I_Ailurophile
Joined Oct 2002
Badges6
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews4.3K
I_Ailurophile's rating
I remember well when this was first released, though I never saw it at the time, nor even a few years later when I worked at a local video store. I never gave it much thought beyond noting the chief stars involved. Fast forward a couple of decades, and I sit to watch with a healthy skepticism about Disney, and also coming in hot from watching the 1949 original - a feature which was made by no few of the same folks behind 1933's 'King Kong,' one of my favorites, and which was unexpectedly strong (if imperfect) for its shrewd approach to earnest, sober themes. What could we expect of a remake 50 years later, though? What would 'Mighty Joe Young' become in the hands of an entertainment colossus known for its family entertainment? What of filmmaker Ron Underwood, whose list of credits seems to be a perplexing smorgasbord; what might he do with the property? Just as importantly, could I set aside my preconceptions and enjoy this 1998 flick on its own merits?
Actually, as it happens, we don't need to worry about direct comparisons to 'King Kong' or the 1949 predecessor, because this flick establishes very early and quickly that for better or for worse, it isn't interested in exploring the same narrative or thematic space. There are absolutely some similarities, namely in the centering of an enormous gorilla, the young woman with whom he has a special relationship, and an outsider who becomes a close ally; there's also broad strokes in the plot like the big decisions made for Joe's future, and a second supporting figure who by his actions may serve as both enemy or ally. We can also note clear inspiration in Mark Rosenthal and Lawrence Konner's screenplay from that of Ruth Rose, particularly in the first sequence to greet us after the opening "prologue." Yet beyond the central characterizations, producers Ted Hartley and Tom Jacobson have shaped a picture that isn't about slavery, exploitation, or the darkest parts of human nature and society, but instead about conservation, protection of the natural world from those who would seek to plunder or harm it, and the foolishness of people who try to control nature to whatever ends. This 'Mighty Joe Young' isn't horror masquerading as a comedy like its antecedent, nor a coldly sober, tragic adventure like 'King Kong,' but is instead an adventure of a lighter, gentler, and even more charming variety, very much in line with what we commonly anticipate from Disney.
And to my pleasant surprise, defeating my cynicism, "charming" is just what this 'Mighty Joe Young' is. To be sure, its storytelling tends to be of a simpler and more straightforward tenor, usually reducing dialogue, scenes, characters, and beats and themes to big ideas that are easily digestible for general audiences, and at that ones which we've certainly encountered before and repeatedly in fiction and non-fiction. Be that as it may, the story is both earnest and enjoyable, and no few tidbits are particularly well done. At all the right moments the film is heartbreaking, heartwarming, funny, or exciting, and it really does hit on effective emotional notes. Simplified as the storytelling is, Rosenthal and Konner prove themselves to be capable writers in bringing all the pieces together, even including the obligatory romantic element ("when a man and a woman share the screen they MUST become involved") that is usually achingly tiresome. Heck, Underwood's credits are all over the place, but at least in this case his direction is commendably firm and confident in bringing the tale to fruition.
This is to say nothing of the fine original music, a splendid complement just as we would expect from the late great James Horner. The movie maybe doesn't require all that much from its stars, relatively speaking, but Charlize Theron, Bill Paxton, Rade Serbedzija, and even supporting cast members like Naveen Andrews, Regina King, David Paymer, or Linda Purl give admirably strong performances that bring out all the strength there is to be had in the material. On a side note, I'm so incredibly pleased at the tiny cameos given to Ray Harryhausen and Terry Moore, respectively the animator and star of the 1949 original - a sweet little nod that warms this cold, black heart. The costume design, hair, and makeup are fantastic, as is the production design. And I could hardly be happier with the stunts, and the effects. I will always, always prefer practical effects and tangible creations to the computer-generated imagery that has proliferated in cinema in recent years, artifice that ages rapidly and looks worse the more we see of it. Still, when exercised carefully and/or sparingly, digital visions look great and hold up well. And given that the visualization of Joe and other effects in this title is a deft combination of digital enhancement, animatronics, and lovingly developed suits, including the involvement of icon Rick Baker alongside Industrial Light and Magic among others, I'm all so glad at just how good it all looks.
