Alicia I love this movie so much

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Scott LeBrun Written & directed by Leslie Stevens, the creator of the TV series 'The Outer Limits', "Incubus" will take its place, at least among cult movie lovers, as an interesting experiment that's worth seeking out. It features Allyson Ames as Kia, a beautiful blonde demon who's tired of feasting on the souls of evil and corrupt individuals. Just for once, she wants to snatch up a *pure* soul, and then turn that person. And she thinks that she's found the perfect specimen in injured war veteran Marco (William Shatner), a good hearted young man who lives with his sister Arndis (Ann Atmar). What she doesn't expect to happen is that she falls in love with Marco, which means trouble for both of them.If for no other reason, this film will go down in history as a rare attempt to tell a story using the artificial language of Esperanto, which was created in the late 19th century by scholars hoping to invent a "universal language" that would be adopted by all cultures of the world. This didn't happen, of course, but it gives "Incubus" a nifty little hook. And all the actors do a creditable job of appearing comfortable speaking it.Stevens's film is chock full of potent black & white atmosphere, with appropriately moody cinematography by both Conrad L. Hall and William A. Fraker. The music by Dominic Frontiere is quite spooky as well. With his team of collaborators, Stevens creates some beautifully eerie images, and gives "Incubus" a palpable European art house sensibility. It often feels like a nightmare captured on film.The acting is good by the cast. Ames is quite appealing and The Shat displays considerable charm and affability.Recommended to those genre fans hoping for something old fashioned and yet somewhat out of the ordinary.Eight out of 10.

funkyfry "Incubus" is a very strange movie to be sure – it's unique because it is the only film ever shot in the "universal language", Esperanto. It may be worth it for some viewers to see the film simply because it has camp-master William Shatner speaking his lines in this never-land language. But not for me. From the very first moments of the film you can tell what you're looking at – a good photographer with a bunch of amateur actors and an overambitious director gathered on the beaches of Big Sur in a desperate attempt to capture some of the magic of Ingmar Bergman's films "The Seventh Seal" and "Hour of the Wolf" and apply that magic to a straight-up horror film in the occult vein.The story is very confusing despite being very simple, due to the cryptic dialog and ineffective direction. I've seen it twice now so this is what I have been able to piece together – Shatner is playing a guy who is some kind of idyllic woodsman who lives with his sister in a cabin. A female devil worshipper sees him somewhere and gets a crush on him so she decides to corrupt him and make him a Satanist too, which her sister discourages. Soon Shatner is following the evil woman across a lovingly photographed wasteland, back to the beach again, and eventually he is involved in a confrontation with the "Incubus" (a male version of a Succubus, for those not in the know… this movie won't tell you so I might as well).The "Incubus" is literally a goat that someone put on top of Shatner that kicks him a bit and then disappears. Outside of some interesting but unoriginal photographic effects there really is nothing happening in this movie. Shatner's character completely forgets about the sister character, who has been blinded by a solar eclipse and spends most of the movie wandering around. There's no scares whatsoever. Maybe this movie appeals to people who like surrealist cinema. Usually I don't like that kind of thing anyway so I couldn't tell you if this is a good or a bad example of that school of cinema. My guess is that it's bad, and it's certainly bad from my perspective as someone who expects at least a minimum of character development and plot in a film.However the music is interesting and the photography is great. This is a good movie to watch if you were curious how to distinguish directing from photography because this is a very poorly directed but well photographed film. Other than that and the fact that it has Esperanto dialog there's nothing to distinguish it or make it memorable.By the way, I was able to see it this time in a 35mm presentation in the theater thanks to the producer Anthony Taylor who has a nice print and lives in Southern California.

DannyNoonan68 A very weird, quietly creepy horror film... I think a big chunk of the weirdness and creepiness goes down to the fact that the film is entirely in Esperanto (and also the bit with the goat). Put together by Outer Limits staffers (who were apparently obsessed with artificial languages), the production values are not dissimilar to 50s/60s TV (the odd camera shadow, out of focus evil beings, etc), but the effects are strangely effective and the use of sound is genuinely creepy in a way that made me think of "Eraserhead".This film is worth seeing if for no other reason than to see William Shatner overacting in Esperanto. Most of the film he keeps the overacting in check, but about an hour in he clearly can't help himself.

ottfried A lot of things have been said about this film. Some people say "cult" films are for people with "bad" or "no" taste, I suppose, as opposed to the by-products or off-springs of classical breeding, but strangely a lot of B- or C-movies become just that by having (too?) high aspirations based on knowledge of the classics and then-recent scientific findings and too little contact with the main stream audience, who do not acknowledge references to classics and could not care less about where the future is going.why would anyone shoot a film entirely in Esperanto, then thought of as the coming universal language? Why would anyone have a brilliant stills art-photographer shoot a moving picture? Why would the total context of the movie be a feeling of mythological "always"? Why have the leading man be a (private) person so clearly caught up between classical hero - set everything right by acting - and thinker - the inner seeker of truth? The concept of the "autor"-movie, the not-so-slick-but-honest-depiction-of-a-necessary- story, is what does it for me. And this is one of them. If you look for faults, that's what you'll find. Look for meaning...