User reviews

If you have read anything by Crowley, the Satanic Bible, or Marquis de Sade, this movie will fall along those kind of lines and not upset you too much. However, if you can't handle a weird mixture of sadism (both sexual and other), a perversion of the Christian religion (mostly in the distortion of Biblical verses to emphasize sexual things), and (just for kicks) a little Sci-Fi (kinda like "The Mangler 2"), then do not watch. But, I found it entertaining, although a bit confusing trying to mix so many genres into one movie. Basically, a professor becomes possessed by Alastair Crowley, via virtual reality, which is being tested by (basically) an American Tech Support guy. Prof. Hallow completely changes. Most of the movie is about spouting Crowley's rhetoric, with a few deaths thrown in for good measure. The movie also quotes and/or refers to many ideas regarding thoughts about space, time, philosophy, etc. I cannot expand too much because it has been a very long time since I studied any of the points that are brought up in the movie. But I will say that the ones I remember (and the ones I looked up for a refresher), were accurately presented and expressed from an educated (for one opinion or another) point of view.

I do love the acting from the character Hallow. His descent into madness and deviance is great. The other actors are good as well, but his performance steals the show. Also note: do NOT let children watch this movie. There is at least one scene that is very "Fifty Shades".

I'm sorry I do not know any of the actors names.

I was torn when I watched this film - on the one hand, it's a very average film, mostly confusing and random, sometimes poorly acted (and sometimes not) and of a subject matter that I am very critical; on the other hand, if you view it as a (relatively) low-budget, British B-movie it's actually quite good. Not entertaining, mind you, it never actually manages to fight its way out of the swamp of "too many ideas, crammed into too little time with no coherence". But the production and direction of the film is commendable.

The basic plot of the film is that Aleister Crowley, "the wickedest man in Britain" (in the early part of the last century - I doubt he'd rank above "dirty old perv" these days) manages to get reincarnated into the body of a Cambridge professor (played by Simon Callow - by far the best part of the film) and starts a 4-day (? - the query is because a lot happens, but little relevant, over the 4 days) campaign to become wholly physical again.

Basically, stuff happens; lots of it random, and I'm sure was more meaningful to the writers than it was to me as a viewer (and that as an educated and informed viewer). Unfortunately, as good as it looks at times, and as many good ideas are just screaming to to be exploited, it just ends up being a B-movie. I'd still watch it though, just the once.

I realise that this constitutes a critique rather than a review, but it's difficult to sum up what happens in the film other than what I've just said - it's a bit random, and if you're into thelemic mysticism you'll probably enjoy it, but unfortunately I view the whole subject as occultism for people who are too scared to throw off the shackles of catholic Judaism, and compensate for their reticence to abandon Christianity for something more pure with an unhealthy interest in the Christian devil. But you're talking about a film about an early 20th century English occultist raised in a strict Christian family, so what can you expect? Anyway, if you're in the mood for a British B-movie (well made, but not exactly stimulating) - this is the movie for you (or watch Razorblade Smile or Dead Mans Shoes instead).

The premise was interesting though a bit convoluted.

The acting and directing were acceptable.

The one thing that ruined this film for me was the sound editing. Perhaps it was the copy I watched.

Perhaps it is really the way it was edited.

Dialog so low you cannot hear followed by a crappy musical score that blared every time it came in. If you are a fan of the music guy, and I am not, it may work for you. To me, the balance between music and dialog was totally amateur at best and ruined what could have been a very interesting movie.

I would not pay too much attention to our American friend's review.One surely cannot have an opinion when he knows nothing of the film makers main character, who's nature and role, played an influential part in the world of the occult!

I could make a few assumptions that would lean on inadequate notions but lets get back to the film.

I found it quirky and at times a little to jazzed up.If you're into magik you will adore any scene that features the beast.If you are not into the man or magik, than it's not really for you.

You will just end up writing something silly like the gentleman from America and start waffling on about politics!

