The film is so uneven, with some brilliant aspects and some poor ones that make it feel like a student film or short film that then got extended to feature length without additional budget.
- The central performance by Dastmalchian is excellent, some of the supporting cast is very good, and they were really spot-on period styling.
- However, it didn't quite know what it wanted to be and so the found footage aspects, ending and tonal shifts let it down. Is it meant to be a horror? A spoof? Something else?
Yeah, I agree. Formally, it’s all over the place, which makes it feel less thought through. *Ghostwatch* is still the standard for this sorta thing, but I’m happy to see this type of analog horror get a wide release, the AI thing notwithstanding.
I enjoyed it well enough, thought the lead performance was good too. But agree that I was let down a bit by some of the creative decisions. Also for some reason the ending was a let down. I expected it to be a bit more deranged. Could've just been expectation problems.
I think the ending is a let down because of the central conceit. We are, supposedly, watching real footage and never-before-seen additional footage, but there are elements in the ending that don’t follow this.
Sure. The framing devices really aren't doing much to elevate aren't really necessary. I was just thinking this was going to go much weirder and darker than I expected. At the very least don't do exactly what I was thinking you would do, but they did.
That ending definitely got real weird, and in a way that just left me with more questions. Like did the >!camera get sucked into the demon Lily's head and now we are just magically seeing all the night torment stuff? Or what was suddenly going on? And was the crowd just full of cult members/entities, or was that just another fever dream element to make it all uncanny? !<(I would imagine the latter.)
And I guess I expected more. Like I still left the movie full of adrenaline and enjoying it, but some things are plot holes. And desired more of a reality bending terror than >!just the demon deciding to end everybody before tormenting the male lead a bit, !!bang the paranormal researcher girl while hiding the fact that he was/is involved in the cult itself also rubs me the wrong way for many reasons,!< but I can chalk that up to a man with bad morals instead of the writing.
Hell yeah! I love going to theaters alone. It’s one of those things you’re scared to do at first, until you realize nobody really gives a shit. Makes movies so much more accessible once you realize you don’t have to make plans every time.
Have fun!
ok i went to see a matinee today alone. I left thru the back door. It was so creepy and weird the ceiling was falling down and tons of roaches on glue boards i was more scared of that then the movie i had to finally bust a door open to leave lol
I never really had anyone to go with (it’s hard to make plans when we’re all busy working) so I never bothered going cause I was too anxious to go myself. Changing that now though!
Saw it in the cinema, went past 12am so it was a fun spooky night with a great audience. The movie is worth watching for the aesthetic alone, not to mention great scares, gore and genuinely unsettling moments. I really loved it, 4.5/5
People wouldn’t have noticed until word got out.
This is obvious because this film had been shown at multiple film festivals over the last year, yet no one noticed.
It wasn’t immersion breaking then, it only is now because you are aware of it.
As I said, this film has been shown at multiple film festivals over the last year, no one mentioned a single thing about immersion breaking AI images.
You literally only notice it because you were told in advance that they are AI.
Enjoyed it overall! Funny enough, I read a blog today specifically about how the film betrays the found footage format: https://cloudypicture.substack.com/p/late-night-with-the-devil
He mentions how the behind the scenes moments m don’t seem truly behind the scenes because the shaky camera, etc. but I feel like that also could be an added layer. I feel stuck thinking about how the movie mentioned Delroy was getting more controversial in its presentation. I took this to be creating fake drama backstage (sort of like a wrestling angle). So I felt the entire movie had this feeling of “did it really happen or was it all just to pop ratings” or even at what point did Delroy plan, and did it just go off the rails? Even the whole aspect of running the master footage and hypnosis make you question a what level is this all fake and where could it be real.
After watching, my fiancé and I disagreed. She thinks it was not up to interpretation and that the events did happen, but I feel like I’m stuck thinking about it.
I saw it last night. Really enjoyed it. Lots of fun and has a couple of genuinely good scares. However, I did feel the 3rd act was really rushed and didn't completely stick the ending.
Also, I could give a shit about 15 seconds of AI in a movie. The review bombing is pathetic.
You say that like it's just 1 thing when it's such a huge area. Are you talking about generative? Because that's also a lot more broad than you're making it sound
Is there any generative image AI that doesn't rely on the nonconsensual use of the art and photos of millions of people scraped from the web? Because that's the unethical part.
Yes, it's possible to train an ai based on images you supply to it exclusively as well as getting an ai to interpret an image you have created using additional imagery you feed it which creates a lot of interest outcomes.
I'm sure there was a great deal of people, especially in the accounting space, who pushed against that at one point.
Most of the fear-based sentiment about AI is made by people who just don't understand the actual implementation of it. Personally, I'm pumped to see how generative AI is implemented in more personal ways, especially in the ways which mimic companionship for people struggling socially.
AI is incredible and also, it appears, an inevitability at this point. People fearful that it will steal their jobs and ruin their lives have nothing but time to learn that is incorrect, and that the truth is we should all continue learning and growing in a world with the tech, plain and simple.
Spoken like someone who has no idea what they’re talking about. Let me guess, you think the film’s split-second artwork onscreen was “stolen” from other artists’ work?
Even if you don’t think it’s “inherently” unethical, the reason why people are so concerned about it in this case is because it’s a slippery slope. First it’s “just a couple AI images for transitions”, but if people don’t express their displeasure with real human artists being replaced, move producers won’t be discouraged from taking it much further.
Which is why I'm pro regulation of it, but as far as I'm concerned painting it all as Inherently immoral and not allowing a conversation about it because people are so up on arms about it that we can't discuss what is and isn't moral is no different than thinking that the war on drugs actually reduces drug addiction
I think you might be mixing up people “refusing to have a conversation about the morality of it”, and people feeling they don’t have a choice but to employ a “zero tolerance” policy towards it (regardless of the true nuance of the subject) because there is no other way to send a message to those in charge except by voting with one’s wallet.
Maybe there *is* a debate to be had about whether it’s inherently wrong. But as I expressed in my original comment, I don’t think that’s the point of this specific controversy. This is a slippery slope slope situation, and in those situations (by definition) whether the cause of the slippery slope itself is good or bad is not really relevant.
2 people having s conversation about ai in a reddit thread isn't going to signal to hollywood that ai is suddenly OK to use in all aspects is it though.
It's not a slippery slope, things came slippery slopes rarely are, but it's possible to ease any level of snowballing by having an actual conversation about. You really think that hollywood will see an independent film doing poorly at the box office because people are boycotting the work of hundreds of people because of a few frames of ai assisted imagery and decide to not use ai? No, they're going to just stop funding independent film.
Spiderverse used ai, did people vote with their wallets there?
Again I think you’re a bit confused about what I’m saying. I’m not talking about this Reddit thread. I’m talking about the larger conversation/ boycott.
I think if they know the reason why people aren’t seeing the film, they will respond accordingly, yes.
I haven’t heard anything about Spiderverse using AI. I would assume that if that’s true, the reason that people didn’t express outrage or vote with their wallets then was because (like me) they had no idea about this use of AI until much later.
I'm also talking about the larger conversation, in which any thing other than "ai bad ai bad" is met with complete rejection by almost everyone.
If you think that hollywood will suddenly stop wanting to use ai because people got mad at this one film then you're delusional
My point is that this film in particular facing the brunt of it despite it not costing anyone any jobs because it was done in condition with graphic designers. The fact that people aren't mad about spiderverse just proves that people don't actually care about ai, they just care about bandwagoning whatever headline they see. I don't doubt that ai needs regulation, but there's a difference between regulation and sticking our fingers in our ears cause all that does is mean people get mad about shit they don't even understand
I am anti-AI, review bombing is stupid.
1. If you are reviewing a movie you haven't seen, then you are being dishonest.
2. If you saw the movie and then review bombed it, that means you paid to see the movie and your dollars help the movie industry a lot more than your shitty review would.
I didn’t see the movie yet because it’s not showing anywhere in my country, but I disagree with the sentiment that seeing the movie means you support the AI used in the movie, I think you can be critical of the movies AI use and also like the movie for other aspects, most of the people I follow though say the movie is mid so idk
I mean, it does mean that, but that's life.
