"Late Night with the Devil" - Great concept, execution leaves a lot to be desired.

Josh
Oct 17, 2024
5 min read

Cameron Cairnes; Colin Cairnes (2023)

I wish this would happen on the James Corden's show.

I'll start by saying that I love the concept of Late Night with the Devil. And what I also love is one location movies. When a director is able to really keep a location visually engaging but also requires a strong and interesting script. Such as Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men, Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope or Mother! by Darren Aronofsky. And what I also love are films that will try to fully commit to the medium they’re trying to mimic. Like Lake Mungo (Joel Anderson, who was also a producer on this) with extremely accurate news recreations, Birdman (Alejandro G. Iñárritu) with its stage-play oner or even the absolutely natural and accidental nature of The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sánchez). So when the trailers for Late Night with the Devil dropped centred around recreating the feeling of an old 70s TV broadcast mixed with The Exorcist, I was very excited. And to top it off, made locally here in the land of green and gold shot in my home town of Melbourne with plenty of local talent. Well, that was a cherry on top (and yes, I will get to the poison that was sprinkled over the top that is AI). Although, despite my excitement, I don’t think the movie lived up to it’s potential or committed to it’s concept fully. Even though I did enjoy my time watching this film I was pretty underwhelmed as the credits began to roll.

Jack Delroy, played wonderfully by David Dastmalchian, is a radio personality turned late night talk show host trying to rise up the ranks to be above the legends of the time like Letterman and Carson. And to make a bounce back to the limelight after a montage showing him stooping to the levels of a Jerry Springer type, he hosts a Halloween event where he will host illusionists, psychics and interview a possessed little girl. Once that set up was done, I was settled in for something special. The film heavily takes inspiration from real life figures, mentioning the ones above from the realm of late night TV, but amongst the special guests is Carmichael Haig (Ian Bliss) who is pretty much a clone of James Randi. A magician who become most famous for debunking tricksters on The Late Night Show with Johnny Carson and setting up a $1 million challenge to prove the existence of the Paranormal. I do wish this character was turned down just a little bit as it felt like they tried to cram in as many references to Randy as possible, where he become pretty annoying constantly interrupting (I’m talking like it was an actual interview). That character isn’t the only thing that is ripped from outside influences. The actual possessed girl is very much influenced by Regan from The Exorcist, so much so it was distracting. One of the biggest thing that really gets to me, is when there is a possession and the persons face changes un-naturally. One of the big ones for me are the scratches on her face. In The Exorcist, Regan gained those scratches over time, alluding to the demon clawing at her own face while no one is watching. In this, Lilly (Ingrid Torelli) instantly has scratches on her face that will then disappear once the possession is done. Bringing that back to just a voice change and strong physical performance could've gone a long way to ground the film a little bit.

As mentioned a big draw for me was how they would tackle the aesthetic of replicating a 70s talk show. The limitations of the three-point camera, technology of the time, the mediocre looking quality and sound, ad breaks and how they utilise the single set. Although, they didn’t feel committed to the concept as it felt like they were breaking the rules of shooting for TV such as various close ups that should’ve just been medium shots. And I would happy with that bland shot reverse shot for most of the film with the tension and intrigue of is Lilly really possessed or not. As well they have a person shooting behind-the-scenes during ad breaks but it didn’t feel sporadic but just like a standard film. I would be good if there were conversations that were accidently caught in change rooms rather than having shot reverse shot by a single person. Then they really betray this, they have split screens showing two different conversations at once that felt so out of place and way to cinematic for the style they were trying to reproduce. And I feel if they kept to the simplistic nature of filming on a TV set, then the over the top dream-like ending would be way more satisfying and visually interesting where we get impossible shots for a TV show in that era. And the over the top ending didn't hit for me as I was hoping for a much for grounded back and forth of is she lying or is this real as a conflict. Sadly, I didn’t think it really ramped up that question but made it pretty obvious from the beginning that she is possessed, so it felt like they needed to ramp up the ending to 11. And it that line where I checked out on what was happening and wasn’t scared at all. In fact there was one moment where I felt uneasy and that was Jack cracked a joke at a person dressed head to toe in a skeleton costume to little reaction from him. And later on in the film we get a wide shot of the audience and I was focused on that skeleton, wondering, “Okay, now we will see why he was so off putting in the beginning”. But it was nothing. I created horror out of my own imagination due to subtly in the film making, amazing how that works.

And I wish the visuals were as subtle as the themes that reveal itself towards the end. Where conversations between characters are left open and pretty vague, with repeating imagery and symbols appearing throughout the film. Thankfully we didn’t get the moment of a character explaining reasoning behind events that are set-up throughout the film. Instead, we can piece together the themes of becoming a sell out and the lengths that people will go to for fame. No matter the costs it inflicts on their public image or their family. And speaking of public image, this movie has come under fire for the use of AI art within some of the interstitial images. Despite my enjoyment of the movie and having them not standout to me, I am against the use of AI to create art. Especially in this climate where I’m sure a graphic designer would’ve loved the opportunity to support and be apart of this film. Even if the images makes up a small percentage of this movie, it’s still a percentage that may be exploited in the future. Even if we draw the line here, is this a line that we will abide by going forward or will that line continue to move. Poor judgment on behalf of the film makers.

I did really want to like this movie more than I did. I was relatively engaged throughout and get excited watching a movie that has some local talent (even if they didn’t want to support any local graphic designers despite having about 80 production companies behind them). Although, all the little things that betrayed the concept and aesthetic held it back from being something really special and memorable. It’s a movie I can still recommend to people, just not one I would hype up for them.