"To pee or not to pee?" Aleister Crowley, infamous British occultist who liked to be called The Beast 666, was something of a boyhood hero of mine, I read numerous books and articles about his fascinating life and beliefs. This movie starts off in his final year of 1947, two young scholars drive a vintage car to the residential home where he spent his final days. Those road markings look awfully modern, oh dear! Move on 43 or 50 years into the future (different websites give different years but I can't be bothered to re-watch the film to find out. What I do know is that there are some cars shown that wouldn't have been built yet!). An experiment about virtual reality takes place at Trinity College, Cambridge, and Crowley is reincarnated, taking the place of a Prof Haddo. It's a fairly interesting and ambitious idea but it is also very confusing which in my opinion ultimately fails. Simon Callow plays both Crowley and Haddo. He is a lot of fun to watch as The Beast but his Haddo character is quietly spoken and has a bad - in more ways than one - stutter, which I found annoying. Crowley is actually played by two actors, the other one being John Shrapnel, I don't know why. Fans of Iron Maiden may be drawn to this film because it was part written by frontman Bruce Dickinson. He also plays a couple of small parts and the soundtrack features a few Maiden tracks - plus George Formby! In the DVD extras he and director Julian Doyle explain that they didn't have the budget to do a period film about Crowley, hence the idea of saving money by bringing him to the modern day. Fair enough. Crowley liked to shock and he used a lot of sex in his magick. Rated BBFC 18 the movie features a great deal of swearing and sexual language, nudity, drug taking and some violence. Those with weak stomachs may not like the bodily fluids of urine, semen and excrement on display (all fake). Callow gives good value playing Crowley but this is a million miles from being a biographic account of the man. Chemical Wedding is a curiosity of science fiction, horror and magick, if you are curious about the real Crowley then I would suggest reading something like "The Great Beast" by John Symonds. For me this film proved to be a mixed bag, Crowley himself was entertaining but the plot was silly, some of the acting was poor and after 107 minutes I'd had enough.

Do not listen to the glowing reviews of this movie! It's a despicable piece of crap! They are using the name Iron Maiden in an attempt to steal your money! Bruce Dickenson's pathetic attempt to ape the success of Rob Zombie by becoming a rock star filmmaker is an absolutely silly failure that deserves to be shunned by moviegoers the world over. This was so bad it makes Dee Snider's Strangeland look entertaining.

The actor who plays the reborn Aleister Crowley seems to be the only person having any fun. I don't know much about Crowley but this guy seems more like the reincarnation of the Marquis De Sade.

Quickly, his actions become tiresome and repetitive. The character's motivation for what he's doing becomes lost in the endless sea of Mumbo Jumbo and fake science.

In the end there is a smug attempt to try to get the words "social commentary" into people's descriptions of this movie and gain a little favor with left-leaning critics and probably radical British clerics as well. It's nothing more than a gratuitous Bush bash.

AKA: Chemical Wedding

Rating: 3 out of 5

Genre: Horror, Science Fiction, Occult

Director: Julian Doyle

Stars: Robert Ashby, Jared Ashe, Terence Bayler, Antonia Beamish, Esmé Bianco, Geoff Breton, Simon Callow, Jud Charlton, Lucy Cudden, Lily Dumont, Richard Franklin

Synopsis: At an English academy the most powerful computer in the world is used to perform time sensitive experiments. When an experiment goes awry and the spirit of Aleister Crowley inhabits a professor participating in the experiment.

Thoughts: I could explain the plot but I can't really do it justice. The detailed script written by the director and Bruce Dickinson (from the metal legends Iron Maiden) is pretty good with you enough twisted Crowley debauchery to keep you engaged. The first thirty or so minutes are a bit slow so hang in. As you can guess a horror film that borrows from the depraved life of the "Wickedest Man in the World" gives you such perverted pleasures as orgies and canning. The script does get a bit bogged down in the final act when its more lofty, SciFi conventions kick in but hey it delivers the weird goods.

In Conclusion: Yup we get treated to Iron Maiden and Dickinson tunes throughout the film. Not enough but that's just me. Say didn't the mighty Bruce become a born-again Christian? An odd choice and subject for a horror movie I believe. 

