drqshadow

6/10

An American skeptic is thrust into a prime role at a psychiatrists’ convention when the keynote speaker runs afoul of a local Satanic cult and turns up dead. Together with the deceased’s lovely niece, the new guy picks up where the last one left off and presses the case to its breaking point. Secure in his cynicism, he’s bound and determined to denounce the occult as nothing more than mumbo-jumbo for the gullible, even as he’s pursued by all manner of metaphysical phenomena and strange, violent weather patterns. Given its age, I was surprised and impressed by _Curse of the Demon_’s restraint. Many of its ballyhooed death curses and evil schemes are paid out slightly off-camera or in near-darkness, leaving audiences’ imaginations to fill in the blanks. Especially effective is the big, roiling, billowing ball of smoke that rushes over the horizon in a pair of key nighttime scenes. Contrasted by dense shadows, the cloud’s creeping mass makes for an eerie, powerful sight even seventy years later. That effect isn’t lost when a flame-wrapped demon materializes in its midst... so long as the shot remains long. Of course, times being what they were (with eager executives allegedly forcing the issue over the director’s objections), we do zoom in tight for a pair of extreme close-ups on the beast, and then the illusion falters. This devil looks like a taxidermy disaster. Still, the plot makes a good, steady sizzle and I enjoyed the confirmation that not everyone in this era was mindlessly dialed into the Bible as a literal document. That _Curse of the Demon_’s disbeliever is ultimately disproven makes for an unwelcome turn, but until that moment he speaks loudly and confidently and his many scholarly peers seem to agree, if only cautiously. Although it sometimes tests the limits of plausibility, this is far less chintzy and campy than a majority of the era’s genre films and the special effects (mostly) make good use of the black and white film stock. Not bad, really.

John Chard

0/10

You know, the devil has something here. Very pleasant. Dr. John Holden arrives in England to attend a paranormal convention where the recently deceased Professor Harrington had intended to expose Dr. Julian Karswell as being the leader of satanic cult. Upon learning of Harrington's death, Holden finds that the only link to the mysterious death and Karswell's alleged cult is an accused murderer called Rand Hobart, who is currently in a catatonic state. While Harrington's niece Joanna is convinced her uncle was felled by supernatural forces, Holden sets about debunking it all as pure hogwash. Something that may yet prove to be fatal to his well being? Prior to 1957, director Jacques Tourneur could boast on his résumé psychological horror classics I Walked With A Zombie & Cat People, the simmering pot boiling Western Canyon Passage and the rightly heralded film-noir piece that is Out Of The Past. He was in short the perfect choice to direct this loose adaptation of M.R. James' story "Casting the Runes". Why then? That producer Hal E. Chester chose to interfere and not let Tourneur have full rein to deliver a supernatural picture that is more about what you don't see is actually what scares you? Is open for scornful debate. The problem, and the source of much discussion over the years, concerns the demon of the title. Goofy looking and at once taking away the quizzical factor for the audience, Chester had the demon appear both at the beginning and the end of the piece. It was also featured heavily in the film's advertising material (it's on the poster for instance), which quite frankly killed off the minuscule chance the less than scary vision had of shocking the audience. It's now all the years later considered across the board that it would have been better to not have seen the demon at all, certainly at the least to not see it at the beginning of the film. Thankfully though, and with much credit to Tourneur, his team and the cast, Night Of The Demon is still a nerve pulling piece of work that shines bright today as a true classic horror picture. After the demon has shown its unremarkable face, we follow Holden (a knowingly effective and stoic turn from Dana Andrews) as he delves deeper into murky waters that he's convinced do not exist. Only to realise he's in a devilish trap laid by the creepy Karswell (Niall MacGinnis), a trap from which he must escape or face the dire consequence. The tension has been built up beautifully by Tourneur, tension given an added dimension by Ken Adam's spookily adroit set designs. So come the glorious train station finale, nobody can be quite sure what will happen, and this in spite of us knowing the existence of the said demon thanks to the appearance of "it" at the beginning. The film was cut by 12 minutes and retitled Curse Of the Demon for the American market, but both versions have readily been available in disc form in the US. Odd then that in the country where the film is proudly called one of its own better horror entries, it had to wait till 2010 for a home disc release! That is almost as criminal as Chester's insistence on the demon appearing at the start of the film. Only almost mind you. 9/10

Whitsbrain

8/10

I had heard good things about "Curse of the Demon" but I always bring a full serving of pessimism to old raved about '50s movies because the vast majority of them are remembered fondly from childhood viewings. Very seldom does one end up being a really good movie. I can think of examples like the original versions of "The Fly" "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and "The War of the Worlds". I think "Curse of the Demon" has a right to be mentioned in the same company. I was watching a featurette about Richard Matheson on a "Trilogy of Terror" DVD called "Richard Matheson - Terror Scribe". On it Matheson talks fondly of "Curse of the Demon". He claims that it had a lasting impact on him primarily the less-is-more theory he wished it had stuck to. The controversy he hints at is the actual demon that is shown in the movie. His claim is that it nearly ruins the film. I can't believe I am saying this but Matheson is wrong. The appearance of the demon is very effective and while it's clearly a puppet of some sort the way that it first appears in the night sky as rolling smoke and then reveals itself as a horned entity is nightmarish. The story itself is a precursor to Sam Raimi's "Drag Me To Hell". The villan (Niall MacGinnis) plots and a hero (Dana Andrews) doubts which seems like a pretty standard story line but it's very satisfying because it's done with subtlety. You have to pay attention to the details sprinkled throughout. One thing I was also surprised by was a number of jump scares. Normally you don't encounter them with a film of this age but they were fun here. The demon attack at the end of the movie is savage and very effective too even though it lacks all gore. This film needs more love.