User reviews

This movie is a portrait of British painter Francis Bacon (played by Derek Jacobi) in the 1960s. In the beginning of the movie, a young man named Dyer (Daniel Craig), intent on burglarizing Bacon's flat, has a misstep and falls into his art studio. Bacon approaches him and...asks him to come to bed with him! Dyer agrees and this is the beginning of their tumultuous romantic and complex sexual relationship.

This movie is really a focus on a relationship between people that are polar opposites. Bacon is a slightly mad artistic genius in his 50s, with snobby pretentious friends. Dyer is a naive 20 something working-class man who drinks too much. The only thing they have in common seems to be that Dyer's horrifying and bloody nightmares are very similar to Bacon's twisted paintings. As Bacon becomes more involved with his work and their differences become more pronounced, Dyer finds himself in a dark downward spiral. The scenes in this work like little vignettes. They are simultaneously visually stunning and repulsive--it is often like watching a painting that moves. The story is rather boring, but this movie is definitely worth seeing for its fantastic cinematography and frightening visuals. It looks like a nightmare come to life.

My Rating: 6/10.

Francis Bacon was one of the most acclaimed artists of his generation, and Derek Jacobi is one of the finest actors of his, but even this combination can't make 'Love is the Devil', John Maybury's biopic of Bacon's life, especially interesting. The problem is that the film lacks a central point of sympathy: Bacon comes across as selfish and spoilt, while his hapless lover (the film's other central character) is too clearly out of his depth from the start, and never manages to become someone in whom one can invest any hopes. In terms of its overall feel, the film tries to reflect Bacon's artistic sensibility; in this it is partially successful, although the odd decision to fade to black between practically every scene grows tiresome. Unless you're a particular fan of Bacon, you can afford to miss this film: Stephen Frears' 'Prick Up Your Ears' (a biopic of Joe Orton) explores similar themes with more humanity.

This is a film about relationships, relationships which flow over and between Bacon's life and work. I come away from the film knowing much more than I ever knew and felt about Bacon and his work, and also the period in which he worked. I would liked to have seen much more of the famous (or should that be infamous) "Colony Room" where Bacon done his drinking and socialzing. Daniel Craig is spot on as the East End spiv and petite crook. Tilda Swinton plays the hilariously foul-mouthed Muriel Belcher and I am sure that Belcher would make make a good central character in another film. The film is not about Bacon's paintings, but the man himself. His relationships his world. London could never ever been as seedy as this but what a great place to search out life.

John Maybury's film presents artist Francis Bacon as an uncaring, disturbed, unhinged, genius who used people and life to feed his bizarre artistic talent. Even the way the film is shot (distorted images, odd angles, flashes of colour) shouts 'artist'. Against this backdrop the story of Bacon's life is secondary.

Derek Jacobi plays Bacon, in a radical departure from the work he is best known for - in fact, this film was completed while he was regularly on television as brother Cadfael. He is excellent in a deeply unsympathetic role. Daniel Craig, as his lover, nemesis, and muse, is also very good. Tilda Swinton is the best of a supporting cast of oddball characters.

This film is ultimately frustrating, difficult, and perhaps a pointless exercise as far as giving us any lasting impression of Bacon's character. But, like his well-known paintings, it is snatches of images you will remember.

I have no idea how to relate to this film. It is filled with either ugly characters or sad victims. Everything is film via distorted lens and the show is presented in episodes which may or may not have anything to do with the whole.

It is a disturbing piece of work, not so much from the sex scenes but the underlying theme of an abusive relationship and the refusal to recognise and affirm a loved one. It was troubling seeing the protagonist push someone he may actually care about, to the edge with malevolent glee. What is even worse is the apparent lack of reason other than ennui, sadism and apathy. I don't like this film very much.