The story is good. However the actors are not good enough and the plot is terrible. Hopefully a remake of this movie will be done someday with a better budget to exploit at the maximum the story. I love Iron Maiden music, an deeply respect Bruce Dickinson for his achievements. However, being completely sincere, they are not good with the video stuff. I can't understand why since they are very theatrical in their concerts. But anybody who loves Iron Maiden music and had watch their videos I think will agree they are HORRIBLE with all respect. I think Bruce can write (althou not alone) but he needs to be surrounded by a better team. Can you imagine if this movie were directed by let's say Christopher Nolan starring Anthony Hopkins and some real actors? Come on Bruce, you can do it better!

Aleister Crowley, one of the greatest of the magicians, is dead. But what if someone were to synthesize his essence in a computer program, and import it into the human mind... could Crowley be reborn, or at least simulated? England is about to find out, thanks to a program called Z93. As one might expect from Crowley (and Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickinson), chaos ensues.

My background on this film was mixed. I had heard largely unkind things said about it, including suggestions that it wasn't even worth viewing. As for the subject matter, my knowledge is relatively minimal. I've never been an Iron Maiden fan, and although I have read Crowley's "Diary of a Drug Fiend", that is more or less the extent of my awareness of him. I do, however, know a bit about Eliphas Levi, who is referenced in the film.

Despite the rash of bad reviews this film received, I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it beginning to end. I found the idea very clever and original, Simon Callow's portrayal of Crowley to be flawless (especially playing two diverse characters), and the film's pushing of the limits to be a welcome surprise. I've seen the limits of violence pushed, but rarely in horror do we see sexual magick pursued with such graphic imagery. One scene involving a fax machine is particularly interesting. The images in general are vivid and alluring. Director Julian Doyle knows how to get his vision on film and does it here.

Besides Callow, the other performances are also top notch. The professors and the female lead are superb. The lead in particular was both sexy and graceful and had all the skills of a seasoned actress. I am not familiar with her work, but if we see her more often, this wouldn't be a surprise at all and may be a pleasant addition to the list of recurring actresses working in cinema today.

I had two minor concerns. First, why is getting a photo of Crowley so hard? One of the subplots involves the school's newspaper looking for a photo and they either never find one or fail to for several scenes. The film takes place in 2000, so the Internet should be available, and even without it, any occult book should have one of the more common photos (such as with Crowley wearing the pyramid on his head). Also, maybe it's me (it's probably me), but I found Mathers and Victor to be confusing. Once Victor gets scarred, there's no problem, but before that I wasn't always clear which one was on screen. Am I alone on this?

I encourage you to see "Crowley" as soon as you can. I find more and more often the few enjoyable films I view are re-issues of classic or forgotten titles, usually foreign. "Crowley" departs from that, breaking the mold... it may just be the first good horror film of 2009 (excluding re-issues). And based on what I'm seeing on the horizon, it will likely not have much competition.

On the whole I like this movie because its about the only film I know that deals with Alaistor Crowley - an incredible man who is long overdue for a major film of his life. Unfortunately the makers of this film go for the easy option and make Crowley into a right evil sod..........killing people whenever it takes his fancy.........all in pursuit of the "chemical wedding".

Now in reality Crowley sounds like he was a man to be feared and avoided but he didn't go around killing people - despite all the newspaper garbage of the time about him being the most wicked man in the world, etc, etc. Why the makers chose this approach to an interesting subject is anybody's guess - but it probably comes down to box-office! Dress up Crowley as the occult's answer to Hannibal Lector and it will ring up megabucks at the box-office........or at least the makers hope! However despite those reservations its still quite an unusual film and well worth seeing - even if its just for Simon Callows marvellous OTT turn as Crowley. But as I've indicated the definitive film on the Great Beast is still to be made. Lets hope British film-makers do it before Hollywood does!

Aleister Crowley and Lafayette Ron Hubbard. Now there are two names to conjure with: the notorious occultist and the demonised father of Scientology. Both pioneers in their way, both fully aware of the other, sharing an initiate in the shape of controversial 1940s American rocket scientist Jack Parsons.

