Late Night with the Devil (2024)

[Winston T. Boogie]

Title: Late Night with the Devil (2024)

Tagline: The live television event that shocked a nation!

Genre: Horror, Thriller

Director: Cameron Cairnes, Colin Cairnes

Cast: David Dastmalchian, Laura Gordon, Ian Bliss, Fayssal Bazzi, Ingrid Torelli, Rhys Auteri, Georgina Haig, Josh Quong Tart, Christopher Kirby, Steve Mouzakis, Gaby Seow, Michael Ironside, Paula Arundell

Release: 2024-03-22

Runtime: 92

Plot: A live broadcast of a late-night talk show in 1977 goes horribly wrong, unleashing evil into the nation’s living rooms.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Perhaps horror hounds will rejoice at this interesting offering.

Love the voice of the guy narrating the trailer...classic!

 

[Alex...]

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Looks like this is getting glowing reviews and doing well at the box office. It's on my list to see if I can catch it in a theater.

 

[TravisR]

Looks like this is getting glowing reviews and doing well at the box office. It's on my list to see if I can catch it in a theater.

This sounds like a joke but they're saying that it made $666,666 at theaters this weekend.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

This sounds like a joke but they're saying that it made $666,666 at theaters this weekend.

I am guessing that is a joke, yes. I think the figure was somewhere between 2.5-3 million. Which obviously is not blockbuster numbers but for a small independent horror film, I guess it is the largest opening ever for a Shudder project. I've not really read or listened to the reviews yet, I'll wait to dive into those until I have seen it, but the headline on the reviews is people really think this one is great. I suppose, like comedy, it depends on what your personal horror leanings are.

 

[TravisR]

I am guessing that is a joke, yes. I think the figure was somewhere between 2.5-3 million. Which obviously is not blockbuster numbers but for a small independent horror film, I guess it is the largest opening ever for a Shudder project. I've not really read or listened to the reviews yet, I'll wait to dive into those until I have seen it, but the headline on the reviews is people really think this one is great. I suppose, like comedy, it depends on what your personal horror leanings are.

Maybe it made $666,666 on a single weekend day then. I didn't want to look into it because it seemed so great that I just wanted to believe it.

 

[Malcolm R]

That may have been their estimate for Sunday. The final number was a spoilsport.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Saw this a week ago and really liked it... even though I'm not a big horror fan (though I've seen a few in theaters of late, which was rare for me in the past... except way back when I was a kid, LOL). Maybe I'll try seeing it again in a theater, if there's not enough coming to fill up my AMC A-List usage quota. OR it'll probably hit home video before long I'm guessing...

_Man_

 

[JoeStemme]

It's now streaming on Shudder, AMC & Roku Channel.

It's Eerie and well produced. Saw this one in a theater and my hats off to the Aussie filmmakers who clearly did their research recreating the look and feel of American late night TV in the 1970s. Full review to follow, just wanted to give a heads up to look out for it. You can also digitally purchase it on Prime, AppleTV etc. Recommended.


will be posting my full thoughts soon. SEE IT!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I enjoyed it. Interesting little take on a horror film filled with a bunch of interesting references in a talk show setting. It is supposed to be a sort of found footage deal, not sure where the backstage b&w footage is supposed to have come from but the TV show is supposed to be the actual network recording of the show. Of course, at the end, it is hard to say what we are supposed to be looking at. At that point, it seems we are inside the host's mind.

So, the one odd thing about the film is it sort of shifts perspectives and does not hold to any of them. It's like a documentary with found footage, mixed with a fictional film, mixed with a look inside a guy that is losing his mind.

It's an interesting mix. Good performances, good story, nice atmosphere. I think if they did a sequel, it should be about the goings-on at The Grove, an obvious reference to Bohemian Grove. Definitely an entertaining well-made little horror picture. Left me scratching my head a bit at the end.

 

[Malcolm R]

Left me scratching my head a bit at the end.

From IFC Films, that's about the only kind they make.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

From IFC Films, that's about the only kind they make.

It was not so much the story that left me scratching my head, it was the way they tell it. Obviously the color footage is all supposed to be the master tape of the Halloween night show. This is shown 1:33 as if it was old TV tape. When they break for commercial the perspective widens to 1:85 and goes to black and white, I presume so we know we are not watching what was broadcast. However, this is shot like a normal fictional film with cameras following around the characters so we see and hear their conversations, many of which are private so they obviously do not have a camera following them around. So, what are we supposed to think that footage is? It's not documentary footage, it is not the show, it is not the TV cameras catching the characters while the show is in commercial. We've obviously shifted to a fictional film perspective at that point. Then for the end of the film, they essentially merge the two perspectives together and stir in being able to see what is going on in Jack Delroy's mind. So, this is what had me scratching my head. We see things in the picture that definitely would not exist on film or tape to be mixed in with the "documentary" this is presented as at the start of the film.