There's just enough of a harrowing edge to the action sequences and smidgens of violence to make them low-key thrilling and keep us sincerely invested, a small but true taste of the intensity we get elsewhere in the genre. This helps to counterbalance those moments that are more abjectly silly, kitschy, or even cartoonish, and other creative choices that maybe feel outdated or out of place. To that point, I also feel that the runtime is a bit too drawn out in the back end with an unnecessary sequence built to heighten the adventure and drama; on the other hand, as the climax somewhat mirrors the climax of decades before, I believe it's managed more smartly here in both writing and execution. What it all comes down to is that no matter how much we may scrutinize, there are no major faults to latch onto in these two hours. Maybe the counterpoint is that there's nothing so striking about the feature as to earn major praise, but if that's the worst I have to say about something that could have easily gone much more wrong in myriad ways, then I dare say Rosenthal, Konner, Underwood, and all involved have done very well for themselves. I sat to watch with mixed expectations, and all told I'm more than satisfied with how good it is. 1998's 'Mighty Joe Young' is no revelation, and it won't appeal to everyone nor meet with equal favor from all. For my part, though, I'm rather happy with how excellent this is when all is said and done, and I'm glad to give it my warm recommendation.
Actually, as it happens, we don't need to worry about direct comparisons to 'King Kong' or the 1949 predecessor, because this flick establishes very early and quickly that for better or for worse, it isn't interested in exploring the same narrative or thematic space. There are absolutely some similarities, namely in the centering of an enormous gorilla, the young woman with whom he has a special relationship, and an outsider who becomes a close ally; there's also broad strokes in the plot like the big decisions made for Joe's future, and a second supporting figure who by his actions may serve as both enemy or ally. We can also note clear inspiration in Mark Rosenthal and Lawrence Konner's screenplay from that of Ruth Rose, particularly in the first sequence to greet us after the opening "prologue." Yet beyond the central characterizations, producers Ted Hartley and Tom Jacobson have shaped a picture that isn't about slavery, exploitation, or the darkest parts of human nature and society, but instead about conservation, protection of the natural world from those who would seek to plunder or harm it, and the foolishness of people who try to control nature to whatever ends. This 'Mighty Joe Young' isn't horror masquerading as a comedy like its antecedent, nor a coldly sober, tragic adventure like 'King Kong,' but is instead an adventure of a lighter, gentler, and even more charming variety, very much in line with what we commonly anticipate from Disney.
And to my pleasant surprise, defeating my cynicism, "charming" is just what this 'Mighty Joe Young' is. To be sure, its storytelling tends to be of a simpler and more straightforward tenor, usually reducing dialogue, scenes, characters, and beats and themes to big ideas that are easily digestible for general audiences, and at that ones which we've certainly encountered before and repeatedly in fiction and non-fiction. Be that as it may, the story is both earnest and enjoyable, and no few tidbits are particularly well done. At all the right moments the film is heartbreaking, heartwarming, funny, or exciting, and it really does hit on effective emotional notes. Simplified as the storytelling is, Rosenthal and Konner prove themselves to be capable writers in bringing all the pieces together, even including the obligatory romantic element ("when a man and a woman share the screen they MUST become involved") that is usually achingly tiresome. Heck, Underwood's credits are all over the place, but at least in this case his direction is commendably firm and confident in bringing the tale to fruition.
This is to say nothing of the fine original music, a splendid complement just as we would expect from the late great James Horner. The movie maybe doesn't require all that much from its stars, relatively speaking, but Charlize Theron, Bill Paxton, Rade Serbedzija, and even supporting cast members like Naveen Andrews, Regina King, David Paymer, or Linda Purl give admirably strong performances that bring out all the strength there is to be had in the material. On a side note, I'm so incredibly pleased at the tiny cameos given to Ray Harryhausen and Terry Moore, respectively the animator and star of the 1949 original - a sweet little nod that warms this cold, black heart. The costume design, hair, and makeup are fantastic, as is the production design. And I could hardly be happier with the stunts, and the effects. I will always, always prefer practical effects and tangible creations to the computer-generated imagery that has proliferated in cinema in recent years, artifice that ages rapidly and looks worse the more we see of it. Still, when exercised carefully and/or sparingly, digital visions look great and hold up well. And given that the visualization of Joe and other effects in this title is a deft combination of digital enhancement, animatronics, and lovingly developed suits, including the involvement of icon Rick Baker alongside Industrial Light and Magic among others, I'm all so glad at just how good it all looks.