A film featuring Crowley and L Ron arguing the theological toss would be a fascinating prospect, but although the association is alluded to, and quietly dropped, that's not what we get here.

Instead Chemical Wedding is a campy horror farce with sci-fi trappings (think Prince Of Darkness meets The Lawnmower Man) from the Iron Maiden man. To paraphrase fellow metal-head David St Hubbins, "Bruce Dickinson: he wrote this." Clearly, Dickinson is a man possessed. Not content with holding a commercial airline pilot's license, being a champion fencer and papering remainder bookshops the nation over with 'The Adventures Of Lord Iffy Boatrace', he's now turned his saber glove to screen writing. Some might call that gilding the lily.

The plot: dashing American scientist Dr Joshua Mathers (Weber) brings his astounding virtual reality suit to Crowley's real-life alma mater, Trinity College, Cambridge, to be linked up to supercomputer Z93. Unbeknown to Mathers, Z93 has been trojaned with black magick rituals (don't ask) by Crowleyite assistant Dr Victor Neuman, who plans to resurrect the "forgotten man of magick". Stammering classics lecturer Dr Oliver Haddo (Callow) is coerced into the suit. And emerges with a newly-shorn head, and a predilection for wild orgies (complete with naked violinists), the whole world domination jag - and sacrificial scarlet women, with whom to facilitate the ultimate occult ceremony, the eponymous 'Wedding'.

This being a Dickinson script, Aleister is soon roaming the city hypnotizing young women into taking all their clothes off: inquisitive red-headed 'Varsity' reporter Lia (Cuddon) had better watch her back and front. Dr Victor receives his win-bonus; he's fellated by the Whore of Babylon. Truly, these are the end times, when a university fax machine starts leaking seminal fluid. And lest anyone be in doubt this is the real Crowley brought back from the dead, he unbuttons his flaccidness mid-lecture and soaks the front row; a possible self-tribute to Dickinson's expulsion from school for peeing in the headmaster's dinner. He also leaves a calling card: a turd on his desk. Poo where thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Given his eventful life and legacy, Aleister Crowley ought to be a screenwriter's dream (great location shots in Egypt; fevered rites at the Abbey of Thelema; walk-on parts for everyone from Anton LeVay to Sgt Pepper). The self-proclaimed Beast 666 was practically a one-man PR machine in any case and Kenneth Anger's experimental shorts aside, it is genuinely surprising that there has been such a dearth of biopics or related features about him.

As evidenced by the studious press notes, Dickinson and director Julian Doyle are obviously in thrall to their subject - few self-respecting metallers aren't - and have done some homework, with character names, for example, taken from real-life Crowley associates. And the film suggests it's about to mine some interesting, if well-trodden, territory: the mystical implications of quantum physics; Schroedinger's cat; virtual reality as an ersatz astral plane. As Doyle puts it, "The expression of the new spiritualism that derives from discoveries in science... hidden in what we hope is a popularist film".

Perhaps too well hidden. As if frightened off by the complexities of the material, it all too quickly curdles into Gouda. The look and feel of Chemical Wedding is evidently an homage to Hammer and early 1970s Brit horror-fantasy in general: that is to say, cheap. And though aiming to titillate, the execution is so corny it might as well be renamed 'Confessions Of A Cabbalist'.

Scenes and dialogue often trail away to nothing, and with the exception of veterans John Schrapnel and Simon Callow, both hamming it up a treat as the lascivious, tongue-waggling visionary, the performances are decidedly of the student film variety. Doyle is an accomplished editor (Terry Gilliam's Brazil and most of the Monty Python movies), but perhaps editors aren't the right people to tease the best out of actors.

Let's call it what it is: a vanity project, one naturally slathered with Iron Maiden hits, unsubtly crow-barred into the action. "Your time will come!" says a prophet of doom at one point, immediately followed by 'Maiden's 'Wicker Man' lyric: "Your time will come, your time will come!" If Jimmy Page managed to alchemise his Crowley fixation into gold, lesser rockers, it seems, can produce only handfuls of tin.