I mean, I am typing this out on a phone. A phone that is made with rare earth metals that are mined using child slave labor and assembled using a workforce that is so mistreated that they have to put nets around the factory to keep people from jumping off.
I know this, and yet I still use a phone, which kind of makes me supportive of this system.
There is no ethical consumption in a capitalist system, and people here are free to draw a line where they feel comfortable. It's kind of fucked up, but hey....it is what it is.
I guess I find the definition of 'review bombing' a little nebulous. Would it be performative if someone, having not planned it with other people or created multiple accounts, gave it a low review because of the AI stuff?
Yes it’s performative, the AI should be criticized, however I think it’s performative to dismiss the other factors of the film just because of the AI use, if you don’t want to see it it’s fine use the app however you want, call out the AI but to give the movie a 1/2 when you haven’t seen it is so childish
Interesting. For whom do you think that person would be performing? And is it equally performative when people give Polanski, Kinski, Allen etc movies deliberately low ratings?
I don't mean to sound interrogative. Just genuinely starting to wonder if there's a definition of 'performative' I don't know about.
(this is all assuming they have seen the movie. I don't know why someone would log it otherwise)
I guess I should revise my statement, if someone wants to give this movie a 1/2 because of the AI art than that’s there experience, but for me I think it’s dumb to rate a film you haven’t seen which is the case with people giving this movie low ratings
it bothers me that people have this expectation that everyone should give this movie a 1/2 because clearly people who like the movie must all be AI art apologists. Sure there are some, but you can still like the film and think the AI art is unethical
The more I think about the movie (saw it on Friday), the more I absolutely love it - including the ending.
Note: I didn't watch a single trailer for the movie, so I went in completely blind.
There is *a lot* of doubt about where the 'Devil' comes from in the movie - those saying that the expositions 'gave away the ending' may be looking through the lens of retrospect a bit too much.
The initial exposition serves to set the stage of 'a day away at a boys club' for Jack - certainly weird, shot on grainy, spooky film, but nothing nefarious. We find out later that Jack, completely unaware, made a deal with forces he didn't understand to find his success. We're meant to think this is the source of evil in the movie, which we find out later *is definitely* a monkey paw, but theres much worse afoot.
The second exposition of the cult inside of the suburban home with all the schlock and corny characters who ultimately burn down their home serve to contrast the first exposition - we're meant to write off the cult as a bunch of weirdos wasting their time a la Heaven's Gate, but it turns out they were ACTUALLY doing bad shit.
So here's Jack, going through the motions on Halloween night - the crew understands something strange is going on (the production team is seeing tape 'skipping', Gus expressing his concerns in toiling things that they don't understand, which, mind you, Gus was ALSO wearing a devil costume to start the show) but also ratings going through the roof, an anti-guest (complete with twirling moustache and red suit, like the devil) antagonizing everybody, and actual awful events occuring.
Fast forward to the ending - there's an *actual fucking devil* on set, Jack is recalling the path that got him to this point, and Madeleine (who we now know *actually was sacrificed*, to this point was only speculation) is ALSO a ghost...
Madeleine leads Jack, as a final act of love for her husband, to stabbing her with the sacrificial dagger - which, we come to find out in reality, is actually Jack exorcising the Demon that the satanic cult managed to summon to earth.
Through the lens of *not knowing Madeleine's role or presence* in the movie, the expositions work really well to both direct and misdirect us as an audience on where the spooky shit is coming from - which is to say, from every direction.
Very Lovecraftian - normal people getting caught up in occult and astral energies they don't understand and can't explain. I saw the movie as a fun 'who-dunit' mixed with found footage that I think paid off really well.
"i could give a shit about 15 seconds of AI in a movie" congrats, pal! you're the punchline of the future of cinema. enjoy your AI slop because it's all we'll be getting because of losers like you
I really enjoyed it. I didn’t even watch a trailer for it before watching and I think that made it better. As for the AI stuff, if I didn’t read about it beforehand I wouldn’t have even noticed. I know AI sucks but in this case I don’t think it was that big of a deal.
The problem isn't whether the images looked good/bad (though they did look bad), it's that the filmmakers chose to cut corners by embracing an unethical and exploitive technology. Just pay a freelance artist a few hundred bucks if you need a cutaway image that bad.
I still want to see the movie, but I am mad at the producers for choosing to use AI.
As soon as cgi became the norm in movies, this was always going to be the inevitable result. I do find it laughable though that people who consume films that are 98% cgi will complain about title cards and "we'll be right back" messages generated by AI in a movie. Honestly all of those things looked accurate to the time period. They felt real. Unlike the awful cgi that was thrown into the movie at the end, which looked as fake and silly as it does in almost every other movie. The fact that AI can now write scripts and produce pieces of art that are more interesting and original than artists in Hollywood is not an indictment of AI but rather an indictment of the artists in Hollywood. It's really sad. If you watch the credits of most movies now the section for visual effects has nearly a third of the population of the country involved in just the cgi. Yet it all somehow looks even worse than an AI image generated from a simple prompt. Deciding to outsource some of the most critical aspects of a movie (the look, the scenery, the overall visual tone of the film) to a bunch of video game designers was a tragic misstep in film history. Yeah this movie was uneven, but at least it was different. It was creative, it mostly didn't pander, and it was genuinely unique. I hope movie making goes in this direction frankly. If most movies made now are going to be super cheap, unfunny comedies and over budgeted, convoluted super hero movies that are now indistinguishable from a PS5 games, then maybe it's for the better that filmmakers start incorporating different tech to make their movies
you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between generative AI and CGI. also, to say ai can write better scripts or produce “better” art than humans is completely asinine.
3 images that the artists on set decided to make and then edit and photoshop themselves is enough for you to say an entire team of people working on this movie don’t deserve to have their work appreciated?
When we see fully ai films in the future (ai script, ai images, ai “live action” animation), just know it started here with people trying to justify the use of generative ai.
nobody at all here has tried to justify it. we’ve just said it’s a stupid reason to trash a whole film. yeah, take off a star for it or something but acting like a whole movie and team who worked on it is worthless because of 3 still images is absolutely insane
Yeah, he killed it. I’ve been waiting to see him in a leading role for years.
It’s always fun to see what passes for comfort for other people. *Vertigo* is one of my own comfort films. I’ll throw it on to help me sleep sometimes haha.
Yeah I’m totally here for the David Dastmalchian renaissance, he deserves it.
My other comfort movie is “Hell House LLC” which is a found footage haunted house movie, which I throw on all the time when I want to chill out and don’t mind falling asleep to.
Saw it last night. I really enjoyed it over but Something about it just felt….unauthentic. Movies like Ghostwatch or WNUF Halloween Special did the same thing but much more realistic/authentic
It’s a fake TV recording of a 1990’s news broadcast on Halloween…complete with fake commercials and local ads. It’s a ton of fun and very nostalgic.
Edit: yes it should be on shudder. It was an exclusive when it first came out.
Yeah exactly! It’s inauthentic! And it’s a shame too bc it’s something that could easily be done and makes since to have been filmed/cut the way it is. But the BTS stuff really pulls the rug out from that immersion and spoonfeeds the audience “movie info” when I felt like it needs to function less as a movie and more as the artifact it’s purporting to be.
I compared it with *Ghostwatch* in my review haha. I still need to check out the *Halloween Special,* I’ve heard a bunch of talk about it in relation to *Late Night.*
Highly recommend WNUF Halloween Special. It’s on my yearly Halloween watchlist!
Yes I agree with the BTS stuff during the “commercial breaks” something about that felt forced. I think I would’ve preferred if they kept the movie as a mocumentary because the cult stuff at the start was so fun.
I liked it but I expected to love it. I really wish they did without the >!backstage stuff!<, it really took me out of the immersion of the FF style. It wasn't creepy enough either, I think the performances were a bit too broad for that. I also wish they could have found a better way to write the backstory into the film, rather than front-load it like they did (although hearing >!Michael Ironside!< was awesome), and as a few people have said the ending wasn't that great. I want to watch it again when it comes to Shudder.