There's just enough of a harrowing edge to the action sequences and smidgens of violence to make them low-key thrilling and keep us sincerely invested, a small but true taste of the intensity we get elsewhere in the genre. This helps to counterbalance those moments that are more abjectly silly, kitschy, or even cartoonish, and other creative choices that maybe feel outdated or out of place. To that point, I also feel that the runtime is a bit too drawn out in the back end with an unnecessary sequence built to heighten the adventure and drama; on the other hand, as the climax somewhat mirrors the climax of decades before, I believe it's managed more smartly here in both writing and execution. What it all comes down to is that no matter how much we may scrutinize, there are no major faults to latch onto in these two hours. Maybe the counterpoint is that there's nothing so striking about the feature as to earn major praise, but if that's the worst I have to say about something that could have easily gone much more wrong in myriad ways, then I dare say Rosenthal, Konner, Underwood, and all involved have done very well for themselves. I sat to watch with mixed expectations, and all told I'm more than satisfied with how good it is. 1998's 'Mighty Joe Young' is no revelation, and it won't appeal to everyone nor meet with equal favor from all. For my part, though, I'm rather happy with how excellent this is when all is said and done, and I'm glad to give it my warm recommendation.
I've loved the original 'King Kong' of 1933 since I was a young child, and to this day it remains one of my favorite movies. Moreover, its spectacle is something I routinely point to as a sterling counterexample when the profuse computer-generated imagery of modern fare wears thin standing next to the brilliant practical effects of yesteryear. Meanwhile, somehow I've gone all these years of my life without knowing that 'Mighty Joe Young,' to be remade in the 90s by Disney, even existed, let alone that it reunited many of the creative geniuses behind 'King Kong,' including Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack, Ruth Rose, and Robert Armstrong. To read of the film's history raises our expectations in recognition of all the immense hard work that went into the creature effects and the production at large, and we can only hope that the script and its realization might live up to those expectations - with the recognition that Joe isn't Kong, and we have to try to push from our minds any direct comparison between the two.
Make no mistake that the stunts and practical effects are truly outstanding. From tricks pulled with horses, to dangerous maneuvers by stunt people, to fire and destructible set pieces, this provides a bounty of glorious tangible goods for us to feast our eyes upon. Joe himself looks great; while I remain partial to Kong out of personal preference, I would expect no lesser quality from any instance where legend Ray Harryhausen is involved. The sets themselves are flush with terrific detail, including even in a late sequence about which I have mixed feelings at large, and the painted backdrops seen in the African sequences are breathtakingly gorgeous. All this is to say nothing of fine costume design, hair, and makeup, and all involved really turned in splendid work. That further includes composer Roy Webb with his original score, and the cast, not least stars Armstrong and Terry Moore. In all these fundamental ways, the picture really is excellent.
The screenplay of Rose, however, drawing from Cooper's original story, and the ultimate execution overseen by Cooper and Schoedsack, merits far more discussion. I will say right from the outset that 'Mighty Joe Young' has flaws. Troubles of a more minor nature include some instances of effects - composite shots with Joe in the foreground and a live-action sequence in the background, or vice versa - and extra-cutesy direction given to child star Lora Lee Michel, making for an unbearably ham-handed first few minutes. One most also note that there are undeniable instances herein of animals being mistreated specifically to obtain some desired shots. More substantive and more dubious is the manner in which this toes the line of employing and benefiting from the same racist stereotypes and colonialist ideations as are spotlighted in the narrative; my first impression early on can best be summed up as "appalled," for it initially comes across that the filmmakers have learned nothing from the themes they explored in 'King Kong' 16 years before, and are falling into the same modes of outdated thinking common to the 40s as the deplorable actions of key characters (and of characters portrayed by extras) are significantly downplayed, or even made light of. And especially with such sober thoughts in mind, I'm sad to say the climax and the ending kind of drop the ball: first by shifting gears at a crucial narrative moment to scene that feels like a sidestep, undercutting the drama at hand, and then by further downplaying the drama with a denouement so upbeat as to almost seem to disregard at least part of what came before. Maybe these were active creative choices of the filmmakers, or maybe they were forced into them or otherwise swept up in the softer storytelling sensibilities of 40s cinema, but either way, the turn the flick takes at the very tail end is unfortunate as it eases off the pressure that had been building.