Artists, painters especially, make for difficult movie subjects. It's often easier to study the painting than the painter. Pollock's a case in point. Ed Harris' efforts notwithstanding, Pollock the movie wasn't a spellbinder and in the end revealed nothing of the man. Perhaps Francis Bacon is an easier subject because this film by John Maybury is, I think, the most successful attempt to bring an artist's inner life to the screen. Certainly, the film's not without its flaws. Daniel Craig's a more convincing James Bond than he is an opportunistic bit of rough, caught up in a new, seductive world. Jacobi, on the other hand, is mesmerizing as Bacon, relishing every moment of his screen time. Better still is an unrecognizable Tilda Swinton as Muriel Belcher, the owner of The Colony Room. That's a film in itself. What makes this film the artistic success that it is, is that it takes Bacon's style and transmutes it onto celluloid. I came away from watching Love Is the Devil with an understanding and appreciation of Bacon's work that I'd lacked.

One of those titles, I felt I should see but have always put off because it struck me as likely to be a daunting experience. So, it is not over long, has a bright performance from Daniel Craig (astonishingly, as this is twenty years ago, still making the break from TV) and good sets and believable dialogue. It is still pretty dark and there is much poncing about and drinking, here there and everywhere but principally the French House and the Colony club. We don't learn too much about the paintings (for copyright reasons never even see one) and Craig's George Dyer gets more prominence that photographer John Deakin. The film is more based upon Daniel Farson's book, The Guilded Gutter Life of Francis Bacon than anything else so we tend to get a friend and drinking partner's view of his life at that time in Soho, which is fine.

Love is the Devil is amazingly rich in character and visuals. Just like Bacon's paintings, it is abstract, provocative, dark, and cruel, yet intensely mesmorizing. Maybury couldn't have picked a better actor than Derek Jacobi to portray the very disturbed Bacon. Jacobi is so good, I wondered whether this was just acting or the real thing. One of my favorite scene was Bacon grooming himself, using ammonia cleanser to brush his teeth and curling his eyelashes with his saliva. Neither could I ever forget the countless enigmatic facial expressions Jacobi delivers. One of the best films I've seen in years.

Not so much Francis Bacon, but his lover should be seen as the focus of this film. He's the one who offers his life, his existence to the artist, and the artist takes it. The artist does this with the best of reasons: his art. But that's not the thing to learn for the audience. The thing to see - at least in my opinion - is the lover's ability to be of use and to be thrown away when used. That may be a really bitter fate, but it is a fate!

The film begins by perpetuating the myth of the first Bacon/Dyer meeting - Bacon catching Dyer in the act of robbing his studio - and thus immediately calls its authenticity into question. Whilst the myth has a certain cachet, the scene of discovery, as presented here, is as laughable as a cheesy gay porn scenario.

Daniel Craig is awesome as Bacon's piece of rough. Derek (Theatre Luvvy) Jacobi as Bacon camps it up by numbers. The arty camera devices cannot make up for the cheap production values or the threadbare script.

It's a depressing 80 mins. An everyday tale of two more self-hating homosexuals and a life of doom and gloom in 60s Soho. The only highlight being Mr Craig reclining in the bath. And, handsome as he is, it wasn't worth waiting 75 minutes for.

N.B. Since when did bouncers in 60s Britain wear earrings? And as for the bell-boy's mullet??? It's supposed to be a period piece! Couldn't they have got an actor with an appropriate hair cut???

"Love Is The Devil" stirs me to scope out James Bond now, Daniel Craig's an exciting choice I must say: content over celebrity.

In response to the viewer who complained about the dislocated scenes that may or may not be relevant to the whole, the distorted lens... this is a film about a real painter. What is so brilliant about this work, is that they found a way to visually bring Bacon's paintings to life - they are exploring the man, the life, the love through the filter of his own paintings. Audacious attempt. Expertly Accomplished. One of the few films about painting that honestly pays true homage to the art form. This is not a suburban film about a painter - and who he was and what happened to him and what he did - rather... This Is A Painter's Film. There are graceful, indelible moments here that have scraped a little unused previously untouched part of my brain I did not know was there and scarred and these irrelevant vivid images, these haunting shots that only exist to soar and be seen without a net of linear context have affixed themselves into my memory to reappear at whim and always make me gasp. and clamor to savor, they slip away again. and the world, oh yea, here. That last amazing scene I'm trying so hard not to copy in my own creations, but - that - last - amazing - scene - seems - stronger - than - my - own - will -