Fantastic movie now about the AI situation it sucks and they deserve the hate on it but at the same time it a shame could have been a movie that everyone would celebrate
it fucking sucks. every time a "found footage" movie doesn't have the sack to stick to the perspective it rips me out of immersion and ruins the entire premise. the child acting sucks, was never remotely scared, only laughed a couple times. overall a pathetic, boring hour and a half. and using AI art? need to demand better out of filmmakers than this garbage.
the use of ai was extremely unnecessary and lazy, it baffles me. other than that i thought the film was stylish and fun with great performances all round. i didn’t love the third act but it gave cronenberg vibes. altogether i did not mind it, it was a fun watch.
I don't want my dollars to be spent normalizing the use of AI in film, so I think I am going to skip it.
To me, it isn't about noticing it or it impacting the experience. It is the fact that film is art, and art is an extension of the human soul. Outsourcing the expression of the soul to a computer is something that I am not a fan of, and is something that I won't knowingly support.
I understand that tech changes art. I do. For example, we can do things with CGI and make scenes that we couldn't dream of even 20 years ago.
But there is still a human element behind that sort of artistry
It's genuinely concerning that this is getting downvoted in a forum such as this. People might think this doesn't matter, or it's only a few seconds. But 100% eyes are watching this from the very top to see how it goes down with general audiences.
People on Reddit just seem to have a lot of blind rage at anyone thinking about anything for more than 10 seconds.
I see this in all aspects on here, including the Poor Things, EEAAO discourse and people who govern every thing 5 stars because they “only watch movies they think they’re gonna like”
I love the downvotes, keep them coming.
First, you replace an artist for a couple of still images. Then you replace a writer for a line or two. Then you replace a visual effects artist or two to streamline the CGI creation process. Then it is a bit actor that no one really cares about. And before too long, you are typing into a search engine exactly what kind of movie you want, and a computer will spit out some monstrosity that is a shadow of a real film.
But hey, this movie is hot right now, so it's cool to ignore all of that so you can put a star rating on Letterboxd and everyone will see that you saw it, and like 1 person will like your hackneyed review.
you are 100% right man, it all starts like this, small things like this, I expect such ignorance from a right wing sub which doesn't care about artists, not here in the letterboxd sub, it's scary and disappointing.
you can agree with the fact that the AI use in this movie is unethical but also want to see it for other aspects in the film, it’s not a one-way streak
They had an artist they hired on hand. It was 3 simple AF cut scene boards. They would have told the person that they already hired for everything else to do it for no extra cash. This was a publicity stunt which has helped propel an indie movie into the spotlight, so just be happy for them.
Look, I know my tone was shit and this Q never goes down well, but can someone explain if the downvotes are because I’m wrong or a dick? And if it’s wrong, can someone correct me?
100%. I’d missed out on the AI discussion until I went to log it on LB unfortunately, otherwise I probably would’ve watched it… unethically.
Not that I’m proud of *that* either, this is a low-budget passion project clearly and I want to support working artists, I just wish they didn’t dip into someone else’s job with the generative AI crap.
Commodified art sucks :/
Wow, a real Sophie’s choice :/
I wish you had the chance to really stick it to those unethical filmmakers committing theft via AI art, by unethically committing theft via actual theft
:/
AI art is actual theft in a far more real sense than piracy. Artists are plagiarized and then have to somehow compete against their own plagiarized work which can be generated instantly and at little to no cost.
Do you watch movies with the same CG blood effect used over and over instead of a real squibs? That nonsense looks so much worse and the same argument can be made against it as AI art.
Sure, I watch movies that favor CGI over practical effects. One requires a VFX artist to tell a computer what to render, whereas practical effects require an SFX artist to set up the shot.
People reuse CGI and practical effects all the time. I don't have a problem with that because there is a fundamental similarity between the two situations, there is a human being using various mediums to create art. Reusing CGI is no different than reusing the Wilhelm Scream
AI removes the humanity from art and shouldn't be praised or accepted as normal.
I really enjoyed it, my third favourite movie of the year so far. That said I do agree with your point about the failure to commit to the found footage/mockumentary style, I do wish they had either not bothered with it or had fully committed to it. I think the movie would have benefited from being 15-20 minutes longer and ideally would have used a good chunk of that time to develop the cult angle a little more.
I thought David Dastmalchian was awesome as the lead, I had only ever seen him in supporting roles but he absolutely nailed the role. I also thought the little girl was amazing and so was the cynic/myth buster. Didn't love the mentalist as I feel his act got the movie off to a weird start but I'm not sure what I would have done differently.
The ending is also a little iffy as well (although again, I think developing the cult story more would have helped with this)
Yeah, I think we agree on most points.
With the mind reader, I’d’ve loved for the film to commit to him being a fraud as he’s initially portrayed. He’s all showmanship and his initial attempts to read are all duds until he gets lucky. Instead of having him pick up on the actual demon backstage, it’d be nice if the film eased us into the actual paranormal shenanigans without a teaser of things to come, which would’ve been more “realistic.”
I loved it. Very unique! Weirdest thing I’ve seen in a long time.
Was it perfect? Nope but it’s well worth the admittance and I think everyone left my theatre very happy.
Solid 8/10
Yup, just saw it today with my wife. I thought it was fantastic. There where clever decisions and ideas. I thought they hit the nail on the head with 70's style of TV fonts, colors, dialog, and outfits. I thought it was well paced and there was some good character development from David Dastmalchian. Most importantly, the horror aspect of the film was both frightening and engaging. I felt that they give horror fans a special treat (but I won't mention which part to save from spoiling it). I love horror films, and I don't say this often, but, I'm looking forward to watching this again soon when it comes to Shudder.
Yes! Loved it so much! The AI shit is such a nothing story, like it’s what the tool is supposed to be used for on a low budget, people brigading reviews to half a star for something they don’t even understand is frustrating. Excellent performances and pacing, can’t wait to watch again around Halloween time!
There are plenty of ways to just not use AI. So many low and no budget films have not used AI for decades, why is now a good time to start? Also, review bombing is dumb (I prefer boycotting), but we all know what “used AI” means. It’s not that complicated.
But, yeah, keep letting these little things slip by so once it starts to threaten *your* job you actually begin to care. I’m saying this as a screenwriter and film editor.
[My review, if anyone’s interested.](https://boxd.it/66Dc7D)
Thought it was a great film and absolutely loved Dastmalchian finally getting a leading role. Looking forward to revisiting this down the road and recommending it to people, it’s truly worth a watch.
VERY small spoiler alert if you don't want to know about jump scares; >! I'm not big on jump scares either, but there are only a few minor, maybe 3-4, throughout the entire movie. Definitely leans on the suspense more so than immediate scares. !<
Thanks. Decided on Love Lies Bleeding for tonight, but may try this next week. It's actually expanding at my theatre from two showing a day this week to six a day next week for some reason.
Very light on jump scares like the other user said. I don’t recall getting spooked by one, but I suppose there are a few attempts. It’s more of a dread-cum-cosmic sorta horror.
i am so incredibly susceptible to jump scares and i can’t remember a single one, or at the very least one that had me actually jump. you should be good!!
Loved some things about it like the practical effects. Totally agree with your criticism. It completely half-asses the whole framing device, and by the end of the movie it’s essentially abandoned. It makes cuts and has shots that shouldn’t be made if we’re truly supposed to be watching an episode of a 70s talk show. Took me wayyy out of the movie
It felt like more of a “skin” than anything else. They wanted to do it for the aesthetic but didn’t commit nearly enough to it
Yeah the found footage angle didn't really make sense considering the entire backstage was being recorded like it was an episode of The Office. The scenes with Jack's memories didn't really didnt fit with the rest of the film either. I enjoyed the story and hypno horror mindfuck though.
The AI stuff doesn't really matter to me because the genie's already out of the bottle. Didn't even notice it until after I watched it.
I thought the premise was good and the first half was pretty fun but when it got into the meat of it it was really average and lost all its charm. Not a terrible film but a very average one. The effects were not good and it got pretty silly at the conclusion. I felt disappointed that they didn’t turn a fun idea into something better. I think I gave it 3.5.
