Late Night with the Devil (2024)

[Mobius]

it sounds like they've used AI for some of the images that come on screen for the 'we'll be right back!' bits of the talk show, or the cuts to other shows/teasers (within the world of the movie)

there's an example of it here.

https://imgur.com/a/dybi5rd (not a spoiler, just an image of a cartoon skeleton)

apparently it was noticeable in the trailer

i probably wouldn't even notice something like this myself, but it's got the fucked up AI fingers. hard to tell from what people are saying if this just happens once, or pops up frequently. but some people are saying it's impacted their enjoyment of the movie and is disappointing

[Mister Six]

Weird. It can't cost that much to hire someone to draw a period picture of a spooky skeleton, can it?

[Pseudopath]

After timing 3mins of them before some movie last year I made a short film that consisted entierly of Idents

Ha ha! I adore this. Cracking work.

[neveragain]

After timing 3mins of them before some movie last year I made a short film that consisted entierly of Idents

Bloody love this.

Particularly the use of (I think) the old BBC Video music.

[iamcoop]

I can't say I noticed the AI to be honest, although I'm glad I saw it before it was pointed out to me.

[SteveDave]

After timing 3mins of them before some movie last year I made a short film that consisted entierly of Idents

A thing of beauty is a joy forever

[prelektric]

After timing 3mins of them before some movie last year I made a short film that consisted entierly of Idents

This is glorious. Nearly choked laughing at the "Nanny State" one! Thanks for sharing that, made my day.

I'm a bit nerdy about old school idents so this was right up my alley.

I haven't watched Late Night with the Devil yet - hope to watch it next week at the local.

[SteveDave]

Going to see this on Sunday before Kitson/Key/Tree showing at the Price King Charles Cinema.

[Minami Minegishi]

After timing 3mins of them before some movie last year I made a short film that consisted entierly of Idents

This is fantastic - nice one!

It evoked memories of the Enter the Void opening titles, but was even more inventive, and funny.

[Butchers Blind]

Van Halen 'running out of ideas'.

Beacuse of this, everytime I read the title of this thread I have to sing it to the tune of 'Runnin' With The Devil'.

[Glebe]

😁

[holyzombiejesus]

Gah, I didn't like it.

Thought it was ok for the first third, the bit with the girl was a bit tired and the end was poor. A bit gutted really.

[Hank_Kingsley]

I was going to see this at the cinema but I'm not fucking with anything that uses AI. Please don't tell me that Godzilla shags Kong: Part II or whatever it is uses AI because that's the other thing I was looking forward to seeing at the cinema this week.

[Noodle Lizard]

I was going to see this at the cinema but I'm not fucking with anything that uses AI. Please don't tell me that Godzilla shags Kong: Part II or whatever it is uses AI because that's the other thing I was looking forward to seeing at the cinema this week.

It's safe to assume that many things made in the last year or two have used AI to some degree or another, as will many things moving forward.

[Lost Oliver]

I don't usually enjoy horror films (though I love horror games), but I really liked this one. Loved the aesthetic and the images at the end. Annoyingly though, it was slightly ruined for me (again), by people in the auidence. Several times throughout there were people properly guffawing. Why? It was a horror film! I get we all react differently to stuff, but it stopped me from being properly absorbed/lost in the film. I'm trying to take in the horrific images on screen and someone on the back room is demonstrating to everyone else in the theatre that they actually find it funny. I guess going to the cinema for me is a personal thing, but it's not like that for everyone. I just wish I could ignore it.

Anyway, I'd give this film 5 bags of popcorn and an owl key ring.

Also, great short Tarquin.

[Bad Ambassador]

Saw this earlier and was not very impressed. The digital effects took me out of the supposed period video, the pacing was off and gave away too much too early, the foreshadowing was very clumsy and the whole thing felt very derivative of Ghostwatch, Inside Number 9, Black Mirror and Ghost Stories. The attempt to have "behind-the-scenes" footage that was just standard third person dramatic camera didn't work, and the "this is the master tape of what was broadcast" conceit is just abandoned halfway through. Very shoddy and disappointing, before you even get to the use of Ai images, for which there is no excuse apart from not wanting to pay artists.