"Love is the Devil" is all about Francis Bacon, the 20th century self-taught gay painter not to be confused with the 17th century Sir Francis Bacon who probably would have made a much more interesting subject. As a biography, this film can't be any more interesting than the subject. And, since the painter wasn't particularly interesting (according to the film), neither is the film. Embellished with visual effects in a woeful attempt to enhance the meager subject, "Love is the Devil" is artsy stuff for "art house" junkies, art pedants, etc. or anyone with a specific interest in Bacon. (C)

Love is the Devil (1998)

Francis Bacon (along with Lucien Freud) is one of a handful of British painters of note in the last century. That's not very many. And he's inflated here beyond his very idiosyncratic and repetitive works. They're powerful paintings, no question, and filled with psychological drama as well as painterly angst. They come from a time when representative and expressive paintings was out of favor, and so he's a rebel, too.

But this isn't about Bacon the successful artist, and it doesn't address his work directly (the filmmakers couldn't get his cooperation so none of his work is shown). What it does do is show the man, as seen through actor Derek Jacobi, who plays a kind of deadpan and slightly boring character a little too well. We are, I think supposed to find the artist through his mentality, which is played out here by showing his social and sexual lives in all kinds of diversity.

But there is another goal to the movie, to me: creating an interesting contemporary world of artists and social renegades. That is, the art world of London (etc.) in roughly the 1970s or 80s. The filmmaker John Maybury is a close associate of Derek Jarman, who was an openly gay filmmaker known for personally quirky films that dealt with issues that mattered to him, including his odd and intriguing "Caravaggio." Maybury, unlike Jarman, has no history of great indie films, and this one is just structurally awkward, and in filmmaking terms it seems a little novice, whatever the good intentions.

So it might actually fail on several levels. One is the most damning--that it doesn't actually illuminate the paintings. I found the personal life and the heightened story distracting, even if it has a basis in truth (and is the driving line of the movie). It also doesn't quite work on the simple level of convincing acting, even though Jacobi looks enough like Bacon to make that fly, and his counterpart played by Daniel Craig is decent (we don't dare expect more from Craig, do we?). And then the movie wobbles visually, both with camera-work that is either clumsy or affected (or both) and with editing that seems clunky. That is, this is a movie almost "thrown together."

Which I'm sure it was not. Maybury is trying to mainstream his life (unlike Jarman, who enjoyed being an Indie star), and his collaborations with the likes of Keira Knightley are revealing for both (one as a way of going serious, the other for a way of going commercial).

I know there are those who accept and love a movie like this because of its flaws, which only enhance somehow it's integrity and its artistry. But that's only one way to look at it, and if you like offbeat movies that are also brilliant deep down, you might not find that here.

This is a fearless, eerie film about the relationship between British painter Francis Bacon (Derek Jacobi) and his handsome, unsophisticated lover George Dyer (the new James Bond, Daniel Craig). The destructive affair is told from Bacon's and Dyer's perspectives with unsettling images strongly directed by John Maybury. Their story is somewhat like Joe Orton and Kenneth Halliwell's (told by Stephen Frears in "Prick Up Your Ears"), and the emotional bond between the intellectual artist and the rustic lover reminds me of Truman Capote and Perry Smith (coincidentally, Daniel Craig played Smith in "Infamous") - except that "Love is the Devil" is visceral, surreal and dark like Francis Bacon's world was, and Bennett Miller's acclaimed "Capote", a good, albeit overrated, film with a spectacular performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman, was more concerned about being elegant and palatable than being closer to the truth. Bacon and Capote were talented, troubled men, with huge ego issues, who were partly responsible for their respective lover's (Dyer)/ protégé's/victim? (Smith) ruin - and, later, for their own.

