Disapointment

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

There are dozens of ways that this three minute movie is amazing for the day. "Le Manoir du Diable" is one of filmmaker Georges Melies's earliest trick movies. Originally, his output until then mostly consisted of your typical Lumiere subjects: trains arriving in stations, women washing clothing, blacksmiths at work, etc. But, having discovered special effects earlier the same year, he began experimenting with them, reproducing a stage magician's act with "The Vanishing Lady" and going even further to turn out "The House of the Devil".I have many things to say about this film. I'll begin with the 'first vampire movie' thing. Yes, there is indeed a bat included--but it is actually Mephistopheles, an incarnation of the devil, which he turns into. Only looking at movies today about vampires do we look back at this and misinterpret it. It's just like some people are saying that the eclipse in Melies's "The Eclipse: Courtship of the Sun and the Moon" features a 'gay' eclipse and that Melies was encouraging homosexuality or whatever. It's not true. I cannot believe how stupid people can be nowadays.Is it a horror film? With that I am inclined to agree. According to Wikipedia, "The House of the Devil" was originally meant to amuse rather than scare. The thing is, it looks so much like a horror. The ghosts that appear actually DO look a little creepy. And there's the bat turning into Mephistopheles. It may not have originally meant to have been a horror, but one cannot deny that the whole theme makes it so from start to finish.As for the rumor going around that Melies played Mephistopheles, I have something to say about that too. Wikipedia's article makes no mention of Melies having ever appeared in this short at all; however, according to my own beliefs, he played the cavalier character who is the victim of Mephistopheles's traps. Melies's acting always has a certain joyful charm whenever he is in front of a movie camera, whether he's playing a frightened inn guest, a magician or the devil. The devil here doesn't really feel like Melies at all, but instead comes across as sinister and lurking. On the other hand, the cavalier not only looks like Melies, he comes off as very lively, amusing and every bit as childish as you'd expect from Melies's acting. The actor for Mephistopheles's role still remains uncertain, though Georges Sadoul, a film historian, believes him to have been played by Jules-Eugene Legris, a performer at Melies's Theatre Robert-Houdin.Now that we've cleared that up, we can get on to see just how amazing this movie is for the time. As I said before, Melies's earliest films were exactly like other films of the day--documentaries of ordinary life with no attempt to tell a story of any sort. There was sometimes acting but not any sets at all--and NO special effects. Looking at this now, it seems silly. Just a bunch of guys appearing and disappearing in a castle. But back all the way in 1896, it was amazing. Audiences had no idea how anyone could film stuff like this--they were spell-bound. Not only does "The House of the Devil" contain special effects, it has a really (and this is sincere) cool looking set which sets the scene for the interior of the castle. In fact, it's a few sets really. Behind the main set, there is another doorway guarded by a cardboard knight (which was later reused in Melies's films "A Nightmare" and "The Haunted Castle", I believe). Behind that is another painted backdrop which is supposed to look like other doorways, later replaced by a balcony set so the second cavalier can jump off. (A little odd, that change of sets, but Melies hadn't yet invented multi-scene narratives). The cauldron, obviously just a piece of flat painted cardboard, also looks cool and very convincing.There's the costumes too. They look totally awesome. The ghosts' masks are really cool and still a little spooky. The outfits for the cavaliers look great and not a bit hand-made at all. It is all extremely lavish and every bit as convincing as though you were there. Besides that, there's also some good special effects work. The dwarf appearing in puffs of smoke effect looks very convincing, while both transformations from bat to devil are actually surprisingly well done. While all Melies used was just a simple splice to do all the effects, I think it actually looks better than could be hoped for.The whole thing was filmed out in Melies's garden in Montreuil, but watching it you wouldn't really know it since the sets are so convincing looking. While it may be a bit padded, that is actually a good thing since a three minute movie from 1896 was very rare. While the story is simplistic, it is still impressive since you hardly ever see films with plots at all at this point in filmmaking. This is truly amazing for the time and proof that Melies was one h--l of a guy.

Le manoir du diable (1896) *** (out of 4) aka The House of the DevilEarly Georges Melies trick film has a bat appearing inside a castle when it then transforms into the Devil himself. Soon this creature is using spells to make other creatures come to life. LE MANOIR DU DIABLE is going to be a big interest to those Melies die-hards such as myself but I think horror fans will also get a real kick out of this. To say this isn't one of the earliest examples of a horror film would be rather crazy because not only do we get the Devil and black magic but there are also ghosts, a skeleton and various other ghastly images. When viewed against today's technology I'm sure there are some that might laugh at these effects but once you consider these were being done in 1896 you really can't help but applaud them. Melies was clearly years ahead of everyone else and the effects still hold up quite well today. I really loved how the different people began to appear even though the editing effects are quite obvious. Another nice touch was some of the black comedy thrown in and for just one example check out how the skeleton is used. Another major plus is that Melies plays the main character so well and with such energy.

The very first horror movie was not 1896's Le Manoir Du Diable (The Devil's Castle), in fact, Georges Melies' Un Nuit Terrible that features a giant insect, is his first production in the horror genre, anticipating the creature-on-the-loose plots of the fifties. However, Le Manoir Du Diable is the first film to feature hints of the vampire. Its running time barely three minutes, and made by and starring Melies. Looking at it many years later it seems primitive and crude, but it also displays an imaginative exuberance and joy that makes it one of film history's little treasures.The Devil played by Melies himself, has a kind of carnival charm. In a castle, a flying bat turns into the Devil. The Devil makes a cauldron magically appear. He also conjures up a beautiful woman, and an old man carrying a book. Satan then makes cauldron, woman, man, and book disappear. A knight shows up carrying a cross. Our villain clearly panicked, there is a puff of smoke and the Devil is gone.Because of the brazen, Gothic quality of Le Manoir Du Diable, its brief running time is not a limitation. Serious movie lovers should make the extra effort to get real satisfaction. Go to the "Horror Films" and "Classic Horror Films" Web sites. Read books like " The Satanic Screen: An Illustrated Guide to The Devil in Cinema" by Nikolas Schreck and Allan Hunter's "Chambers Concise Encyclopedia of Film and Television." Find odd-man-out wonders like Le Manoir Du Diable and enjoy horror's timeless feast.

this film, although generally seen as the first horror, was in fact originally intended to amuse rather than scare. its only when you look at it with todays understanding of horror conventions that we see it as such. yes, it does correspond with the whole dark and impending thing and have aspects of the supernatural and creatures that we, as a modern cinema going audience connect automatically with horror, but if you view it as those at the time would have, you start to see that contrary to being a fear inspiring piece, it is actually a very interesting and cleverly put together series of artistic images. also, bearing in mind the level of filmic technology available at the time, is a fairly superior piece, but most definitely not a horror.