Eye of the Devil

Good cast, good director (J. Lee Thompson)...so what went wrong? Despite a sumptuous production and handsome locales, thriller about an ancient French estate needing a human sacrifice to restore life to the dying grape vineyards is frantic and confusing. The editing is such a hodgepodge, it's as though the negative got crammed into a blender. How else to explain the total lack of character content, the muddled continuity, or the perplexing plot itself? Also referred to as "13", the title-switcheroo proved unlucky for everyone, maybe most especially Sharon Tate (who does look gorgeous and has one neat scene where she changes a toad into a dove). Tate wanders through the film in a passive fog, and is later the victim to a whip-snapper; she gets an 'introducing' credit here, just as she did for 1967's "Don't Make Waves", though neither film is memorable nor uses her adequately. Poor miscast David Niven has nasty bags under his eyes, and his repartee with old friend Deborah Kerr (brought in after Kim Novak was either let go or dropped out) has no nuances--they seem like strangers. ** from ****

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 ****

Why do the makers of movies very often think that they are better than the author of the original text? A lot of important details from the novel have been simply left out, the structure has been altered, the characters modified. One should really read the novel first to understand the contest.

Eye of the Devil doesn't exactly have a good reputation, but much of the criticism aimed at it is rather unfair in my opinion; as while the film certainly could have been a lot better considering the plot and the cast; this British chiller isn't bad at all, and certainly provided this viewer with enough chills and suspense. Based on a novel by Philip Loraine, Eye of the Devil could be called a predecessor to the great British occult classic 'The Wicker Man' as it features similar themes of devil worship and witchcraft. Although not as good as the later film, J. Lee Thompson's effort is still a more than interesting film that just about works in spite of the overly complicated and often confusing mess of a plot. The film follows vineyard owner marquis Philippe de Montfaucon, who is called back to his castle after a dry season. His wife and children follow him, despite his request for them to remain in London; and it's not long before the wife is on his case after she discovers him acting strangely. Things take a turn for the more sinister when the strange vineyard employees begin following ancient Pagan rituals...

The central locations; that being the castle and surrounding vineyard, are very well used, and benefit the film in that they lend it a thick, foreboding atmosphere. The plot revels in this atmosphere - and themes of witchcraft and devil worship are well used and at the forefront at all times. The film's biggest asset, however, is undoubtedly the cast list; and Eye of the Devil benefits from an array of present and future stars. Casino Royale stars David Niven and Deborah Kerr take the lead roles, and the pair are given excellent support by a young Donald Pleasance, as well as The Fearless Vampire Killers' Sharon Tate and a very eerie performance by Deep Red's David Hemmings. The only area that the film falls down on really is the writing; as it is often difficult to decipher exactly what is going on, and there is, perhaps, a little too much plot for a film of this nature. The story does allow for a number of standout moments, however; and scenes such as the one that Sharon Tate and Deborah Kerr share at the top of castle will stay in my memory for some time. Overall, this isn't a must see or classic film; but it's a decent horror effort and should appeal to horror fanatics.

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.