Cerimonia per un delitto

Curiously solid, little occult psychological thriller that's sinisterly gloomy and consists of a banged-up ensemble cast featuring names like David Niven, Deborah Kerr, Donald Pleasance, David Hemming and Sharon Tate. A wealthy French nobleman returns back to his home town, along with his wife and children to help out with the town's failing vineyard. When there he tries to keep it secret from his wife, but she soon discovers the family tradition of Pagan sacrifice . The professionally classy performances are fitting, especially the support roles with Hemming and Tate really embellishing a creepy presence. Same for a cold-glazed Pleasance. Director J. Lee Thompson's atmospheric touch shows in many frames of this crisp b/w presentation, from the spooky castle, to the watching townsfolk and a disorientating chase scene through the castles nearby forest. It's attractively photographed, where Thompson also goes about providing some frenetic camera angles to lay out the anxiety of the circumstances. Despite some short-lived pockets, tension seems to be replaced by glum atmospherics in what feels like a slow-burn mood piece with a stringently compounded script breathing plenty of mystery and intrigue from that dark secret formula. Some things are not entirely explained, but it gives in to a devilish ending, but it's a very long build up to its foreseeable payoff. Some motions and actions of Kerr's concerned, but caring mother figure were somewhat an irritation. Niven is fine as the man tormented by his ancestral responsibilities, but it doesn't ask too much from him. While Kerr was the opposite with her emotive turn. The music score is melodically haunting in its angelic cues. A wickedly sleepy black mass thriller.

"Drive out of this valley. Never come back.".

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 ****

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.

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.

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.