Yet even with these issues in mind, ultimately I'm quite taken with the feature. 'Mighty Joe Young' is not what I expected it to be, generally in only the best of ways, and maybe some comparison to 'King Kong' would be illustrative after all. 'Kong' was a tale of adventure, bordering on horror, that ended in tragedy while touching upon major themes of colonialist exploitation and slavery. Even as the very premise portends similar material, 'Mighty Joe Young' initially comes off instead as very lighthearted, family-friendly fare - making it all the more confusing that certain scenes, characters, and dialogue seemed to walk back from the lessons of 'Kong' sixteen years before. But well before all is said and done, I see something very different. I'll grant that my perspective is shaped with the perspective and values of 2025, so maybe Rose, Cooper, and Schoedsack didn't fully intend the interpretation that I've come to, and it's worth observing that animator Harryhausen accordingly took enough of an issue with the title's humor for that consternation to have survived in written record to this day. Nevertheless, even though it stumbles at the end, what I see in watching this is a horror movie dressed up as a comedy.
Among others, the themes that 'Kong' touched upon in its adventure are here thrust in our face with a forthrightness more closely recalling the thematic ugliness of Boots Riley's 'Sorry to bother you,' or Emerald Fennell's 'Promising young woman' - yet with an underhanded twist that would at first make it outwardly seem as if the filmmakers were happily going along with it all, bringing to mind Vicente Aranda's exquisite 1972 horror masterpiece, 'The blood spattered bride.' We are presented with the naïveté and selfishness of a girl who is never told or taught otherwise even as she grows into adulthood, precipitating the proceedings to come; the exoticization, infantilization, and fetishization of peoples from a far-off land (Africa); exploitation of indigenous people, of women, and of animals; animal cruelty including plain abuse and direct violence; the greed and decadence of contemporary and modern (American) society, and moreover the stunning ignorance, entitlement, and cruelty of a society that views the larger world and all within it to be novel playthings; the degradation of alcohol, the unmoving stodginess of the courts and the state at large, and still more. 'Mighty Joe Young' is a horror movie that turns a magnifying lens on all the worst qualities of humans, and on all the iniquities that society waves off as "business as usual," and lays bear the actual impact that these have on real victims. Thus is all the lightness and silly humor of early scenes made to instead come off as ghastly. Why, up until the climax and ending fumble the proverbial ball, the story even carries an arc familiar to many true-blue horror pieces: grave errors made out of ignorance and arrogance result in a spiraling series of wretchedness and a calamity that trends toward an awful final act, and only through urgent collective action, and even the self-sacrifice of a key instigating figure, are survivors able to see the other side of these events.
It could be that I'm way off base, but I don't think so. Maybe the filmmakers didn't mean for 'Mighty Joe Young' to be seen in such a terribly grim light - but on the other hand, it's much less believable that the filmmakers could have completely changed their worldview from when they made 'King Kong.' Are the unnatural shifts in the climax and ending (understandable though they may be in and of themselves) a creative folly, or were they in some manner necessitated to keep the film from becoming so unforgivingly dark that theater-goers of the 40s would have rejected it? Does the gravity of the story compensate for the questionable use of the same tropes it criticizes, or am I being too generous in my assessment? I can't say that I know for sure what the answers are to these or similar questions. I do know that even though the end result is decidedly imperfect, more than not I'm sort of blown away by where it dared to go at all, and the approach that it took to the topics at hand. The doing is tricky, and I don't think it fully succeeds even if we discount the last stretch, but for all the many other ways in which this could have gone very wrong, at length I'm very happy with how good 'Mighty Joe Young' is. Opinions have varied over time and will continue to, and perhaps I'm in a minority. For my part, though, this deserves more esteem and more earnest dissection, and I'm pleased to give it my hearty recommendation.
