User reviews

It is the worst by Kenneth Anger for trying to express a disturbing atmosfere without giving any true meaning at what the paintings should represent to the viewer or what they meant to Crowley nor what they ment to Anger. Not only the History Channel "documentary style" lacks knowledge, but the camera moves and lighting prevents the viewer from even understanding what's in front of them, and when you can, Crowleys lack of hability to paint and teenager-like symbolisms punishes your eyes. Stuff like "WOAH, the difference between light and night, man.", "WOAH, the difference between good and bad, have you thought about that, bro?". Absolutely insulting to Angers career and to the viewers.

wow! what was Kenneth Anger thinking to express with this short documentary??? we see a lot of paintings, check. paintings of a Christ-like, check. the title refers to the devil, check. we have a nice tech-no beat on the background, check. so what does it all mean? was Anger trying to implicate a dark unknown hidden secret about Christ and paintings of Aleister Crowley?? off course not. this movie doesn't make any sense, but it's wonderful in the way it doesn't. if you watch it closely, you get the mysterious feeling you are being sucked into the painting. now, that's a special thing to say about a movie. first time I watched Brush of Baphomet, I was like: oh my God! the painting is getting hold of me... and it's true, you know: the colours of the paintings are so remarkable unreal, that they start to replace the reality we live in. very soon, my home became to resemble one of Crowley's paintings. lucky for me, this experience did not last very long. it changed back the way it was. the thing I am trying to say is: please see this movie, it will change your life in ways you cannot imagine.