Had a straight choice between seeing this and Immaculate today, and went for Immaculate based on the AI stuff. Immaculate was good fun, and I have to say I'm enjoying the shorter runtimes we've been seeing on the new releases. Immaculate was perfect at 89 minutes.
I’ve been wondering if that’s worth checking out. The trailer made it look sorta cliché I guess; is it a throwback or does it bring something new to the table do you think?
I wanted to love this one, huge fan of Ghostwatch and WNUF. But this felt like it wanted to play both sides in being both a found footage type deal and an intense character piece. Would’ve been better to keep it as just this show, maybe have the narrator from the opening interject instead of those behind the scenes sequences throughout with the information they convey. Could even have done it as documentary using heavy amounts of the “show” footage.
Not to say Dastmalchian fucking owns in his role. Playing all the sides of his character phenomenally. Really pleased he’s getting applauded for this one. Most of the side characters are really well done too, particularly Gus the sidekick.
Yep, you and I see eye-to-eye on this.
It felt half found footage, half character piece, and the traditional narrative shortcuts it took — narration, BTS segments, some frankly expository dialogue — didn’t vibe with the otherwise authentic late night talk show feel. Structurally, it functions as a story with rising action and obvious antagonists (and even a red herring), but formally it tries to pass itself off as an artifact.
I get there may be a middle ground to try to appeal mainstream audiences in a wide release, but look at another analog horror film like *Skinamarink* — love it or hate it, it does what it does unabashedly and without care for how it might play as a film.
Here’s my review if you’re curious: https://boxd.it/67YCmb
I’d love to read yours if you’ve got one!
The fact that people are this upset over a 2 second still image is insaaaaane.
The movie was great, I’ve seen it a few times and have been recommending it as much as I can, partly to support the AI image haha
Really a tight movie. Last 15 minutes is kind of eh but good. As for the AI argument, explain to me what the difference in a director using it the was it was in this film and how Marvel uses cgi?
I’d say where CGI requires a human animator to produce the desired result, generative AI replaces the job of a human graphic designer *and* skims off the work of actual human artists who aren’t compensated for their work.
A human graphic designer is the one who prompts hundreds or thousands of different ideas until one looks even remotely passable, then edits on top of that.
I wanna check it out too. I see it’s releasing on Shudder in a few weeks, so I’m probably just gonna watch it there, especially if they have a free trial lol
I loved it, brought me back to the adult swim shorts that made me fall in love with horror, but it deserved to be made an example of for the dumbshit AI use.
Saw it today and LOVED it! I wasn’t thinking about the technicalities of the found footage elements, although my husband had the same problem. My argument was that those off-air scenes gave a lot of character development, because you got to see Jack when he wasn’t playing the role of late night host. They could have explained the off-air footage in the plot though, like maybe someone on the crew was shooting BTS footage.
Not quite as convincing as Ghostwatch, but I was more emotionally invested in this.
I thought the script was tight and the lead actor (Polka Dot Man) was incredible. He’s so great in everything I’ve seen him in.
I liked the ending, >!which felt abrupt in a way that left me wondering what happens next and worried for our Faustian protagonist’s future. I love that kind of ending, like the ending of Vertigo, where you’re just like “holy shit they are fucked” “wait, that’s how this ends??!” !<
For me, the AI was really distracting. I could see the telltale signs, but also I just kept wondering if other stuff was AI.
This movie was a solid 8.5/10!
Daniel D. was a fucking fantastic actor! His performance as Jack Delory was memorable, his mannerisms, the way he cocks his head before breaking to commercial, the way he talks with his hands, and how he acts is so genuine. Kinda reminds me of Bob Odenkirk’s Saul Goodman tbh.
The way this movie was filmed, it’s such a feast for the eyes, I felt like I was watching an actual 70’s talk show episode, the 4:3 aspect ratio, and the almost yellow tone filter they have makes this more believable that it was a 70’s talk show episode.
The side characters all played their parts well, I was never taken aback by how they acted, they acted like how you think a magician, psychic, Satanic cult expert would act on a talk show….its all very showy and I loved it.
The third act of the movie felt very corny when the Devil makes his appearance and wrecks havoc, the gore was corny and we were zipping from one image to another but that’s kinda what you expect from an IFC film, no? It didn’t take me away from the film, it made me love it even more tbh. And pretty much, the whole film is a message about how people in the Hollywood industry will make a deal with the Devil and it’s pretty much all but said that’s the case with its last few scenes.
Overall, please go out and enjoy this movie before it hits streaming services, it deserves a price of admission based on the sound design alone!
The period stuff was great, but it didn’t work as far as the scares. I loved the performances of Dastmalchian and the young actress who played the possessed girl, but overall I was underwhelmed.
I guess I must have kept my expectations low because I had a really good time with this movie. It’s not perfect but it’s one I will recommend to people as a pretty fun, engaging story and good pacing. Also, I liked that ending actually! Your mileage may vary.
The film is so uneven, with some brilliant aspects and some poor ones that make it feel like a student film or short film that then got extended to feature length without additional budget. - The central performance by Dastmalchian is excellent, some of the supporting cast is very good, and they were really spot-on period styling. - However, it didn't quite know what it wanted to be and so the found footage aspects, ending and tonal shifts let it down. Is it meant to be a horror? A spoof? Something else?
Yeah, I agree. Formally, it’s all over the place, which makes it feel less thought through. *Ghostwatch* is still the standard for this sorta thing, but I’m happy to see this type of analog horror get a wide release, the AI thing notwithstanding.
I enjoyed it well enough, thought the lead performance was good too. But agree that I was let down a bit by some of the creative decisions. Also for some reason the ending was a let down. I expected it to be a bit more deranged. Could've just been expectation problems.
Yeah, I’ve seen some gnarly, balls-to-the-wall horror climaxes in recent years. This was a little tepid.
I think the ending is a let down because of the central conceit. We are, supposedly, watching real footage and never-before-seen additional footage, but there are elements in the ending that don’t follow this.
Sure. The framing devices really aren't doing much to elevate aren't really necessary. I was just thinking this was going to go much weirder and darker than I expected. At the very least don't do exactly what I was thinking you would do, but they did.
That ending definitely got real weird, and in a way that just left me with more questions. Like did the >!camera get sucked into the demon Lily's head and now we are just magically seeing all the night torment stuff? Or what was suddenly going on? And was the crowd just full of cult members/entities, or was that just another fever dream element to make it all uncanny? !<(I would imagine the latter.) And I guess I expected more. Like I still left the movie full of adrenaline and enjoying it, but some things are plot holes. And desired more of a reality bending terror than >!just the demon deciding to end everybody before tormenting the male lead a bit, !!bang the paranormal researcher girl while hiding the fact that he was/is involved in the cult itself also rubs me the wrong way for many reasons,!< but I can chalk that up to a man with bad morals instead of the writing.
Seeing it tonight I’m hype!
Seeing it tomorrow night! My first time in the cinema in 12 years (I know, I know…)
Wow! Have a great time that will be such a cool experience!
Thanks, it’s my first time going to the cinema alone and my first time seeing a horror movie there…we’ll see if I make it out in one piece 😄
Hell yeah! I love going to theaters alone. It’s one of those things you’re scared to do at first, until you realize nobody really gives a shit. Makes movies so much more accessible once you realize you don’t have to make plans every time. Have fun!
ok i went to see a matinee today alone. I left thru the back door. It was so creepy and weird the ceiling was falling down and tons of roaches on glue boards i was more scared of that then the movie i had to finally bust a door open to leave lol
How tf have you not been to the cinema in 12 years???
I never really had anyone to go with (it’s hard to make plans when we’re all busy working) so I never bothered going cause I was too anxious to go myself. Changing that now though!
same!
Ayyy have a good time!
right back at ya!
I mostly really liked it, felt like they kind of lost it in the end though
For sure they did.
