Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
60 of 61 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Five stars for the film, but don't buy this version., 17 Aug 2002
If you want to see Ken Russell's finest film, The Devils, you MUST buy the version released in the UK in the Maverick Directors series in 1997, and buy it soon, because I think it has been deleted by Warner Bros. Every other video incarnation of The Devils is a disgrace. The picture is murky, grainy and distorted, ruining the impact of the fabulous sets and photography. And, most importantly, every other VHS uses the heavily censored American version of the film, rather than the full UK print.Two minutes were chopped, and a further two minutes (approx) were re-edited, so that, in many scenes, the soundtracks of the US and UK versions are identical, but the visuals are completely different. EVERY SINGLE SCENE that has gross, violent or raunchy images (quite a few in this film) was toned down for the US - the orgies and the fiery finale were completely butchered. The US version, which may now be the only version available in the UK, is so heavily censored, it's almost a different film. Whatever its faults, The Devils is an impressive, provocative film that no major studio would dare to make today, and it deserves to be seen in the best possible condition. When will we get this film, in the UK cut, on DVD? Poor old Ken Russell may not be trendy now, but don't forget that The Devils won several awards, including Best Foreign Film in the Venice Film Festival, and is certainly more worthy of a DVD revival that the heaps of no-brain cr** being released every week.
|
|
|
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Need A DVD Warner Brothers!!, 30 Nov 2002
This movie is no easier to sit through than it was when it was first released. It's a graphic, grim, horrific look at the confusion, superstition and religious frenzy that took place in a small French province during the reign of Louis XIII, when Cardinal Richelieu reigned supreme and "the Inquisition" had made its way from Spain. The Huxley novel and Whiting play from which it was adapted are well worth looking into, as both do more than adequate jobs at telling the same story. I believe this was Russell's finest effort, his perfect medium. It is a subject that calls for histrionic direction, of which Ken is the exemplar. He turned his actors and technicians loose and the result is emotional and graphic overload, but (and this is an exception in his case) not overkill. There is actually a detached quality to the depictions that seperates the audience from the scene in a near Brechtian way. I think a lot of this has to do with the actor's choices. Redgrave and Reed were at the height of their respective powers at this point (and both had turned in great performances for Russell beforehand) and were comfortable in their strange roles. The film is decidedly offbeat and disconcerting, but then so were the novel and the stage-play. Am I imagining this, or has Russell never been up for Best-Director come Oscar time? Hard to believe when one looks back on his career. Then again, I'm not a movie buff, so maybe someone can e-mail me if they know differently.
|
|
|
|