[thatguyfromthatthing]

I've heard criticism about the use of AI in this film's production, anyone able to explain exactly what that's all about?

Some internet users heard on the grapevine that there was AI, and assumed it was the scare story that corporations are refusing to hire artists because they're making AI to do everything. The director clarified that the production team (who were making the film right when generative AI was first on the circuit) wanted to see what the fuss was about, and used it to make three of the TV channel graphics, and then reworked the three images anyway. The film is being reviewbombed/people on Twitter are saying they'll boycott.

[Noodle Lizard]

It's a shame the AI chatter has completely taken the spotlight away from the quality of the actual film ...

Spoiler alert

which is shit.

[close]

[El Unicornio, mang]

People boycotting a low budget film for using AI on a brief image of a dancing skeleton seems way worse to me than them using AI.

[PlanktonSideburns]

If anyone else knows of another way to get an image of a skeleton in 2024 id love to hear it

[SteveDave]

Saw this on Sunday in a packed Prince Charles Cinema.

The only laughter I heard was at the endless opening production idents, at Jack saying "...and now a word from our sponsors" after something dramatic/weird happened in the studio and the sceptic switching sides once everything started going mental. Two of these was deliberate on the part of the filmmakers I'm thinking.

Overall though I was a bit disappointed in it. If you're going for the conceit that it's the tapes of the episode and you've got 3 cameras in the studio (at most), do it like a TV show and don't have angles that those big cameras wouldn't be able to get. Also the "backstage" footage would've been believable if it had been one angle from one camera but that kept cutting to different cameras. They could've done it like "This Time with Alan Partridge" where it's the main cameras but they just get legs or people are off-centre. It's nitpicking but as a big fan of "Ghostwatch" (and getting bigger every day) I was hoping for a new version.

[Noodle Lizard]

Yeah, it feels like the common reaction now would be that we're "nitpicking", but if you're going to frame your horror film as a genuine article, you really ought to stick to that conceit as best as you can or else you just get completely taken out of it. In this, they didn't even try to bother.

Long rant ahead:

Spoiler alert

The fact that it was initially framed as found footage shown within a documentary makes it make even less sense, and so they just abandoned that premise entirely. It's difficult not to see it as pure laziness on behalf of the filmmakers, as the documentary intro serves only to deliver a boatload of exposition, much of which negates any surprises that might come within the film itself. There are so many obvious and more effective ways of delivering this information organically throughout the film (especially if they'd stuck with the documentary framing), so it comes off as though the filmmakers didn't trust the audience to be able to piece things together for themselves - or perhaps didn't trust their own ability to communicate those ideas properly.

They also way overused the "subliminal imagery" gimmick. I say "subliminal", it was pretty fucking blatant - again, as if they didn't have the confidence to simply let something exist without drawing attention to it. Even long before anything overtly "spooky" happens, I was seeing his wife digitally flickering all over the set, which really takes you out of something which is presented as being genuine footage. It's an overused gimmick anyway, but recentish films like Midsommar have managed it to good and tasteful effect. In this, it's like something an overexcited film student would throw on in post after watching the director's cut of The Exorcist for the first time.

Which brings me onto my final point: the film is just a bit tasteless. It goes far too big far too quickly, not having the restraint or the balls to let anything breathe. The reason something like Ghostwatch works so well is because it's bold enough to be boring at times, like a genuine article of this nature would be. Much of the creepiness in it comes from not quite being sure if you're seeing something paranormal or not, and it allows you to miss things that might change your perception. In this, utterly impossible things start happening within the first 20 minutes, and it's made up its mind for us about ghosts and demons and such being totally real in this universe from the start - despite the protestations of the awful Randi stand-in, who himself goes on to perform impossible feats - so then you're just circling the drain waiting for the inevitable explosive CGI finale.

Which brings me onto my second final point: it doesn't have a single original idea that I noticed, but it almost devalues the things it steals from by treating them so lazily. Something like the Randi/Geller analogue is almost too obvious as it is, but the way it goes about them just makes it seem like they only know these subjects or characters from other pop culture interpretations rather than bothering to do any actual research into any of it which might have made it feel more genuine.