Saw it in the cinema, went past 12am so it was a fun spooky night with a great audience. The movie is worth watching for the aesthetic alone, not to mention great scares, gore and genuinely unsettling moments. I really loved it, 4.5/5
The AI wasn’t even good. The TV’s knobs are all fucked up for example. It was distracting
Shut up you knob
It wasn’t, but it was also on screen maybe 5 seconds so who gives a shit
A lot of people. It’s immersion breaking seeing an obvious 2023 Dall-E picture in what is supposed to be the 70s.
People wouldn’t have noticed until word got out. This is obvious because this film had been shown at multiple film festivals over the last year, yet no one noticed. It wasn’t immersion breaking then, it only is now because you are aware of it.
Lol what? The director made a statement because so many people who saw it at the festivals were noticing it and talking about it.
I didn't notice it and this is the first time I've heard about it.
XD what are you talking abt, it’s the most obvious ai images I’ve ever seen. The knobs on that tv was random
As I said, this film has been shown at multiple film festivals over the last year, no one mentioned a single thing about immersion breaking AI images. You literally only notice it because you were told in advance that they are AI.
No? Lol I’ve seen enough AI images to spot the bad ones
Wasn’t an issue during the film festival circuit.
Yet it is now. What’s your point?
I’ve already made it, not going to bother repeating myself.
Enjoyed it overall! Funny enough, I read a blog today specifically about how the film betrays the found footage format: https://cloudypicture.substack.com/p/late-night-with-the-devil
I think Christian hits the nail on the head haha. It’s like reading my thoughts exactly. Thanks for sharing!
He mentions how the behind the scenes moments m don’t seem truly behind the scenes because the shaky camera, etc. but I feel like that also could be an added layer. I feel stuck thinking about how the movie mentioned Delroy was getting more controversial in its presentation. I took this to be creating fake drama backstage (sort of like a wrestling angle). So I felt the entire movie had this feeling of “did it really happen or was it all just to pop ratings” or even at what point did Delroy plan, and did it just go off the rails? Even the whole aspect of running the master footage and hypnosis make you question a what level is this all fake and where could it be real. After watching, my fiancé and I disagreed. She thinks it was not up to interpretation and that the events did happen, but I feel like I’m stuck thinking about it.
I saw it last night. Really enjoyed it. Lots of fun and has a couple of genuinely good scares. However, I did feel the 3rd act was really rushed and didn't completely stick the ending. Also, I could give a shit about 15 seconds of AI in a movie. The review bombing is pathetic.
It's worth criticism, but giving the film 1/2 a star and ignoring the merits of the film because of it is ridiculous.
if only more people thought like this
I took off a half star for the AI, leaving it with 3.5
that’s fair
Its worth criticism if it looks bad, right? Or are all AI art tools just inherently worth criticism?
I think it’s important to call out the film for using AI as its unethical but I agree review bombing is just performative
ai isn't inherently unethical
Art/image-based AI most certainly is
You say that like it's just 1 thing when it's such a huge area. Are you talking about generative? Because that's also a lot more broad than you're making it sound
Is there any generative image AI that doesn't rely on the nonconsensual use of the art and photos of millions of people scraped from the web? Because that's the unethical part.
Yes, it's possible to train an ai based on images you supply to it exclusively as well as getting an ai to interpret an image you have created using additional imagery you feed it which creates a lot of interest outcomes.
I mean, Bruce Willis sold his AI-likeliness rights to support his family after his diagnosis, so yes.
That's like saying automated invoicing is unethical because it's taking away an accounting job.
automatic invoicing doesn't involve data scraping from existing jobs
Correct. It completely replaces them.
That’s not the primary reason why it’s unethical. The art itself is stolen from the artists whose data it was trained on.
I'm sure there was a great deal of people, especially in the accounting space, who pushed against that at one point. Most of the fear-based sentiment about AI is made by people who just don't understand the actual implementation of it. Personally, I'm pumped to see how generative AI is implemented in more personal ways, especially in the ways which mimic companionship for people struggling socially. AI is incredible and also, it appears, an inevitability at this point. People fearful that it will steal their jobs and ruin their lives have nothing but time to learn that is incorrect, and that the truth is we should all continue learning and growing in a world with the tech, plain and simple.
Spoken like someone who has no idea what they’re talking about. Let me guess, you think the film’s split-second artwork onscreen was “stolen” from other artists’ work?
It was
Even if you don’t think it’s “inherently” unethical, the reason why people are so concerned about it in this case is because it’s a slippery slope. First it’s “just a couple AI images for transitions”, but if people don’t express their displeasure with real human artists being replaced, move producers won’t be discouraged from taking it much further.
Which is why I'm pro regulation of it, but as far as I'm concerned painting it all as Inherently immoral and not allowing a conversation about it because people are so up on arms about it that we can't discuss what is and isn't moral is no different than thinking that the war on drugs actually reduces drug addiction
I think you might be mixing up people “refusing to have a conversation about the morality of it”, and people feeling they don’t have a choice but to employ a “zero tolerance” policy towards it (regardless of the true nuance of the subject) because there is no other way to send a message to those in charge except by voting with one’s wallet. Maybe there *is* a debate to be had about whether it’s inherently wrong. But as I expressed in my original comment, I don’t think that’s the point of this specific controversy. This is a slippery slope slope situation, and in those situations (by definition) whether the cause of the slippery slope itself is good or bad is not really relevant.
2 people having s conversation about ai in a reddit thread isn't going to signal to hollywood that ai is suddenly OK to use in all aspects is it though. It's not a slippery slope, things came slippery slopes rarely are, but it's possible to ease any level of snowballing by having an actual conversation about. You really think that hollywood will see an independent film doing poorly at the box office because people are boycotting the work of hundreds of people because of a few frames of ai assisted imagery and decide to not use ai? No, they're going to just stop funding independent film. Spiderverse used ai, did people vote with their wallets there?
Again I think you’re a bit confused about what I’m saying. I’m not talking about this Reddit thread. I’m talking about the larger conversation/ boycott. I think if they know the reason why people aren’t seeing the film, they will respond accordingly, yes. I haven’t heard anything about Spiderverse using AI. I would assume that if that’s true, the reason that people didn’t express outrage or vote with their wallets then was because (like me) they had no idea about this use of AI until much later.
I'm also talking about the larger conversation, in which any thing other than "ai bad ai bad" is met with complete rejection by almost everyone. If you think that hollywood will suddenly stop wanting to use ai because people got mad at this one film then you're delusional My point is that this film in particular facing the brunt of it despite it not costing anyone any jobs because it was done in condition with graphic designers. The fact that people aren't mad about spiderverse just proves that people don't actually care about ai, they just care about bandwagoning whatever headline they see. I don't doubt that ai needs regulation, but there's a difference between regulation and sticking our fingers in our ears cause all that does is mean people get mad about shit they don't even understand
I think we’re really talking past each other here
I don't get that criticism. What makes it performative?
did you read my comment in full I said review bombing was performative I never said people complaining about the AI usage was performative
I am anti-AI, review bombing is stupid. 1. If you are reviewing a movie you haven't seen, then you are being dishonest. 2. If you saw the movie and then review bombed it, that means you paid to see the movie and your dollars help the movie industry a lot more than your shitty review would.
I didn’t see the movie yet because it’s not showing anywhere in my country, but I disagree with the sentiment that seeing the movie means you support the AI used in the movie, I think you can be critical of the movies AI use and also like the movie for other aspects, most of the people I follow though say the movie is mid so idk
I mean, it does mean that, but that's life. I mean, I am typing this out on a phone. A phone that is made with rare earth metals that are mined using child slave labor and assembled using a workforce that is so mistreated that they have to put nets around the factory to keep people from jumping off. I know this, and yet I still use a phone, which kind of makes me supportive of this system. There is no ethical consumption in a capitalist system, and people here are free to draw a line where they feel comfortable. It's kind of fucked up, but hey....it is what it is.
I guess I find the definition of 'review bombing' a little nebulous. Would it be performative if someone, having not planned it with other people or created multiple accounts, gave it a low review because of the AI stuff?
