
The main characters are brainless, and the diabolical minions they face are so poorly-realized that they elicit only laughter and groans. Even after taking the total lack of funding into account, this is a stench-fest!
MOST MEMORABLY TERRIBLE SCENE: The purple, rubber hand coming out of the bible to grab the priest's face. A real rib-tickler!
Watch this only if you want a bad case of cranial warts...
Or, something like that.
BACK FROM HELL is an astonishingly awful "film", complete with thrift store costumes, "actors" that must have been pulled right off the street moments before filming, and severely idiotic dialogue.
The main characters are brainless, and the diabolical minions they face are so poorly-realized that they elicit only laughter and groans. Even after taking the total lack of funding into account, this is a stench-fest!
MOST MEMORABLY TERRIBLE SCENE: The purple, rubber hand coming out of the bible to grab the priest's face. A real rib-tickler!
Watch this only if you want a bad case of cranial warts...
Did you know
- TriviaBack From Hell featured on Red Letter Media Best of the worst.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Best of the Worst: Terror Squad, Back from Hell, and Traxx (2025)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 22m(82 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content