Make no mistake that the stunts and practical effects are truly outstanding. From tricks pulled with horses, to dangerous maneuvers by stunt people, to fire and destructible set pieces, this provides a bounty of glorious tangible goods for us to feast our eyes upon. Joe himself looks great; while I remain partial to Kong out of personal preference, I would expect no lesser quality from any instance where legend Ray Harryhausen is involved. The sets themselves are flush with terrific detail, including even in a late sequence about which I have mixed feelings at large, and the painted backdrops seen in the African sequences are breathtakingly gorgeous. All this is to say nothing of fine costume design, hair, and makeup, and all involved really turned in splendid work. That further includes composer Roy Webb with his original score, and the cast, not least stars Armstrong and Terry Moore. In all these fundamental ways, the picture really is excellent.
The screenplay of Rose, however, drawing from Cooper's original story, and the ultimate execution overseen by Cooper and Schoedsack, merits far more discussion. I will say right from the outset that 'Mighty Joe Young' has flaws. Troubles of a more minor nature include some instances of effects - composite shots with Joe in the foreground and a live-action sequence in the background, or vice versa - and extra-cutesy direction given to child star Lora Lee Michel, making for an unbearably ham-handed first few minutes. One most also note that there are undeniable instances herein of animals being mistreated specifically to obtain some desired shots. More substantive and more dubious is the manner in which this toes the line of employing and benefiting from the same racist stereotypes and colonialist ideations as are spotlighted in the narrative; my first impression early on can best be summed up as "appalled," for it initially comes across that the filmmakers have learned nothing from the themes they explored in 'King Kong' 16 years before, and are falling into the same modes of outdated thinking common to the 40s as the deplorable actions of key characters (and of characters portrayed by extras) are significantly downplayed, or even made light of. And especially with such sober thoughts in mind, I'm sad to say the climax and the ending kind of drop the ball: first by shifting gears at a crucial narrative moment to scene that feels like a sidestep, undercutting the drama at hand, and then by further downplaying the drama with a denouement so upbeat as to almost seem to disregard at least part of what came before. Maybe these were active creative choices of the filmmakers, or maybe they were forced into them or otherwise swept up in the softer storytelling sensibilities of 40s cinema, but either way, the turn the flick takes at the very tail end is unfortunate as it eases off the pressure that had been building.
Yet even with these issues in mind, ultimately I'm quite taken with the feature. 'Mighty Joe Young' is not what I expected it to be, generally in only the best of ways, and maybe some comparison to 'King Kong' would be illustrative after all. 'Kong' was a tale of adventure, bordering on horror, that ended in tragedy while touching upon major themes of colonialist exploitation and slavery. Even as the very premise portends similar material, 'Mighty Joe Young' initially comes off instead as very lighthearted, family-friendly fare - making it all the more confusing that certain scenes, characters, and dialogue seemed to walk back from the lessons of 'Kong' sixteen years before. But well before all is said and done, I see something very different. I'll grant that my perspective is shaped with the perspective and values of 2025, so maybe Rose, Cooper, and Schoedsack didn't fully intend the interpretation that I've come to, and it's worth observing that animator Harryhausen accordingly took enough of an issue with the title's humor for that consternation to have survived in written record to this day. Nevertheless, even though it stumbles at the end, what I see in watching this is a horror movie dressed up as a comedy.
Among others, the themes that 'Kong' touched upon in its adventure are here thrust in our face with a forthrightness more closely recalling the thematic ugliness of Boots Riley's 'Sorry to bother you,' or Emerald Fennell's 'Promising young woman' - yet with an underhanded twist that would at first make it outwardly seem as if the filmmakers were happily going along with it all, bringing to mind Vicente Aranda's exquisite 1972 horror masterpiece, 'The blood spattered bride.' We are presented with the naïveté and selfishness of a girl who is never told or taught otherwise even as she grows into adulthood, precipitating the proceedings to come; the exoticization, infantilization, and fetishization of peoples from a far-off land (Africa); exploitation of indigenous people, of women, and of animals; animal cruelty including plain abuse and direct violence; the greed and decadence of contemporary and modern (American) society, and moreover the stunning ignorance, entitlement, and cruelty of a society that views the larger world and all within it to be novel playthings; the degradation of alcohol, the unmoving stodginess of the courts and the state at large, and still more. 'Mighty Joe Young' is a horror movie that turns a magnifying lens on all the worst qualities of humans, and on all the iniquities that society waves off as "business as usual," and lays bear the actual impact that these have on real victims. Thus is all the lightness and silly humor of early scenes made to instead come off as ghastly. Why, up until the climax and ending fumble the proverbial ball, the story even carries an arc familiar to many true-blue horror pieces: grave errors made out of ignorance and arrogance result in a spiraling series of wretchedness and a calamity that trends toward an awful final act, and only through urgent collective action, and even the self-sacrifice of a key instigating figure, are survivors able to see the other side of these events.