Had John Maybury been like Bennett Miller and turned Bacon's life into an 'elegant' flick, we'd have an Oscar contender here; thankfully he did not, and we got a brave little film that is hard to watch because it's such a visceral painting of an unsettling world. Jacobi and Craig are phenomenal, and the always fantastic Tilda Swinton has a small part as one of Bacon's friends. Well done, Mr. Maybury. 8/10.

This is great visually, but the story doesn't hold up as well as the visual style. I am not very familiar with the real life story of the painter that this movie is based on, but I never really got a sense of who he really was. Which is a shame because it feels like you are supposed to understand him and his art. What makes the movie work is the nightmarish tone throughout.

There are some strange and frightening images which are worth a look. You could say this movie is a bit experimental. But, again, the main character did unfortunately not work too well for me. He felt rude and selfish and his inner monologues felt like a different character in my opinion. In the end it seemed like the secondary character was the more sympathetic one. I don't know if that was the point, but I'm sure the painter had an interesting life. This is just not the movie to showcase it. Don't get me wrong, it's not the actors fault. They do a good job with what they are given.

There are some interesting things here. Colors are great and some locations feel claustrophobic, which help give the sense that you can't escape this dream. I just wish the main character could be more like-able and that it had a story you could get more invested in. Watching it is still surreal, dark and will take you on a unique dream like experience.

So, the visual outshine the characters in my opinion. It is worth watching for the nightmare/dream scenes. Everything to do with that reminds me of something out of a David Lynch or Stanley Kubrick film. Hey, maybe the main character will work better for you. Maybe this movie could grow on you over time, it feels like it's one of those type of films that need a bit of time digest.

Biographical look at a small part of world famous artist Francis Bacon's (Derek Jacobi) life, specifically his relationship with young thug George Dyer (Daniel Craig).

Fascinating attempt to mix the grubby, visceral and frequently uncomfortable visions of Bacon's world / paintings with his real life, which in many ways is just as deeply unpleasant. What makes this film so 'attractive' is firstly the dour, filthy claustrophobia of Bacon's existence and his bizarre mixture of intellectual friends - Tilda Swinton is glorious and barely recognisable as pub owner Muriel Belcher. Secondly, the central performances by the 2 leads are exemplary. Jacobi carries off the great intellectual giant brilliantly, hugely talented with little regard for anything or anyone, happily swiping anyone aside with a cruel, witty aside. Craig matches this as a man hopelessly out of his depth amongst the local intelligentsia, bored and confused and hiding away in drunk and drugs. Not a lot of laughs then, but tough, enlightening and very well acted.

The film looks like it was intended as a stage play. It portrays Bacon's life in an unremitting darkness and ignores the past which is very important to understanding Bacon as a person as shown in documentaries about him. The Francis Bacon Estate refused permission to show Bacon's paintings on film. A Radio 4 documentary described the aggression of Dyer to Bacon towards the end of the relationship and that Bacon had to stay with friends away from his home where Dyer was. None of that is explored in the film instead its presented as all Bacon's fault as a cold, callous towards George Dyer. Biographies including Tom Baker's who drank with Bacon show's that he had a sense of humour and warmth that the film doesn't present. The director prefers Bacon as the remorseless dark figure which is suited better to a theatre. Film's ability is the presentation of a grimy, depressing London of the 60's.

This movie was very dark. Calling it a biography is going too far. It gave you a very small slice of Bacon's life, i.e., his affair with George. I am left with too many unanswered questions. Definitely an "art" film. Jacobi was great as he is in most all he does.