I could say that was sloppy filmmaking in a way because it was like they could not keep track of the story they were telling and how they set-up the film at the beginning. It's all intentional though, so I guess it was not sloppy storytelling.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I was kind of hilariously reminded of William Friedkin talking about Kubrick's The Shining where he got aggravated watching it and said, I think about the scene when Jack is locked in the food locker and Kubrick shoots his dialogue from the floor looking up Jack's nose, "Well, whose fucking perspective is that supposed be?" because he thought the way that was shot made no sense.

Well, in this film they begin it as a documentary about Jack Delroy and his infamous Halloween night broadcast but they almost immediately start showing us things between the clips of the show that would not be on film or video...prompting us to ask the Friedkin question.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I spend quite a bit of time on TikTok where this film was immensely (and perhaps purposely) hyped up in video after video.

Watched and found myself disappointed, which I may not have been if I didn't go in with such high expectations.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I spend quite a bit of time on TikTok where this film was immensely (and perhaps purposely) hyped up in video after video.

Watched and found myself disappointed, which I may not have been if I didn't go in with such high expectations.

It was definitely well hyped and I think the trailer for it is absolutely fantastic. Essentially, it is not your typical horror film, which makes it stand out a bit. It plays through a good part of it, like a drama about a guy that lost his wife and is a late night talk show host. The way they set-up what we are watching as a documentary, and then mix in a bunch of stuff that leaves the documentary idea behind, is confusing but does not kill the entertainment value of the film.

I'm not sure how this plays for a horror film audience. Most of the story is told through a series of conversations that happen on the show and backstage while the cameras are off. It does have the "likable character" problem in that, there are no likable characters. Jack Delroy is basically a creep, particularly when they show you things that happen with him when he is not in front of the talk show cameras. I was fine with this, but I know there are people that prefer to have a character they like to root for. There is not one in this film. That may not sit well with some people.

I really liked the film, mostly because it plays in the area I prefer in a horror film, it is about atmosphere, it is a period film, and it has a strong focus on characters. I think this lifts it above a lot of horror pictures and it is a good one. So, while I am critical about the approach to how to tell this story and that they seem not to have decided on one but sort of randomly shift between a mix of ways to tell it...it is still, in my opinion, a good horror entry. It's lightyears better than things like the most recent Halloween trilogy or the new Exorcist film.

Ha, and there is a shout out to Halloween III in this, which did make me laugh.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

FWIW, I went into this cold myself and didn't know much of anything about it (other than a brief blurp on Rotten Tomatoes I think) -- I don't do any social media other than FB (and well, a little bit of LinkedIn, heh) and don't generally see much, if any, movie hype on there...

Still, haven't rewatched it yet so far -- I kept finding just enough interesting, new-ish movies to fill my AMC A-List quota to not defer to this... and now, it's available for streaming (though not quite yet for me)...

_Man_

 

[JoeStemme]

It was not so much the story that left me scratching my head, it was the way they tell it. Obviously the color footage is all supposed to be the master tape of the Halloween night show. This is shown 1:33 as if it was old TV tape. When they break for commercial the perspective widens to 1:85 and goes to black and white, I presume so we know we are not watching what was broadcast. However, this is shot like a normal fictional film with cameras following around the characters so we see and hear their conversations, many of which are private so they obviously do not have a camera following them around. So, what are we supposed to think that footage is? It's not documentary footage, it is not the show, it is not the TV cameras catching the characters while the show is in commercial.

It's a bit blink and you'll miss it, but the behind the scenes documentary footage is mentioned as a part of what happened that evening.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

It's a bit blink and you'll miss it, but the behind the scenes documentary footage is mentioned as a part of what happened that evening.

Interesting, I did miss that. I've only seen the film one time. I assume that would be mentioned in the documentary intro somewhere. I guess the thing about the black and white footage to me was, it did not seem like the characters knew a camera or cameras were following them around. They have some conversations that they obviously would not want to have in front of a camera and they seem oblivious to the idea someone is filming them and catching sound of their conversations. If they knew, I would think they would tell them to stop filming them, particularly after a certain incident is communicated about one of the guests.

I'll try to take a look at the intro again and see what they say about the black & white footage.

 

[JoeStemme]

Interesting, I did miss that. I've only seen the film one time. I assume that would be mentioned in the documentary intro somewhere. I guess the thing about the black and white footage to me was, it did not seem like the characters knew a camera or cameras were following them around. They have some conversations that they obviously would not want to have in front of a camera and they seem oblivious to the idea someone is filming them and catching sound of their conversations. If they knew, I would think they would tell them to stop filming them, particularly after a certain incident is communicated about one of the guests.

No doubt, it's a bit of a cheat, but it is acknowledged.