It could be that I'm way off base, but I don't think so. Maybe the filmmakers didn't mean for 'Mighty Joe Young' to be seen in such a terribly grim light - but on the other hand, it's much less believable that the filmmakers could have completely changed their worldview from when they made 'King Kong.' Are the unnatural shifts in the climax and ending (understandable though they may be in and of themselves) a creative folly, or were they in some manner necessitated to keep the film from becoming so unforgivingly dark that theater-goers of the 40s would have rejected it? Does the gravity of the story compensate for the questionable use of the same tropes it criticizes, or am I being too generous in my assessment? I can't say that I know for sure what the answers are to these or similar questions. I do know that even though the end result is decidedly imperfect, more than not I'm sort of blown away by where it dared to go at all, and the approach that it took to the topics at hand. The doing is tricky, and I don't think it fully succeeds even if we discount the last stretch, but for all the many other ways in which this could have gone very wrong, at length I'm very happy with how good 'Mighty Joe Young' is. Opinions have varied over time and will continue to, and perhaps I'm in a minority. For my part, though, this deserves more esteem and more earnest dissection, and I'm pleased to give it my hearty recommendation.
What a cast! David Niven, Deborah Kerr, and Donald Pleasence - and Sharon Tate, in her film debut! David Hemmings! The names involved are apt to catch our attention before anything else, maybe even more so in retrospect, and in fairness it's not just about their fame. The cast is superb, giving haunted, unnerving, or otherwise intense performances that demonstrate why their renown is so deserved. Why, for as young as Hemmings and Tate were, even in their supporting parts they shine brightly, giving Christian and Odile a quiet menace that feeds so much into the atmosphere that pervades these ninety-six minutes. And atmosphere really is the key: from the impactful acting, to the overall black and white presentation, to brilliant choices of lighting and cinematography, to the exquisite, imposing filming locations and sets, to the striking original music of Gary McFarland, and even some smart, nightmarish sequencing by editor Ernest Walter, 'Eye of the devil' relies heavily on an uneasy ambience of disquiet to set the tone and prepare viewers for the gravity of the saga. And even just on that measure it handily succeeds.
Filmmaker J. Lee Thompson deserves much credit for his keen direction that makes the proceedings so effective and creepy, basically right from the start and through to the very end. Through his vision and guiding hand is a story of familiar elements made to feel more like a mystery as the sinister horror vibes intensify, ultimately touching upon folk horror territory. It also says so much, though, that author Robin Estridge contributed by adapting his own novel to the screen. I can see the line that is drawn from this picture to similar fare of subsequent years as a woman finds herself drawn into a world her husband has been keeping secret from her, one that for him has been a very normal part of life. We are somewhat kept in the dark about most every character such that their motivations and behavior remain a bit unexplained, a tactic that works well to heighten the disturbing airs about it all, and the scene writing is varied and dynamic enough to keep things fresh at all turns as the plot develops through to its disconcerting ending.
This isn't to say that the feature is perfect. In a few spots, chiefly nearer the end, I can't help but feel that the narrative loses some cohesion and just skips from A to C (or D) in the hope that we won't notice. As a product of the 60s, I also think in hindsight that this suffers somewhat from that decade's sensibilities of horror and film-making such that the full brunt of the tale is diminished. More than anything else, however, insofar as I have issues with 'Eye of the devil,' the biggest one for me is that the sense of horror is kind of misplaced here. There are concrete ill deeds at hand, certainly, and as we effectively see the events unfold through the perspective of Catherine, what we see is her world gradually come undone as she is exposed to something she never could have anticipated. Yet there are key exchanges of dialogue that hammer on an unfortunate point of denigrating the beliefs of a minority that, by contemporary norms, are unorthodox, and it's evident that no small part of the intended horror here is outdated and thematic: the very white, Christian apoplexy at merely bearing witness to something different. I'm reminded of the 1968 film "The devil rides out," which was fine, but which rankled me as the "supernatural evil" mostly boiled down to "Oh no! We can't let So And So convert to a different religion!" Though in a different way, to some (lesser) degree 'Eye of the devil' has the same trouble, affecting just how much it could succeed.