The idea of falling is important in this story.George Dyer(play with perfection by Dani Greig)thought that he would be saved by Bacon but the painter only changed Dyer's physical falling into another more interior and destructive.We can see in different scenes(and forms) "The falling" ,to the long fall of Dyer during the title sequence until his own intention to jump from a flatroof and later through nightmarish like image who also got to do with a fall (to emptiness). Love is The devil shows how Bacon creates his paintings using Dyer(what a great name it sounds `Dying') as a MUSE and we can also see the bohemian circle of Bacon's drunk friends in which the painter is the nastiest(The great Tilda Swinton appears here as the owner of `Colony room' this place somewhere in SOHO)once again we are witness of DYER fall to alcohol ,drugs and an abusive relationship with Bacon who culminates,as everybody knows, in Dyer's suicide(his last fall at least).The most outstanding aspect of the film(besides this tormented love affair) is the photography and visual trick:the use of reflection is one of the main devices used by the director Maybury to allude to Bacon's paintings(there is a large roundmirror in the background that distorts the reflected image)Mirrors are used to repeat and layer images,resembling Bacon's use of the triptych.Water and shots through glasses and bottles distorts faces and forms(like Deneuve in Repulsion).I also loved the script,the philosophical approach(existencialism,)the wonderful actor Derek Jacobi, who plays Bacon has a perfect voice and the words he says sounds like aphorism.BUT besides S&M ,there's place to tenderness:the film opens with BACON grieving the death of his lover the scene is set in a bedroom BACON seats on the edge of the bed,his head buried in George pillow(where George laid his head suffering with nightmares)the scene is unique.

Dyer was a handsome man but he wasn't very sophisticated…If he would had read POE,he would knew the existence of diabolical painters who are capable to transcribe in to their works the vital substance of their models.If he would knew the story of Faust he would be able to identify the devil in the cherubin aging face of Bacon,who was then already a fallen angel in his own personal hell.This is a little great film I recommend it.

8/10

"Is that what you call it these days, dear ?"

Was he really really just a portlier John Inman with a OW, NO HARDER !

Fetish Who the site of an angelic bit of semi-ruff Daniel - James Bond Craig - no less.

Suddenly means he can't refuses his urges no more !

I think ?

Kinda like the gay sex scene keanu reeves did in a movie in some parts too two guys rolling about nekkid all arty fart lit should be a turn on ?

Not really in this.

Tilda Swinton - err I didn't really 'know' she WAS in it 'til I checked the credits she gives Patsy Stone a run for Stolly and is mighty convincing in her few fag hag slag scenes.

She's in the credits so it must be her if so she out acted everyone else in a bit part there's something not very Derek Jarman about the whole thing could have been a lot better.

I'll admit it. I rented this film to explore the past works of Daniel Craig. He's great in it and so is the legendary Derek Jacobi. The movie itself is presented in what I'm assuming is the same vein as Francis Bacon's works. There are lots of dramatic flashes of what are supposed to be disturbing imagery, etc. However, these effects take away from the story of what happened between these two people. Instead these two great actors are forced to tell a story as best they can in "moments". This movie did spur me to do some light research into Francis Bacon, which helped me fill in the story. Knowing more about what happened gave the performances more meaning but I think it could have been better. Still, full frontal nudity from Daniel Craig made it more than worth the price of admission. License to thrill: confirmed.

This film will insinuate itself into the images under your closed eyelids. Meat, blood, cuts, scars, wounds, assassinations, executions, dismemberments, car accidents, beatings, and burnings will all rush together in an explosion of pain, longing, and unsatisfied hungers. Homosexual sado-masochism, not gay love. The absolute evil of pure genius. A paint brush slashes the spirit as a razor, the body. The tormented torments; the masochist punishes the sadist. Flesh is set aflame with a cigarette, not a kiss. Francis Bacon is the one true artist of the postwar era. He understood that humanity had irrevocably crossed the barrier between reason and madness. This film casts us into the abyss of the collective unconscious where we may swim or be burned to a crisp. Hold your eyelids open with sharp orange toothpicks and suck on the bloody images. Watch the film five times and then seek out Bacon's work, at least in books, if not in museums. Perhaps then your unspoken thirst may be quenched and you will grasp the 20th Century before you plummet into the 21st.

