It's in my list of top 20 films!

But it's not easily available, is it? I think Warner Brothers was the studio, and they probably want to bury it as deep as they possibly can.

>>63403922
>and they probably want to bury it as deep as they possibly can.
Why?

>>63404106
They are now the studio that produces Harry Potter and Batman - why would they want to release a dvd or bluray of a controversial film which isn't going to make them any money?

It's pretty shitty and I'm not being ironic

The production design is spectacular but so fake i hurts my eyes

Everything felt like a B-movie

The hilariously bad mocking of christianity didn't help either

>>63404537
Why not sell the Kubrick catau rights to Michael Bay then?

Prestige, idiot.

Because The Sinful Nuns of Saint Valentine is better.

It was bretty good. Would recommend to others.

>>63403839
Blu ray release when

Downloading as we speak, will spam threads about it if I like it Opee.

Has the actual, proper cut come out? I thought we were still living in the dark ages of the cut version.

>>63409145
BFI released the UK theatrical version, which is a good cut, but doesn't include the raping of christ and bone masturbation scenes. They weren't allowed to release it on blu-ray either.

>>63404106
It's pretty clear that they don't like this movie.

>>63409256
Ah well, I'll check out the BFI version anyway. I've been waiting for the full uncut version to come out before I watch it, but by the looks of it, I'd be waiting quite some time if I continue to do so.

>>63409754
Yeah, WB even refused BFI to include the full Mark Kermode documentary where they found and showed the raping of christ scene.

There are fan edits that include these scenes though, although with a noticeable drop in quality.

I enjoyed. It was like The Anti-Exorcist

>>63405493
The Kubrick catalog has always been financially viable and has the kind of mainstream prestige studios like.

Do you really think they're going to throw a marketing campaign for a blu-ray release of a relatively obscure, anti-catholic film that they would happily pretend doesn't exist?

They wouldn't send us a print to screen it when we asked for it in 2006 when I worked for a small repertory theater.

>>63403839
Why would anybody want to talk about The Devils when they can talk about Listzomania?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeglJMCgnuw

(seriously, both are horrible)

>>63412499
It's not about not being able to make money from it, it's just that they have no interest in releasing it.

And it's not really anti-catholic nor anti-christian, although it points a few fingers towards them.

>>63412898
Lisztomania is a lot of fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiPwytv5hrs

>>63413148
Why don't they have any interest in releasing it?

I've never found the bone masturbation scene online.
Any anon willing to direct me to it.
I need it for...reasons.

>>63403839
/tv/ doesn't circlejerk about good things unless it's the flavour of the month series or something.

There's not much to talk about when something is truly good:
>"This was good."
>"Yeah it was great, right?"
>"Ya it's great."

It's more fun to completely pick something apart that it just "okay".

/tv/ is a lot like /v/ in that sense. There's always the obligatory shitposter who simply hates everything.