Late Night with the Devil

I really enjoyed this. Sort of found footage, sort of faux documentary, I really loved how this movie was presented. David Dastmalchian is really very good. And the supporting cast are enjoyable, particularly Ingrid Torelli. This movie is pretty creepy, and there are tones of exorcist and of VHS 85. There's a kind of Faustian deal at the stories core that I really liked and I found myself smiling quite a lot during the third act. This movie may not be for everybody. It's obviously not big budget and the effects may not land with everyone but I thought it was a whole lot of creepy, campy fun.

This film is proof you don't need a ton of money to make a good movie. You just need the right talent and some thought. Late Night with the Devil starts out with a documentary style very similar to Woody Allen's Take the Money and Run. It soon morphs, however into a Halloween episode of a late night talk show, purporting to re-air a live episode including scenes never show on TV. This part is a bit weird because the scenes shown during the commercial would have never been filmed, so how did they have them? No matter, the movie is so compelling, you'll probably disregard this minor point. The show's first guest is a psychic, then a skeptic, then a girl who is supposed to be possessed by a demon. It unfolds really well and I really loved the movie. Until the ending. For me, the ending took two stars away from the review. It was just too abrupt and ethereal. Still worth a watch, however.

There's a lot to like about Late Night with the Devil; the first being the absolutely fantastic performance of David Dasmalchian as Jack. He really nails the 1970s late night talk show host vibe perfectly and has a lot of wit and charisma, yet an underlying darkness that you know (or I guess hope) will come into play later on. I also really loved the aesthetic for most of the film, with the grainy, multi camera look, excellent period costuming and hairstyling, and amazing aesthetic touches that drew me in immediately. The film makes great use of practical effects and while it may look a bit silly, I thought it had a charm that was appropriate for the era. (Side note: The filmmakers opted to use AI for some of the transition cards in the film and it's caused a bit of a stir. To be honest, I don't think this is an application of the technology worth getting angry over. It's a low budget film, AI use is inevitable, and this was probably the least intrusive way to use it) I also felt really compelled by the story and the structure of the film, which felt longer and meatier (at least for most of it) than it would seem. It moved at a quick pace and I was never bored. However, I do think this movie wears its numerous flaws on its sleeve. The entire conceit - that this is an unaired episode - should've been stuck with. The movie confusingly switches between the gorgeous 70s talk show style to a baffling black-and-white handheld camera look, which I found necessary for the story, but ultimately confusing by the end of the film when it switches it up completely. Either this is supposed to be "found footage" or it isn't. I also felt a lot of the performances were pretty subpar, especially the girl playing Lily (Ingrid Torelli) and the woman playing June (Laura Gordon). Torelli just...didn't have the screen presence necessary for the role and her line delivery was baffling. I couldn't make heads or tails of her character and maybe there was stuff left on the cutting room floor, because her character's "journey" through this film was utterly confusing and disappointing. Gordon just did not deliver her lines well. I just didn't buy her at all. Then there's the ending...which...I can forgive to an extent for being "interpretable," but I can also totally understand feels incoherent. It's almost like when someone writes and essay and it's already 11 pages long so they rush the conclusion. There's no real satisfactory explanation for a lot of the questions you hope the film would answer, which made me wonder why they introduced some plot elements to begin with (i.e. Jack's backstory with the thinly veiled cult). It's not rocket science as to what happened; it's just not given the emotional weight it needs nor the explosive payoff you'd want. I think this is a fine and fun movie that I'm happy I saw and I'd probably show other people. One question I have is...why on Earth was this released in March and not Halloween, when the film is set? It's bizarre.

I really admire how much work went into this film. The 70's ethic was recreated believably and the set and wardrobe folks are to be commended. As are the sound people. The movie is comprised of found footage or previously unreleased footage of a TV talk show which featured some special Halloween guests to boost ratings. The host has his own tragic, sensational backstory to add to the plot of what takes place in the hour-long talk show episode. The story is compelling and tragic and has some references to the occult participation of the protagonist talk show celebrity. The issue I note with the movie is the individual segments of the guests who each have a few moments of terror in the film. These subsections of the film come off as separate chapters and take away from the focus of the film, the title, the Late Night with the devil interview. Other than this disjointed assembly of characters, the film is entertaining for its throwback qualities and the interesting characters assembled.

Late night with the devil as a straight forward film that was made to give a new take on horror. While the film had AI images it did not deter the telling of the story. The actors put in the work and the set crew did a phenomenal job at delivering the story. The film itself left a lot to be desired at the end. First two acts were eerie and suspenseful in a playful way that left the audience to wonder what will happen next. The third act however, was under delivered in my humble opinion. While you think one thing might happen it goes completely the opposite direction. The AI used only took up 20 seconds of the story and did not seem like a way to push an agenda.