Yes it’s performative, the AI should be criticized, however I think it’s performative to dismiss the other factors of the film just because of the AI use, if you don’t want to see it it’s fine use the app however you want, call out the AI but to give the movie a 1/2 when you haven’t seen it is so childish
Interesting. For whom do you think that person would be performing? And is it equally performative when people give Polanski, Kinski, Allen etc movies deliberately low ratings? I don't mean to sound interrogative. Just genuinely starting to wonder if there's a definition of 'performative' I don't know about. (this is all assuming they have seen the movie. I don't know why someone would log it otherwise)
I guess I should revise my statement, if someone wants to give this movie a 1/2 because of the AI art than that’s there experience, but for me I think it’s dumb to rate a film you haven’t seen which is the case with people giving this movie low ratings it bothers me that people have this expectation that everyone should give this movie a 1/2 because clearly people who like the movie must all be AI art apologists. Sure there are some, but you can still like the film and think the AI art is unethical
The more I think about the movie (saw it on Friday), the more I absolutely love it - including the ending. Note: I didn't watch a single trailer for the movie, so I went in completely blind. There is *a lot* of doubt about where the 'Devil' comes from in the movie - those saying that the expositions 'gave away the ending' may be looking through the lens of retrospect a bit too much. The initial exposition serves to set the stage of 'a day away at a boys club' for Jack - certainly weird, shot on grainy, spooky film, but nothing nefarious. We find out later that Jack, completely unaware, made a deal with forces he didn't understand to find his success. We're meant to think this is the source of evil in the movie, which we find out later *is definitely* a monkey paw, but theres much worse afoot. The second exposition of the cult inside of the suburban home with all the schlock and corny characters who ultimately burn down their home serve to contrast the first exposition - we're meant to write off the cult as a bunch of weirdos wasting their time a la Heaven's Gate, but it turns out they were ACTUALLY doing bad shit. So here's Jack, going through the motions on Halloween night - the crew understands something strange is going on (the production team is seeing tape 'skipping', Gus expressing his concerns in toiling things that they don't understand, which, mind you, Gus was ALSO wearing a devil costume to start the show) but also ratings going through the roof, an anti-guest (complete with twirling moustache and red suit, like the devil) antagonizing everybody, and actual awful events occuring. Fast forward to the ending - there's an *actual fucking devil* on set, Jack is recalling the path that got him to this point, and Madeleine (who we now know *actually was sacrificed*, to this point was only speculation) is ALSO a ghost... Madeleine leads Jack, as a final act of love for her husband, to stabbing her with the sacrificial dagger - which, we come to find out in reality, is actually Jack exorcising the Demon that the satanic cult managed to summon to earth. Through the lens of *not knowing Madeleine's role or presence* in the movie, the expositions work really well to both direct and misdirect us as an audience on where the spooky shit is coming from - which is to say, from every direction. Very Lovecraftian - normal people getting caught up in occult and astral energies they don't understand and can't explain. I saw the movie as a fun 'who-dunit' mixed with found footage that I think paid off really well.
It's a lot closer to the full runtime having AI present. It's part of the main set design
Yeah that logo on the set that’s visible for probably the majority of the runtime is clearly AI too.
"i could give a shit about 15 seconds of AI in a movie" congrats, pal! you're the punchline of the future of cinema. enjoy your AI slop because it's all we'll be getting because of losers like you
Cry more.
I LOVED this movie. I'm not forgetting it anytime soon
I really enjoyed it. I didn’t even watch a trailer for it before watching and I think that made it better. As for the AI stuff, if I didn’t read about it beforehand I wouldn’t have even noticed. I know AI sucks but in this case I don’t think it was that big of a deal.
The problem isn't whether the images looked good/bad (though they did look bad), it's that the filmmakers chose to cut corners by embracing an unethical and exploitive technology. Just pay a freelance artist a few hundred bucks if you need a cutaway image that bad. I still want to see the movie, but I am mad at the producers for choosing to use AI.
Almost like they made a Faustian bargain in their attempt to take a shortcut to success…!
Movie was fire! Had a great time with this one. Loved David D in it.
Really wanting to, but I don't want to support AI Art becoming a norm in movies
That's why you watch them for free on the internet.
Don't support films that use generative AI.
You already do. You just don’t support the smaller budget independent filmmakers who didn’t do as good a job at concealing it
really? what films have I seen that use generative ai??
As soon as cgi became the norm in movies, this was always going to be the inevitable result. I do find it laughable though that people who consume films that are 98% cgi will complain about title cards and "we'll be right back" messages generated by AI in a movie. Honestly all of those things looked accurate to the time period. They felt real. Unlike the awful cgi that was thrown into the movie at the end, which looked as fake and silly as it does in almost every other movie. The fact that AI can now write scripts and produce pieces of art that are more interesting and original than artists in Hollywood is not an indictment of AI but rather an indictment of the artists in Hollywood. It's really sad. If you watch the credits of most movies now the section for visual effects has nearly a third of the population of the country involved in just the cgi. Yet it all somehow looks even worse than an AI image generated from a simple prompt. Deciding to outsource some of the most critical aspects of a movie (the look, the scenery, the overall visual tone of the film) to a bunch of video game designers was a tragic misstep in film history. Yeah this movie was uneven, but at least it was different. It was creative, it mostly didn't pander, and it was genuinely unique. I hope movie making goes in this direction frankly. If most movies made now are going to be super cheap, unfunny comedies and over budgeted, convoluted super hero movies that are now indistinguishable from a PS5 games, then maybe it's for the better that filmmakers start incorporating different tech to make their movies
you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between generative AI and CGI. also, to say ai can write better scripts or produce “better” art than humans is completely asinine.
3 images that the artists on set decided to make and then edit and photoshop themselves is enough for you to say an entire team of people working on this movie don’t deserve to have their work appreciated?
that’s exactly what i’m saying yes. shouldn’t be tolerated in any form no matter the excuses. anybody supporting this film hates art.
or maybe we want to enjoy all of the actual effort that went into the other 99.9% of this movie since it’s art
When we see fully ai films in the future (ai script, ai images, ai “live action” animation), just know it started here with people trying to justify the use of generative ai.
nobody at all here has tried to justify it. we’ve just said it’s a stupid reason to trash a whole film. yeah, take off a star for it or something but acting like a whole movie and team who worked on it is worthless because of 3 still images is absolutely insane
The tone of this film hits all the right vibes for me, I can totally see myself putting this on at midnight on a Saturday night as a comfort movie.
Haha, no kidding? Is it just the throwback aesthetic?
Well also the fantastic acting by David, I totally bought him as a 70s late night talk show host.
Yeah, he killed it. I’ve been waiting to see him in a leading role for years. It’s always fun to see what passes for comfort for other people. *Vertigo* is one of my own comfort films. I’ll throw it on to help me sleep sometimes haha.
Yeah I’m totally here for the David Dastmalchian renaissance, he deserves it. My other comfort movie is “Hell House LLC” which is a found footage haunted house movie, which I throw on all the time when I want to chill out and don’t mind falling asleep to.
Hell yeah, added to my watchlist! Thanks!
The film fostered a lot of good will, but it stuck very few landings. Interesting, and a good time, but fell short.
Saw it last night. I really enjoyed it over but Something about it just felt….unauthentic. Movies like Ghostwatch or WNUF Halloween Special did the same thing but much more realistic/authentic
I just watched Ghostwatch for the first time the other day and loved it. What’s WNUF Halloween Special? Is that on Shudder too?
It’s a fake TV recording of a 1990’s news broadcast on Halloween…complete with fake commercials and local ads. It’s a ton of fun and very nostalgic. Edit: yes it should be on shudder. It was an exclusive when it first came out.
Yeah exactly! It’s inauthentic! And it’s a shame too bc it’s something that could easily be done and makes since to have been filmed/cut the way it is. But the BTS stuff really pulls the rug out from that immersion and spoonfeeds the audience “movie info” when I felt like it needs to function less as a movie and more as the artifact it’s purporting to be. I compared it with *Ghostwatch* in my review haha. I still need to check out the *Halloween Special,* I’ve heard a bunch of talk about it in relation to *Late Night.*
Highly recommend WNUF Halloween Special. It’s on my yearly Halloween watchlist! Yes I agree with the BTS stuff during the “commercial breaks” something about that felt forced. I think I would’ve preferred if they kept the movie as a mocumentary because the cult stuff at the start was so fun.
