Entrevista com o Demônio

One of the most unique and entertaining horrors I've seen in a LONG time - I really didn't want it to end!

Far from the tired Blumhouse cookie cutter approach to the genre, LNWTD is vibrant, entertaining, gripping and above all - creepy as hell.

I particularly loved the old-school style practical effects and filmmaking. Apart from a few electrical sparks, there wasn't really any CGI - a huge relief, as I feel it's a real detriment to creepy, organic horror films.

The cast were fantastic and had great chemistry, with David Dastmalchian once again proving he's a charming and compelling leading man.

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 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.

Where to start with this movie, the acting from David dalmastchian is top drawer and for me he makes the movie, it has a uniqueness about it. The way the movie is very much just like watching a chat show on television and how it goes for the interval and we see backstage is freaking cool. I think the ending was very strange and as I said earlier unique to say the least. Dalmastchian does a grand job and hope this gets him some more unusual horror flicks. I always liked the way on the big screen it was just like an old 70's TV screen. I would like to rate the movie higher but the movie for me was too short.