The spirited exchanges between the hero and the villain are a treat, and the atmosphere is great, but what makes this movie special is the demon. It is a truly memorable addition to cinema’s museum of monsters.
Review Snippet:
The key to John’s dilemma is understanding the rules governing Karswell’s demon. Back in 1957 you could not walk into a bookstore and buy a copy of “Summoning Demons for Dummies.” Heck, you still can’t. I even searched Amazon.com for the title. In that same nether vein, John also couldn’t Google “demon parchment Karswell” to look for answers. The Internet had not been invented. 1957 is so incredibly far in the past that Pong hadn’t been invented yet (and we all know how useful Pong is).
Lesson Learned:
80% of England is covered by wallpaper; 95% of which is ugly, 50% hideously so.
#1 by El Santo on August 10, 2010 - 9:28 am
Quote
I’m glad to hear that I’m not the only one who thinks that demon puppet is frigging awesome, and that it adds enormously to the impact of the film. Most of the time, people are all like, “Yeah, Curse of the Demon is great and all, but it would have been so much better without that sucky monster the producers insisted on adding at the last minute.”
#2 by Braineater on August 10, 2010 - 6:01 pm
Quote
A sucky monster? Those people are out of their minds. Anyway, “Casting the Runes” has been filmed at least one other time without the Demon, so purists can just go see that version instead.
(That Other Time was a 70’s made-for-TV production, by the way. Not a full movie, and made for British TV, but… just sayin’.)
(Furthermore, I have a cat named Suckymonster, and there’s nothing wrong with her, either.)
#3 by The Rev. on August 10, 2010 - 10:03 am
Quote
Those people are dirty heathens.
When I finally saw this last year, I thought about the argument of not showing the monster, and having it be more ambiguous. I think, if anyone could have pulled that off, it would’ve been Tournier. You could even make an argument that the demon’s a hallucination the condemned are seeing due to the power of persuasion. (I’m trying to remember if that last attack was seen by the others or not; I seem to recall thinking this explanation would be hard to go with at that point.)
Frankly, though, with the incredible monster they came up with for this movie, I’m all too happy to toss ambiguity out the window and believe that there’s a fire demon out for blood. The movie still works wonderfully with its story, acting, cinematography, etc. (it effortlessly moved into a spot among my favorites), but as a bonus we get that guy pictured above, who is, indeed, friggin’ awesome. I admit some of the puppetry was not the best (I found its first flying scenes more charming than realistic), but those close-ups, and that shot of it savagely clawing at its last victim (doll notwithstanding) are wonderful.
#4 by DamonD on August 10, 2010 - 4:06 pm
Quote
I also totally agree that this is one of the few cases where the less subtle approach of showing the monster actually adds a lot to the film.
I have this one on DVD. I first saw it during a lazy afternoon many years back, watching tv with my sister’s then-fiance. We were amused by the older stagey style and cut-glass accents, but when things started happening and that demon came looming out of the woods we were suddenly really impressed.
Repeated viewings since have shown the trick but that first impact, the fiery demon coming through the trees, made us sit up and from then on we were transfixed by the story.
Plus the Cherry Ripe scene is a riot 😉
#5 by The Beerman on August 10, 2010 - 5:42 pm
Quote
I used to be firmly in the other camp but have since come around on the inclusion of the monster. I came to reallize that it really amps up the tension knowing that the demon does exist, and we know despite all rational doubt and skepticism by the protagonist how much up shit creek he really and truly is.
#6 by MatthewF on August 11, 2010 - 7:28 am
Quote
I feel duty bound at this point to note that Drag Me To Hell was awfully similar to this movie, but featured a lot more gumming.
#7 by The Rev. D.D. on August 12, 2010 - 6:32 am
Quote
Full Moon’s Shrieker is also awfully similar to this movie/”Casting the Runes”, but features a lot more sucking.
Figuratively, not literally, thank the gods.
#8 by Professor Kettlewell on August 12, 2010 - 1:04 am
Quote
If anyone here has read any of my previous comments, you’ll know that I hate nothing more than prickteasing ghost stories; some director who thinks he’s Too Good for horror and wants me to buy his bullshit about “maybe the real demons are in our own minds….” Fuck off. I love NOTD because it promises a demon and delivers. I can get over any kind of effects if the story is there, and in this case HELL YES is it there. For me at least, the film would have been utterly diminished if the supernatural angle hadn’t been disambiguated, but bless ’em, they put a big monster up on screen and I love them for it.
#9 by Andrew on August 12, 2010 - 6:10 am
Quote
It would be possible to add an aspect of uncertainty to the story by making the Demon’s existence ambiguous. However, I love monsters, and the Demon is quite possibly my favorite representation of a fiend from the pits of Hell.
Being embedded in a story that does not try to have too large of a scope also helps. The only scene that I feel is extraneous is the seance.
#10 by Braineater on August 13, 2010 - 3:11 pm
Quote
Y’know, I just realized you could say the same for almost any movie that’s got a seance in it.
#11 by El Santo on August 15, 2010 - 5:00 pm
Quote
Even The Unholy Night, in which the so-called resolution to the so-called plot hinges (in a deeply illogical way) upon a seance, goes the extra mile by including another, earlier seance that is indeed completely extraneous.
#12 by DamonD on August 16, 2010 - 5:45 am
Quote
Awww, but come on, people! “Cherry Ripe, Cherry Ripe, Riiiiiiiipe IIIIIIIII Cryyyyyyyyy!”
#13 by Andrew on August 17, 2010 - 12:23 am
Quote
Type your comment here
Quite true, especially in the way that seances are used as a knowledge deus ex machina to easily move the plot past a problem that is otherwise a sticky wicket.
The medium channeling the murdered man in “Rashomon” is one example I can think of where the seance is not extraneous. We (the audience) need to hear the story from the viewpoint of the dead man.