This was the only Soavi-movie I haven't seen so I picked it up cheap in New York and I finally got around to watch it today. What a marvelous movies! I've heard it had some trouble with both the financing and the violence (got cut down or something....), but it's still a fantastic piece of cinema.

I have no idea about the budget, but it was probably not up to the Hollywood-standards, but Soavi created some great and very impressive set-pieces that actually beats Argento with miles.

The acting was also a lot better then usual, especially from Barbara Cupisti, Giovanni Lombarde Radice and the black guy, Hugh Quarshie, playing the priest (he was probably the best actor in the whole movie). Is this one of the few italian horrors where a black person has something interesting to do and is wellwritten by the way? It felt so.

It's hard not to think about it, and it will probably be in my dreams tonite.

I loved this Soavi flick! Great how he seperates the past and the present and the fact that this also includes the Knights Templar! I often hear others complain on how this is very slow and akward to watch, but if you know Soavi's work you would understand it better!

I hate to sound so negative since I usually love Soavi's work but I found this film to be a big piece of shit actually. Admittedly it starts off well with an impressive opening sequence but it all goes rapidly downhill from there. Slow, tedious and uninvolving with a gratingly repetitious score. The focus on the characters keeps switching so there aren't really any main characters to root for. There's also the matter of the horrible English dubbing. I'm usually a supporter of good old dubbers based in Rome but they did a truly sloppy job on this one. Worst of all is the dubbing of little Asia Argento, who is voiced by some hoarse woman who sounds as if she's been smoking way too many cigarettes and who certainly doesn't match the character age wise either.

There are admittedly some good isolated sequences. Soavi has an eye for detail and the set pieces work well. Not to mention that the film looks great - as if it was a big-budgeted film. Unfortunately, Soavi appears to be more concerned about flaunting how good he is with his camera than he is about telling an interesting story. And this unwise approach to the film is the final nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned. Among Soavi's two films produced by Argento, i far prefer THE SECT.

[There are admittedly some good isolated sequences. Soavi has an eye for detail and the set pieces work well. Not to mention that the film looks great - as if it was a big-budgeted film. Unfortunately, Soavi appears to be more concerned about flaunting how good he is with his camera than he is about telling an interesting story. And this unwise approach to the film is the final nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned. Among Soavi's two films produced by Argento, i far prefer THE SECT.
[/quote]

A lot like Argento, huh? It is a bit slow, but I too enjoy The Church immensely. But you know what? Since it was supposed to be Demons 3, I really would've loved it more if the possessed had've turned into dripping, fangy demons instead of just becoming merely murderous people. I don't know, I just love the Demons films, and I'm going Demons crazy today...

I absolutely love the first DEMONS. It's so much fun and it holds up very well on repeat viewings. I never get tired of that film.

DEMONS 2, however, is another story. I truly detest both that and THE CHURCH. Both bad and boring - the most inexcusable cinematic combo. But we all like different things of course...

The problem with Demons 2 is the total lack for gore and energy. It's nothing. Which is sad. I love the first one to (and The Church)

I can live without gore but DEMONS 2 is pretty much an exact remake of the first only - only they removed all the ingredients that made the first one so enjoyable. It's stripped of energy and flair - there just isn't any fun. And i hate the leading couple: the annoying pregnant chick and her nerdy bespectacled husband who is actually both ripped and quite good-looking once he loses his glasses and boring suit. Yuch!

For me, the only good thing about DEMONS 2 was Coralina Cataldi-Tassoni as the possessed Sally. She gave everything and is the only one in the film who brings any sort of energy to the proceedings. Too bad she didn't get a better film to appear in...

Well, for me exploitation is about copying, so I don't care really about that. Movies like Demons need gore, or else they just can be boring. Some extra spice.

i haven't seen The Church n many years but i actually really enjoyed it for the mood, the nods to works of art, the ambience and the music and the general stylishness of the film.

like johan i do wthout gore and if it had turned out like another demons follow up (it was originally advertsed as RETURN TO THE LAND OF THE DEMONS) and would have been directed by Lamberto Bava once again, i doubt i would have enjoed it as much. i find the acting and the set pieces to be pretty good as well, and hugh quarshie s quite a wel known and respected actor in the UK, and also does quite a lot of narration on documentaries too.

it does lose its way along the way at times, but i liked some of the little nods to historical events as well. apparantly soavi wanted it to be longer and make more sense... but it works great as a post era of horror talian movie. not to say don't enjoy the demons movies, because i do, but gore and splatter tend to leave me slghtly cold...