Eye of the Devil

Before I started watching 'Eye of the Devil', I already wondered why this film isn't mentioned more often. The film seems to have a pretty solid and horrifying plot (based on a novel by Philip Loraine) and it's blessed with an all-star cast. Sir David Niven (The Pink Panther series, Casino Royale) - here at the top of his success - plays the lead role and there are supportive roles for class actors like Donald Pleasance (The Great Escape, Halloween), Deborah Kerr (The Innocents, Qua Vadis), David Hemmings (Blowup, Profondo Rosso), Flora Robson (The Sea Hawk, Beast in the Cellar) and the stunningly beautiful Sharon Tate (Fearless Vampire Killers, Rosemary's Baby). Niven stars as vineyard owner marquis Philippe de Montfaucon. He's asked to return to his castle because of yet another disappointing season. Although he requested them not to, his wife and children soon join him at the remote rural estate. Every employee there acts mysteriously and even the loyal Philippe all of a sudden seems to keep secrets to his beloved wife Catherine. Intrigued by the strange behavior of her husband and the overload of eccentric characters wandering around the estate, Catherine starts her own investigation and discovers that the Philippe's bloodline always followed bizarre and old pagan rituals (even involving blood sacrifices) in order to save the crops. Although she fears for her husband and children, Catherine doesn't succeed in convincing Philippe to leave…

The premise of Eye of the Devil is terrific occult substance and the film features several haunting and extremely atmospheric sequences. Unfortunately the elaboration of the script is uneven and often very confusing. Although beautifully shot, there are several parts in this film that are redundant and the 'mystery' is a bit overstressed. Sharon Tate (you won't believe how sensual she is here) has a stylish and grim sequence in which she turns a toad into a pigeon, but I fail the see how this carefully built up feature was essential to the film?

The weird thing about 'Eye of the Devil' is that it seems to borrow elements from other British horror milestones. The terrified Deborah Kerr trying to resolve a mystery and to protect her children strongly reminds you about 'The Innocents' (some of the camera-work and the eerie black and white photography increase the connection between the two films) and the caped 'apostles' wandering through the forests makes you think back to Roger Corman's 'The Masque of the Red Death'. Something else to ponder about is the rather large similarity between this film and the absolute cult-favorite 'The Wicker Man'. Although this latter one is much more stylish and gripping, it more or less disappointed me to see this OLDER film handling about the same topic. I always considered 'The Wicker Man' to be one of the most unique and original movies ever made and now I find out this a more sophisticated update of J. Lee Thompson's 1967 film? Perhaps there you have the reason why this film is a bit downgraded and overlooked! The Wicker Man is often labeled as part of the greatest British films ever made, so I guess all the fans don't like to hear that it might have been inspired by another – more anonymous – Brit horror film.

In conclusion: Eye of the Devil is recommended if you're an admirer of complex and ambitious horror tales. Too bad it's a little TOO complex at times, but then there still are the outstanding acting performances and strict directing skills to enjoy. And I can't stress enough how marvelous Sharon Tate looks in this film. This heavenly goddess passed away far too early (damn that Charles Manson) and the few films she starred in should be checked out by everyone who's an admirer of female beauty.

Eye of the Devil is a little - known horror from the mid - Sixties. David Niven, Deborah Kerr, Donald Pleasance, Flora Robson, Sharon Tate and so many more star in this, so it must be some good for them to sign up. Being in the UK, I caught this on TCM 2 last night. There was nothing else on, and I hadn't seen this before, so I turned off all the lights (as is customary) and settled down.

The movie is about a French Marquis, who owns a vineyard in France. When the vineyard's produce prove to be very little, and the produce that it has produced is dry and worthless, he has to return to France to set things right. He leaves his wife (Deborah Kerr) and his two children, tells them not to follow him, and leaves. However, curiosity gets the better of his wife, and she does indeed follow him, with their two children. However, what she discovers there is no less than horrifying...

Eye of the Devil oozes atmosphere, the performances are good, and the plot is strong enough to keep the audience's attention held. Sure, there are some plot holes and goofs, but if you can overlook these, and enjoy this for what it is, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

As an afterthought, this is probably one of the first films to ever portray pagan rituals on film. Although the world renowned - "Wicker Man" - is supposed to be the King of this genre, it probably took a lot of its ideas from this. It's a pre - Wicker Man. That's probably why its so little known. The film industry want to milk The Wicker Man and overlook this. The Wicker Man is indeed a good film, but not the first to deal with pagans.