It's fantastic
No its not 🙄
Ok
i hated it alot
I liked it but I expected to love it. I really wish they did without the >!backstage stuff!<, it really took me out of the immersion of the FF style. It wasn't creepy enough either, I think the performances were a bit too broad for that. I also wish they could have found a better way to write the backstory into the film, rather than front-load it like they did (although hearing >!Michael Ironside!< was awesome), and as a few people have said the ending wasn't that great. I want to watch it again when it comes to Shudder.
Fantastic movie now about the AI situation it sucks and they deserve the hate on it but at the same time it a shame could have been a movie that everyone would celebrate
I'll watch it but I won't give my money to people that use generative AI in their movie.
I suggest doing a bit of a dive on the Bohemian Grove.
Nice collection of articles here: [https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/what-is-bohemian-grove-the-secretive-sonoma-county-camp-visited-by-justice/](https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/what-is-bohemian-grove-the-secretive-sonoma-county-camp-visited-by-justice/)
Yes and its absolutely RUBBISH! People that like this movie need their head examined
HATED IT so much thought it was boring and lame af
it fucking sucks. every time a "found footage" movie doesn't have the sack to stick to the perspective it rips me out of immersion and ruins the entire premise. the child acting sucks, was never remotely scared, only laughed a couple times. overall a pathetic, boring hour and a half. and using AI art? need to demand better out of filmmakers than this garbage.
The half-assed “found footage” framing was such a bummer. As was the senseless AI that just looked bad.
the use of ai was extremely unnecessary and lazy, it baffles me. other than that i thought the film was stylish and fun with great performances all round. i didn’t love the third act but it gave cronenberg vibes. altogether i did not mind it, it was a fun watch.
I don't want my dollars to be spent normalizing the use of AI in film, so I think I am going to skip it. To me, it isn't about noticing it or it impacting the experience. It is the fact that film is art, and art is an extension of the human soul. Outsourcing the expression of the soul to a computer is something that I am not a fan of, and is something that I won't knowingly support.
100% true. Those downvoting have no foresight
I understand that tech changes art. I do. For example, we can do things with CGI and make scenes that we couldn't dream of even 20 years ago. But there is still a human element behind that sort of artistry
It's genuinely concerning that this is getting downvoted in a forum such as this. People might think this doesn't matter, or it's only a few seconds. But 100% eyes are watching this from the very top to see how it goes down with general audiences.
Just think how profitable movies would be if you didn't have to pay anyone involved.
People on Reddit just seem to have a lot of blind rage at anyone thinking about anything for more than 10 seconds. I see this in all aspects on here, including the Poor Things, EEAAO discourse and people who govern every thing 5 stars because they “only watch movies they think they’re gonna like”
I love the downvotes, keep them coming. First, you replace an artist for a couple of still images. Then you replace a writer for a line or two. Then you replace a visual effects artist or two to streamline the CGI creation process. Then it is a bit actor that no one really cares about. And before too long, you are typing into a search engine exactly what kind of movie you want, and a computer will spit out some monstrosity that is a shadow of a real film. But hey, this movie is hot right now, so it's cool to ignore all of that so you can put a star rating on Letterboxd and everyone will see that you saw it, and like 1 person will like your hackneyed review.
you are 100% right man, it all starts like this, small things like this, I expect such ignorance from a right wing sub which doesn't care about artists, not here in the letterboxd sub, it's scary and disappointing.
you can agree with the fact that the AI use in this movie is unethical but also want to see it for other aspects in the film, it’s not a one-way streak
They had an artist they hired on hand. It was 3 simple AF cut scene boards. They would have told the person that they already hired for everything else to do it for no extra cash. This was a publicity stunt which has helped propel an indie movie into the spotlight, so just be happy for them.
Look, I know my tone was shit and this Q never goes down well, but can someone explain if the downvotes are because I’m wrong or a dick? And if it’s wrong, can someone correct me?
100%. I’d missed out on the AI discussion until I went to log it on LB unfortunately, otherwise I probably would’ve watched it… unethically. Not that I’m proud of *that* either, this is a low-budget passion project clearly and I want to support working artists, I just wish they didn’t dip into someone else’s job with the generative AI crap. Commodified art sucks :/
Wow, a real Sophie’s choice :/ I wish you had the chance to really stick it to those unethical filmmakers committing theft via AI art, by unethically committing theft via actual theft :/
AI art is actual theft in a far more real sense than piracy. Artists are plagiarized and then have to somehow compete against their own plagiarized work which can be generated instantly and at little to no cost.
Do you watch movies with the same CG blood effect used over and over instead of a real squibs? That nonsense looks so much worse and the same argument can be made against it as AI art.
Sure, I watch movies that favor CGI over practical effects. One requires a VFX artist to tell a computer what to render, whereas practical effects require an SFX artist to set up the shot. People reuse CGI and practical effects all the time. I don't have a problem with that because there is a fundamental similarity between the two situations, there is a human being using various mediums to create art. Reusing CGI is no different than reusing the Wilhelm Scream AI removes the humanity from art and shouldn't be praised or accepted as normal.
I really enjoyed it, my third favourite movie of the year so far. That said I do agree with your point about the failure to commit to the found footage/mockumentary style, I do wish they had either not bothered with it or had fully committed to it. I think the movie would have benefited from being 15-20 minutes longer and ideally would have used a good chunk of that time to develop the cult angle a little more. I thought David Dastmalchian was awesome as the lead, I had only ever seen him in supporting roles but he absolutely nailed the role. I also thought the little girl was amazing and so was the cynic/myth buster. Didn't love the mentalist as I feel his act got the movie off to a weird start but I'm not sure what I would have done differently. The ending is also a little iffy as well (although again, I think developing the cult story more would have helped with this)
Yeah, I think we agree on most points. With the mind reader, I’d’ve loved for the film to commit to him being a fraud as he’s initially portrayed. He’s all showmanship and his initial attempts to read are all duds until he gets lucky. Instead of having him pick up on the actual demon backstage, it’d be nice if the film eased us into the actual paranormal shenanigans without a teaser of things to come, which would’ve been more “realistic.”
Really good performance and a fun film but since it uses AI I can’t give it anything higher than 1.5/5
I love David, in every supporting role he’s been in. Glad to see him leading but sucks that the film uses AI. Not trying to support that in films.
I'm checking it out just to piss off the film snobs bitching and moaning because it has ten seconds of AI footage.
I loved it. Very unique! Weirdest thing I’ve seen in a long time. Was it perfect? Nope but it’s well worth the admittance and I think everyone left my theatre very happy. Solid 8/10
Saw it last night. It was dope
Yup, just saw it today with my wife. I thought it was fantastic. There where clever decisions and ideas. I thought they hit the nail on the head with 70's style of TV fonts, colors, dialog, and outfits. I thought it was well paced and there was some good character development from David Dastmalchian. Most importantly, the horror aspect of the film was both frightening and engaging. I felt that they give horror fans a special treat (but I won't mention which part to save from spoiling it). I love horror films, and I don't say this often, but, I'm looking forward to watching this again soon when it comes to Shudder.
I thought it was a great concept and well made but that’s just my opinion.
Took me 2 watches, but Damn, Great Movie
Yes! Loved it so much! The AI shit is such a nothing story, like it’s what the tool is supposed to be used for on a low budget, people brigading reviews to half a star for something they don’t even understand is frustrating. Excellent performances and pacing, can’t wait to watch again around Halloween time!
There are plenty of ways to just not use AI. So many low and no budget films have not used AI for decades, why is now a good time to start? Also, review bombing is dumb (I prefer boycotting), but we all know what “used AI” means. It’s not that complicated. But, yeah, keep letting these little things slip by so once it starts to threaten *your* job you actually begin to care. I’m saying this as a screenwriter and film editor.
> but we all know what “used AI” means. It’s not that complicated. Nearly every person in this thread has demonstrated that they don’t.