Maybe I'm being overly critical, however, and nitpicking. If these are the worst things I have to say about the movie then it has done very well for itself, and far more than not this readily impresses in every regard and holds up very well. Scrutiny aside, it's filled with sharp detail in everything from lighting and framing to sets, costume design, or hair and makeup to round out overall fantastic writing and direction. And again, with stars like Niven, Kerr, Pleasence, Hemmings, and Tate on hand, how can we not just sit back and enjoy the ride? With many objective strengths well outweighing and outshining a few subjective weaknesses that are ultimately kind of minor, I'm so pleased with how good 'Eye of the devil' turned out to be. I'd stop short of saying it's a must-see, but whatever one's impetus for watching, if you have the chance to do so then I'm happy to give it my solid recommendation. Not every horror title of decades' past ages well, but this one has, and it would be a mistake to pass it up.
Filmmaker J. Lee Thompson deserves much credit for his keen direction that makes the proceedings so effective and creepy, basically right from the start and through to the very end. Through his vision and guiding hand is a story of familiar elements made to feel more like a mystery as the sinister horror vibes intensify, ultimately touching upon folk horror territory. It also says so much, though, that author Robin Estridge contributed by adapting his own novel to the screen. I can see the line that is drawn from this picture to similar fare of subsequent years as a woman finds herself drawn into a world her husband has been keeping secret from her, one that for him has been a very normal part of life. We are somewhat kept in the dark about most every character such that their motivations and behavior remain a bit unexplained, a tactic that works well to heighten the disturbing airs about it all, and the scene writing is varied and dynamic enough to keep things fresh at all turns as the plot develops through to its disconcerting ending.
This isn't to say that the feature is perfect. In a few spots, chiefly nearer the end, I can't help but feel that the narrative loses some cohesion and just skips from A to C (or D) in the hope that we won't notice. As a product of the 60s, I also think in hindsight that this suffers somewhat from that decade's sensibilities of horror and film-making such that the full brunt of the tale is diminished. More than anything else, however, insofar as I have issues with 'Eye of the devil,' the biggest one for me is that the sense of horror is kind of misplaced here. There are concrete ill deeds at hand, certainly, and as we effectively see the events unfold through the perspective of Catherine, what we see is her world gradually come undone as she is exposed to something she never could have anticipated. Yet there are key exchanges of dialogue that hammer on an unfortunate point of denigrating the beliefs of a minority that, by contemporary norms, are unorthodox, and it's evident that no small part of the intended horror here is outdated and thematic: the very white, Christian apoplexy at merely bearing witness to something different. I'm reminded of the 1968 film "The devil rides out," which was fine, but which rankled me as the "supernatural evil" mostly boiled down to "Oh no! We can't let So And So convert to a different religion!" Though in a different way, to some (lesser) degree 'Eye of the devil' has the same trouble, affecting just how much it could succeed.
Maybe I'm being overly critical, however, and nitpicking. If these are the worst things I have to say about the movie then it has done very well for itself, and far more than not this readily impresses in every regard and holds up very well. Scrutiny aside, it's filled with sharp detail in everything from lighting and framing to sets, costume design, or hair and makeup to round out overall fantastic writing and direction. And again, with stars like Niven, Kerr, Pleasence, Hemmings, and Tate on hand, how can we not just sit back and enjoy the ride? With many objective strengths well outweighing and outshining a few subjective weaknesses that are ultimately kind of minor, I'm so pleased with how good 'Eye of the devil' turned out to be. I'd stop short of saying it's a must-see, but whatever one's impetus for watching, if you have the chance to do so then I'm happy to give it my solid recommendation. Not every horror title of decades' past ages well, but this one has, and it would be a mistake to pass it up.
Recently taken polls
3,655 total polls taken