Anyone that has any real knowledge about the life and work of Aleister Crowley will recognise in this movie nothing whatsoever of any merit. In fact the film is total verbose and visual garbage, bearing no similarity to this person or his magical philosophy whatsoever. The writer and director of this movie, without doubt, show themselves as embarrassing, uneducated, bungling armatures, totally ignorant of any initiated understanding. The film is just one naked portrayal of the slogan, "ignorance is bliss". As British filmmaking goes is degrading to watch this putrid trash. The acting is abominable and the film is historically inaccurate. These bumbling buffoons have created one great hotchpotch of diarrhoea soaked venom as to leave the viewer wondering what foul stinking Abremelistic demon ever possessed them! The film remains and belongs in the Chemical Toilette!

This is without doubt, one of the worst films I have ever seen. The direction is pointless and childish. The editing does nothing to make up for or improve the amateurish photography. The sound is ghastly. Was the sound recordist one of the students? Simon Callow's Haddo is more League of Gentleman than Ordo Templi Orientis and actually made me laugh out loud. This burst of misplaced mirth was no recompense for wasting nearly two, irretrievable hours attempting to digest this mish mash of the worst of Doctor Who and some diabolical (in the wrong sense) student flick. Crap films can be fun. "Blood on Satans Claw", "Witchfinder General", Lust for a Vampire" spring to mind. This is not one of them

Crowley aka Chemical Wedding is a low budget British horror flick written for the screen by Iron Maiden frontman Bruce Dickinson. In addition to being one of the greatest singers to have ever lived in one of the best and most important metal bands ever, he also is a pilot,great at fencing and soccer, add screenwriter to his list of talents. The film is about Aleister Crowley reincarnated in the modern era. This is no documentary, this is a cheap horror film based on an unusual man. Having said that the film is a little weird, escoteric and quirky is an understatement. For folks that know little or nothing about the infamous magician and occultist, this should give them an idea of some of his ideas and things that he would indulge in. Chemical Wedding is pretty solid highbrow horror with lots of bizarre rituals, drug use and lots of weird sex with a little violence. Chemical Wedding is a glimpse into the occult world under the guise of an unusual horror film. I like it.

Well, as much as I like Bruce Dickinson as a musician, I can't say the same about his movie producing skills. This was quite mediocre and looked amateurish to me, although I'm not a certified film critic!

The story had some interesting parts, the script made me think about many Iron Maiden/Bruce Dickinson songs, but other than that, I think any of us here might have done a better work.

The acting was bearable, but that's about it! The ending tried to be interesting, but I am not so sure it achieved it. Nothing new to offer as plots go, really.

Finally, I didn't think the soundtrack matched the scenes at any given time and I would much rather listen to Dickinson's music outside the context of this movie!

BUT... I have seen a lot worse films and I could say I went through this one almost painlessly!

If you're dead bored, it might offer a thought-free couple of hours of entertainment!

So it was written by the singer from the rock band "Iron Maiden". That was itself a sign that it wasn't going to be amazing. However I remember watching this years ago and wanted to try it again. I shouldn't of bothered. It's badly written. Terribly acted. Production value of a multipack of crisps from ASDA. It's just not good. I only marked it a 2 because I like the use of Henry Hills "Here Comes the Boogeyman".

I want to like this movie more as it is connected to Bruce Dickinson.

I liked the concept and the basic story structure enough to make up for the massive flaws in this movie. I thought at times the movie was more gratuitous than it needed to be for no good reason... and I hate to say it, but the music was done poorly. That's not to say I don't like it, but that there were points in the movie where dialogue was impossible to understand because the music was louder. I also got confused at the end, but to be fair it's probably because the copy I watched was scratched during about three minutes- right at the climax of the movie.

I thought it was interesting though. The plot was well thought-out even if it was a bit scrunched. I liked all the references to occultism and quantum physics. If Bruce Dickinson writes another movie, I'll watch it... but I'll hope for better next time.