Le mystère des 13

This one gets a least a 7 just on the camera work: glorious black & white, lots of shadowy scenes shot in a creepy French castle. Add to the mix a gorgeous young Sharon Tate in her screen debut as a freekoid Pagan witchess and you have enough to hold my attention for 90 minutes! I thought it was great all the way around: story line, casting, sets, you name it. Lots to like: Pagan cults, weird ceremonies with dead doves, hooded figures dressed in black, a tomb in the woods, ritual sacrifice, and did I mention that the magnificent Sharon Tate is in this movie? David Niven is outstanding as the grim and proper heir to a cruel pagan tradition designed to save the failing vineyards of his fore fathers. Ignore the IMDb 5.5 average rating -- if you like 60's B&W British creepy chiller/thrillers, watch it!

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.

"Eye of the Devil" had a very troubled history. Kim Novak was originally cast as the female lead, but production had to be shut down as she proved inadequate to the role's demands (surprise!) and was let go.

The film is about a French nobleman (played by David Niven) who's family fortune is tied to a small village that makes wine. He's called back to the family chateau as the vineyards have been failing for a few years, an announcement ripe with sinister and mysterious overtones. He tells his wife (Deborah Kerr) not to follow him or bring their two children, but soon she does just that, fearing for his safety.

What follows involves ancient pagan rituals, witchcraft, and deadly family secrets that go back centuries and can be handed down to the next generation.

There's a nice thriller in here somewhere, and director J. Lee Thompson manages some creepy scenes here and there. Best are the scenes with a manipulative and hostile Sharon Tate and/or David Hemmings, and one where Kerr is menaced by a group of hooded figures in the woods. Also the ending is properly disturbing.

But for the most part, the film's atmosphere is gloomy and dank, which kills the suspense. It doesn't help that both Deborah Kerr and David Niven are both too mature at this point to be playing parents of small children. Niven looks mostly distracted and Kerr, while capable in her damsel-in-distress role, does a less interesting variation on her brilliant performance in "The Innocents," though in that case the role was far more complex. As for the late Ms. Tate, I'm convinced her voice was dubbed by another actress, but she does cut a very provocative figure.

The film contains too many characters, and not all the plot makes much sense. This is strictly something for British horror fans to watch out of curiosity, or for devotees of Deborah Kerr.

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.

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.