Wherever you are in the world, if you receive the TCM channel, then you'll probably have a good chance of catching this on the TV. TCM now own the copyright to this film as far as my own knowledge goes, so, if you're a fan of this movie, then you know who to ask for a DVD release!

Historically speaking this film serves as an invaluable precursor to Anthony Shaffer's ingenious THE WICKER MAN, starring Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee. Taken on its own, however, EYE OF THE DEVIL is an effective but wildly uneven film.

The story deals with a wealthy French nobleman (David Niven) who is called back to his ancestral castle when the crops fail. Due to his erratic behavior regarding this summons, wife Deborah Kerr becomes increasingly worried about Niven's safety. Against his orders, Kerr takes her children to his ancestral castle, where she witnesses many strange and eerie religious rites. The question then becomes, will Kerr be able to rescue Niven from a ritual sacrifice, and -- indeed -- does he wish to be saved?

Owing to its erratic production history, it's not surprising that EYE OF THE DEVIL is a bit rough around the edges. The story is obtuse, and the characters under-developed, but director J. Lee Thompson employs an intriguingly arty approach that keeps one alert throughout. Thompson makes excellent use of Ernest Haller's mobil camerawork, most notably in a memorable race-against-the-clock climax. Additionally, the score is excellent, and the cast is well above average for this sort of thing. In the lead roles, Kerr and Niven are effective and restrained, but it is the supporting cast that really impresses: Donald Pleasence, his head shave completely bald, as a sinsiter cleric; David Hemmings as a seemingly evil youth; and especially Sharon Tate as Hemmings' enchantingly sensual/wicked sister.

In the end, EYE OF THE DEVIL cannot be considered a great film. It is, however, an above average diabolical thriller, and as such can be recommended to horror fans. My rating: *** out of ****

It certainly has all the ingredients to make this a classic, but fails to make it through for me, despite the pretty impressive cast.

It does bring to mind the Deborah Kerr cult movie The Innocents, but doesn't quite get there. All the components are here, but I thought the lack of pacing of the film made this less effective entertainment.

It is interesting nonetheless if you can take the slower pace. The outside shots mostly take advantage of the set location in France in a castle or chateau, which adds to the atmosphere quite well. The film does have the feel though of being filmed the earlier 1960's, rather than in the second half, with the camera angles etc i.e. close up of the actor to the side of the shot with the action/plot developing in the distance. It's shot in black and white which works very well, just at this time in cinema, there was the colour explosion going on.

The two "youngsters" here, David Hemmings (died blond hair) and Sharon Tate certainly look good, which is handy, as they do not appear to have many lines. They mostly go for the quiet manacing look school of acting here.

For those who like a bit of S&M, Sharon Tate gets a whipping and seems to like it, but don't expect too much, and that includes any erotic scenes or nudity. Just as well, as they are not needed, although it may have made the film slightly more interesting if tastefully done.

Sharon goes through the film looking like a model here in nearly all of her screen time. Donald Pleasance is Donald Pleasance who gives most of his best acting with his eyes, and does not have the lines or role to make his performance more memorable, which is a shame. As to David Niven's performance, it was good enough, but no particular plaudits from me (or criticism). Deborah Kerr is quite good, and is trying reasonably hard I thought, as did Flora Robson.

It's a 60's, B/W film, driven by a pagan plot with the usual accoutrement's (monks in hoods etc), and if that is your thing then give it a go. Not an out and out classic, but is worthy of being mentioned with the best of this genre, and more as an interesting flawed cult movie for horror fans.

Okay spooker is missing some important back-story that would make it more compelling. Niven is disengaged in the lead, leaving a slackness to the main thrust of the movie but Deborah Kerr is suitably panicked as the questioning wife. What a supporting cast though! Flora Robson, Edward Mulhare, Emlyn Williams all contribute little bits of color and Donald Pleasance is ideally cast as an ominous presence who keeps popping, up his liquid eyes betraying nothing but giving the viewer the creeps nonetheless. David Hemmings has little to do but stare into the distance and give off an unpleasant vibe which he does well while being disturbing in his beauty. Speaking of beauty, this was Sharon Tate's first big role in her regrettably short career and she gets the corresponding introducing credit , man alive was she breathtaking! She gives an appropriate performance all glacial looks and dreamy line readings, the part doesn't demand more than that. But the camera loved her and when she's on screen you look at no one else, a vital component of a star. Would she have achieved that position? Who knows but the ingredients where definitely there. The black & white photography is most evocative and was a wise choice to set the proper tone for the piece. Not a great film by any means but a decent view near Halloween.