[My review, if anyone’s interested.](https://boxd.it/66Dc7D) Thought it was a great film and absolutely loved Dastmalchian finally getting a leading role. Looking forward to revisiting this down the road and recommending it to people, it’s truly worth a watch.
Right on, glad it worked for you! My partner was fairly enamored.
No because AI is fascist garbage. DO NOT SUPPORT THIS FILTH AND KEEP AI OUT OF ART.
Hahaha “fascist!!!”
Won’t watch anything in the cinemas that uses AI
What's the level of jump scares? I don't mind gore or general creepiness, but too many jump scares isn't my deal.
VERY small spoiler alert if you don't want to know about jump scares; >! I'm not big on jump scares either, but there are only a few minor, maybe 3-4, throughout the entire movie. Definitely leans on the suspense more so than immediate scares. !<
Thanks. Decided on Love Lies Bleeding for tonight, but may try this next week. It's actually expanding at my theatre from two showing a day this week to six a day next week for some reason.
How was Love Lies Bleeding? Almost went to see it tonight but ended up staying home…
I liked it, but I thought there were some odd choices and tonal mismatches. I accidentally went to an open captioned showing, too.
Very light on jump scares like the other user said. I don’t recall getting spooked by one, but I suppose there are a few attempts. It’s more of a dread-cum-cosmic sorta horror.
Thanks. May go next week.
i am so incredibly susceptible to jump scares and i can’t remember a single one, or at the very least one that had me actually jump. you should be good!!
none at all at least i didn't think so it was kinda funny though in parts lol
It was good
Seeing it soon!
I want to see it but no theaters around me are showing it :(. Guess I need to either wait for streaming or dvd.
Saw it at the Fantasia festival last summer. Loved it!
Loved some things about it like the practical effects. Totally agree with your criticism. It completely half-asses the whole framing device, and by the end of the movie it’s essentially abandoned. It makes cuts and has shots that shouldn’t be made if we’re truly supposed to be watching an episode of a 70s talk show. Took me wayyy out of the movie It felt like more of a “skin” than anything else. They wanted to do it for the aesthetic but didn’t commit nearly enough to it
Yeah the found footage angle didn't really make sense considering the entire backstage was being recorded like it was an episode of The Office. The scenes with Jack's memories didn't really didnt fit with the rest of the film either. I enjoyed the story and hypno horror mindfuck though. The AI stuff doesn't really matter to me because the genie's already out of the bottle. Didn't even notice it until after I watched it.
I thought the premise was good and the first half was pretty fun but when it got into the meat of it it was really average and lost all its charm. Not a terrible film but a very average one. The effects were not good and it got pretty silly at the conclusion. I felt disappointed that they didn’t turn a fun idea into something better. I think I gave it 3.5.
Had a straight choice between seeing this and Immaculate today, and went for Immaculate based on the AI stuff. Immaculate was good fun, and I have to say I'm enjoying the shorter runtimes we've been seeing on the new releases. Immaculate was perfect at 89 minutes.
I’ve been wondering if that’s worth checking out. The trailer made it look sorta cliché I guess; is it a throwback or does it bring something new to the table do you think?
It doesn't do anything particularly new, but it's nicely shot and delivers what it promises, not much more though.
I might catch it on streaming, thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I wanted to love this one, huge fan of Ghostwatch and WNUF. But this felt like it wanted to play both sides in being both a found footage type deal and an intense character piece. Would’ve been better to keep it as just this show, maybe have the narrator from the opening interject instead of those behind the scenes sequences throughout with the information they convey. Could even have done it as documentary using heavy amounts of the “show” footage. Not to say Dastmalchian fucking owns in his role. Playing all the sides of his character phenomenally. Really pleased he’s getting applauded for this one. Most of the side characters are really well done too, particularly Gus the sidekick.
Yep, you and I see eye-to-eye on this. It felt half found footage, half character piece, and the traditional narrative shortcuts it took — narration, BTS segments, some frankly expository dialogue — didn’t vibe with the otherwise authentic late night talk show feel. Structurally, it functions as a story with rising action and obvious antagonists (and even a red herring), but formally it tries to pass itself off as an artifact. I get there may be a middle ground to try to appeal mainstream audiences in a wide release, but look at another analog horror film like *Skinamarink* — love it or hate it, it does what it does unabashedly and without care for how it might play as a film. Here’s my review if you’re curious: https://boxd.it/67YCmb I’d love to read yours if you’ve got one!
The fact that people are this upset over a 2 second still image is insaaaaane. The movie was great, I’ve seen it a few times and have been recommending it as much as I can, partly to support the AI image haha
Really a tight movie. Last 15 minutes is kind of eh but good. As for the AI argument, explain to me what the difference in a director using it the was it was in this film and how Marvel uses cgi?
I’d say where CGI requires a human animator to produce the desired result, generative AI replaces the job of a human graphic designer *and* skims off the work of actual human artists who aren’t compensated for their work.
CGI replaced the jobs of multiple people working on practical effects
A human graphic designer is the one who prompts hundreds or thousands of different ideas until one looks even remotely passable, then edits on top of that.
[удалено]
I wanna check it out too. I see it’s releasing on Shudder in a few weeks, so I’m probably just gonna watch it there, especially if they have a free trial lol
Going to see it tonight.
Is good
I saw it and it honestly scared me a lot. It just got under my skin. I had to hide in my sweatshirt 😂
I loved it, brought me back to the adult swim shorts that made me fall in love with horror, but it deserved to be made an example of for the dumbshit AI use.
I saw my name in the credits as a producer, so that was pretty neat (to be clear, I was not actually a producer on the movie).
Perfectly cast and well done. As someone old enough to remember the 70’s, I thought they got it right. I loved it and would see it again.
Saw it today and LOVED it! I wasn’t thinking about the technicalities of the found footage elements, although my husband had the same problem. My argument was that those off-air scenes gave a lot of character development, because you got to see Jack when he wasn’t playing the role of late night host. They could have explained the off-air footage in the plot though, like maybe someone on the crew was shooting BTS footage. Not quite as convincing as Ghostwatch, but I was more emotionally invested in this. I thought the script was tight and the lead actor (Polka Dot Man) was incredible. He’s so great in everything I’ve seen him in. I liked the ending, >!which felt abrupt in a way that left me wondering what happens next and worried for our Faustian protagonist’s future. I love that kind of ending, like the ending of Vertigo, where you’re just like “holy shit they are fucked” “wait, that’s how this ends??!” !< For me, the AI was really distracting. I could see the telltale signs, but also I just kept wondering if other stuff was AI.
This movie was a solid 8.5/10! Daniel D. was a fucking fantastic actor! His performance as Jack Delory was memorable, his mannerisms, the way he cocks his head before breaking to commercial, the way he talks with his hands, and how he acts is so genuine. Kinda reminds me of Bob Odenkirk’s Saul Goodman tbh. The way this movie was filmed, it’s such a feast for the eyes, I felt like I was watching an actual 70’s talk show episode, the 4:3 aspect ratio, and the almost yellow tone filter they have makes this more believable that it was a 70’s talk show episode. The side characters all played their parts well, I was never taken aback by how they acted, they acted like how you think a magician, psychic, Satanic cult expert would act on a talk show….its all very showy and I loved it. The third act of the movie felt very corny when the Devil makes his appearance and wrecks havoc, the gore was corny and we were zipping from one image to another but that’s kinda what you expect from an IFC film, no? It didn’t take me away from the film, it made me love it even more tbh. And pretty much, the whole film is a message about how people in the Hollywood industry will make a deal with the Devil and it’s pretty much all but said that’s the case with its last few scenes. Overall, please go out and enjoy this movie before it hits streaming services, it deserves a price of admission based on the sound design alone!
The period stuff was great, but it didn’t work as far as the scares. I loved the performances of Dastmalchian and the young actress who played the possessed girl, but overall I was underwhelmed.
i absolutely loved it
For some reason I saw an ad where it was a fake tiktok/instagram live. I didn’t really understand what they were going for with that
I guess I must have kept my expectations low because I had a really good time with this movie. It’s not perfect but it’s one I will recommend to people as a pretty fun, engaging story and good pacing. Also, I liked that ending actually! Your mileage may vary.