[close]

Before seeing it, I was leaning on the side of being forgiving of their use of AI images, but now I think it might be emblematic of the wider "this'll do" approach of the filmmakers. I really, really didn't like it.

And what's going on with David Dastmalchian? Even before the film came out, a lot of the hype was all "Get ready for David Dastmalchian!", and half the comments and reviews I've read are very excited about "Double D" and what an underrated gem he is. I've seen him turn up in lots of things, but I've never been particularly excited about it, and I'm surprised the average person would even know him by name. When did we go all-in on The Malchman?

[Wet Blanket]

Came here to say what everyone else has said - liked it, but it would have been better if it had stuck with the 'bit' and not cut to standard film technique in the behind the scenes sections and the ending, which was a load of rubbish. The CGI special effects didn't fit properly with the 70s aesthetic either.

Would never have noticed the AI graphics, but it does reflect that same lack of attention to detail.

[holyzombiejesus]

If the film ended after the intro bit, it would have been so much better.

I could have easily forgiven the inconsistencies in the backstory if the second half of the film hadn't been so fucking dumb.

[Noodle Lizard]

Came here to say what everyone else has said - liked it, but it would have been better if it had stuck with the 'bit' and not cut to standard film technique in the behind the scenes sections and the ending, which was a load of rubbish. The CGI special effects didn't fit properly with the 70s aesthetic either.

It wasn't just the behind-the-scenes bits. It might be more apparent to me because I'm spending a lot of time with 70s talk- and game-shows for work at the moment, but even basic things like the camera blocking and the amount of cameras apparently available were poorly-observed, or not observed at all. I think I even saw some shallow focus in there once or twice, which would never happen with that kind of set-up. I also remember the "glitches" and such looking very inauthentic, like stock overlays downloaded off a YouTube video, and whoever the vision mixer on this supposedly live broadcast was had supernatural powers themselves - they knew exactly what to cut to before it had even happened!

I don't know what the budget was for this, but a lot of it comes down to care and attention to detail rather than financial restrictions. There are zero-budget "analogue horror" films which do a better job of it, not to mention individual episodes of Inside No 9. Nitpicky perhaps, but if they're making a "found footage" film set entirely in a 1970s talk show, you'd think these "minor details" would be something they'd try harder to get right.

[neveragain]

Agree with your points there Noodle Lizard but still very much enjoyed it. If the b/w behind-the-scenes bits weren't there and it was filmed more authentically, I would have loved it entirely*. (Yes, I even liked the ending - and think how much more it would stuck out if the build-up had looked real, demonic activities aside.)

I didn't mind it being derivative, and I thought the opening mini-doc was worth it for the callbacks.

*Well, not as much as Ghostwatch or Inside No. 9 or WNUF but still... liked very much.

[13 schoolyards]

I thought it was fine for the most part. They didn't stick to the gimmick strongly enough and the build up was wonky, but there was one moment at the end -

Spoiler alert

where he walked back on stage after fleeing and his sidekick was there

[close]

- where I thought "oh shit, they're going there", and even though what followed definitely could have been weirder that was one decent moment more than a lot of recent horror.

Also nice to see an Australian horror film that isn't about being murdered in the outback

[Noodle Lizard]

Also nice to see an Australian horror film that isn't about being murdered in the outback

Check out last year's Talk To Me if you haven't already. It's also an Australian horror film which isn't pretending it's an American horror film.

[holyzombiejesus]

We should have an Australian horror thread.

[13 schoolyards]

We should have an Australian horror thread.

Yeah, excuse my earlier flippancy - Australia's actually been doing okay with horror (now it's our crime dramas that are all about how the outback is a lethal shithole).

I would also suggest last year's Time Addicts, which was promoted as a comedy because the basic concept sounds like a comedy ("a pair of junkies discover a drug that enables time travel") but how it plays out is often kind of grim and claustrophobic in a way that isn't exactly horror but is often a little unsettling.

And, the now "available" You'll Never Find Me is meant to be good, though I can't vouch for it personally