LOVE IS THE DEVIL: STUDY FOR A PORTRAIT OF FRANCIS BACON

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Dolby Stereo

Anyone seeking specific information on the life and times of the artist Francis Bacon will find very little of value in this pointlessly obscure effort, which suggests everything and says nothing. As cold and loveless as its subject, John Maybury's film recounts Bacon's affair with the much younger George Dyer, a self-destructive petty criminal who didn't really belong in Bacon's world and was unable to cope with the repercussions. Dyer's influence on Bacon's work is mentioned only fleetingly, though their relationship - which moves from tranquility and contentment through to disillusionment and tragedy - forms the centrepiece of the narrative and is related through tiny scenes and fragments, punctuated by surreal images inspired by Bacon's paintings. The artist's estate refused permission for the filmmakers to represent his work on-screen, so the distorted close-ups, confined settings, and cheerless set designs conspire to 'imitate' the artist's style. Some kind of plot seems to emerge from the debris, but it's so bleak and depressing, you'll find yourself wondering why anyone thought Bacon's story was worth telling at all. If we'd wanted to meditate on the futility of a wasted life, most of us could have stayed at home and looked in the mirror...

Derek Jacobi is luminous, as always, as the artist in question, and the supporting cast render convincing portraits of the loathsome (and self-loathing) social circle in which he moved, while Daniel Craig is every bit their equal as the tormented Dyer. But despite these small nuggets of gold, the film is essentially worthless, an 'Art-house' product in the worst sense of the word. Spare yourself, and avoid like the plague.

When British painter Francis Bacon disturbs a burglar in his home, he invites George Dyer to come to bed with him in return for anything he wants to steal. This starts a relationship between the two that is as impatient and untrustworthy as it is passionate. Bacon draws on Dyer to compliment his work while at the same time Dyer begins to feel used and out of his depth in a relationship that draws him into the arty underworld of the time.

I don't know a great deal about Francis Bacon other than a passing knowledge of his work and I must admit that I had vague hopes that a film about the painter would give me a little more knowledge of him, his work or the circumstances around him; it's a shame then that it didn't really manage to do any of these things particularly well. Instead what it does is deliver a rather pretentious piece of film rather fails to really deliver anything of value for those of us who are not as smart and informed as others. Maybe of Bacon lovers (pardon the turn of phrase) this film serves as a minor insight into his life for them to um and ah over but for me it was simply a collection of blurry shots, overdone pretentious shots and arty sentiment.

The plot, for what it is, follows Bacon and Dyer together and separately as they destroy one another in various ways. It is as meaningful as watching paint dry because we are never allowed into these people as, well, people and the film seems more concerned with camera movement and minimalist sets. Of course part of this will appeal to the arty crowd as the direction tries to ape Bacon's style but I'm not sure if that was because his estate refused to have anything to do with the film or not. While not rubbish it is aimed at a select audience and I don't think I am in that group; a little annoying perhaps because I felt like the film was looking down its nose at me in the same way that Bacon did with Dyer but I suppose that's what I get for trying out something new!

What made it more worthwhile though was a collection of good performances throughout; none of them have particularly likable characters but they all deliver with passion. Certainly Jacobi is very good even if I came to dislike his Bacon's pretentious approach to life, art and others, but Jacobi never let up on his portrayal anyway. Craig is a good actor and he is like a hurt animal for most of the time here – eager to please but knowing he is out of his depth and suffering for it. Swinton is OK, Johnson is overdone and the rest of the support tend to just drift around like a collection of back street 'Darling!' clichés. However bleak and unlikeable performances from both Jacobi and Craig are worth seeing.

Overall this film was wasted on me as it seemed to be aimed at a very specific group of people who are much smarter than I. To me this was annoying as I felt inferior and irritated that the film did not throw me a bone to help me out with the subject. The direction, editing and themes come across as pretentious a bit too much and this did put me off but in fairness I'm not a big Bacon fan so maybe it was my fault. Anyway – fans of Bacon's work may wish to see this film to discuss his life further (whether they agree with the film or not) but for most of us this will come off as an elitist piece of cinema that does nothing to help the unaware and only serves to alienate 'the masses' from art.