User reviews

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.

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.".

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 ****

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.

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.

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.

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!

Returning with her husband to his château in the French countryside, a woman gradually learns of his impending desire to yield a good crop field by partaking in a pagan ritual sacrifice that puts her and her children in danger and must stop it from transpiring.

This here turned out to be quite an unusual and disappointing effort. The film's biggest issue here is the fact that there's the utterly overused angle of thinking it's creepy when people knowingly withhold information crucial to the survival of others and yet can't reveal anything, essentially being unable to stop talking about it but never saying anything. This is a common theme in numerous movies and has never worked out well since it basically keeps the movie going along but does nothing with it that hasn't been done in those other efforts, making this off to be a cliché as well as basically doing nothing for the film anyway. As well, the details of the belief that powers through this is just utterly confusing, never really making any bit of sense as to why the ceremony was adopted or what it's supposed to prove which just makes the whole effort confusing, and as well the film does seem to run on a little longer than it should, stretched out by the needless withholding of information causing unnecessary investigations that go nowhere since they're all stone-walled or dead-ends, and it's only piecing everything together at the end does this evoke any sort of terror. That said, it's still got some solid, enjoyable moments here, for the discovery in the forest mausoleum leading to the raid by the black-hooded figures is chilling, the town-hall ceremony has a few surprises and the finale employs a clever trick to really sell what's going on quite nicely. Beyond that, the eerie behavior of everyone around is quite a bit of fun and gets pretty chilling at times, especially towards the one girl who is so off that there's an unnerving atmosphere that plays into the whole secrecy surrounding the whole proceedings, making for a better film than it sounds but still not as good as it could've been.

Today's Rating/PG: Violence and children-in-danger.

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!

Great sets too, as well as story potential. It appears the intent was to do something like a cross between Hitchcock and Bergman, but it all seems more like a cheesey Roger Corman film from the same era. I understand there were production problems which likely account for the unevenness. Guess it just wasn't meant to be.

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 ****

"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.

A reviewer noted that Kim Novak the star of this film was replaced because Kim Novak was considered "inadequate". This is false. Kim Novak, a fine actress, was first billed in the film over David Niven and the rest of the cast. Kim Novak was injured during filming in a fall from a horse and had to leave this MGM Film. Deborah Kerr was the star brought in to replace Kim Novak. Kerr and David Niven were friends. The Eye of The Devil is a weak film. Ms. Kerr a classic star at the time of her replacing Kim Novak was no way near the box office star Kim Novak was at the time in the mid 60's

Kim Novak and the director of this film J Lee Thompson would re united years later in a UA western, The White Buffalo co starring Charles Bronson. Kim Novak would return to MGM in Robert Aldrich's "Legend Of Lylah Clare" where again Kim Novak was top billed in a large cast including Peter Finch.

What a terrible waste of some great talent! This could have been, at least, an interesting movie, but everything about it was awful. The screenplay is poor, the directing worse, and the music just passable. I can, certainly, understand why they kept this on a shelf, not releasing it. Too bad they didn't leave it there!

This film is like the dream sixties movie I never saw! It´s as if I made up a list of what I love in a movie and it was fulfilled!

I hadn´t ever heard of the film before even with its countless sixties stars. It´s pretty good too! Wonder why it isn´t well known and why it wasn´t a hit when it first came out. There´s so much going for it : First, it´s a mystery set in huge french castle in (then) present time. The amazing black and white photography, every picture is thought out and beautiful in its own right. And the suspence! At times the film is genuinely exciting like when the lady is surrounded by the hooded beings in the woods.

There are alot of things in the film that remind you of Polanski´s "Rosemary´s Baby". "Eye of the Devil" came out before so Polanski must have seen it and been influenced. Maybe that´s where he first caught sight of lovely Sharon Tate who is stunningly beautiful and good actress too.

The film also has such sixties stars as David Niven, David Hemmings (sooo beautiful) and Deborah Kerr who is very good as the heroine but a bit uninteresting. Apparently Kim Novak was to have had the part but got injured during filming and thus replaced. She might not be as good an actress as ms. Kerr but could have brought more glamour and camp value to the film. It is a bit confusing and you get used to the editing but see it if you can!

Underrated Occult Film that has been Unfairly Maligned and Dismissed. It does not Completely Compel the way of some other Devilish Movies on Black Magic, but it Delivers Enough of Interest to make it well Worth Watching.

An A-List Director and Cast with an Added Bonus of two Up and Comers, Hemmings and Tate make this a Fine, if Subdued and Gloomy Piece of Atmospheric Cinema. The Tone is that of Days Gone By and is Handsomely Mounted and Overcomes a Troubled Production.

It is an Eyeful to be sure and what it lacks in a Solidified Story it makes up for in its Ability to be Creepy and Foreboding that might have Benefited Slightly from one or two Scenes like the Unexpected Punishment Scene of Sharon Tate. Not for some sort of Cheap Thrill but the way it comes out of Nowhere is quite Striking.

Overall this is Decidedly a Mature and Frill-Less, but not Thrill-Less, Film that relies on Suspense and Disturbing Situations for its Unnerving Duration.

It begins rather nicely, with David Niven the owner of a vast vineyard in Bordeaux that has three time failed to produce the crop on which the village depends. He leaves England to visit the place, warning his proper wife, Deborah Kerr, not to follow. She doesn't listen.

Then we're introduced to an immense, majestic black-and-white château atop a hill in late Fall. What a place to hold a party. The courtyard is the size of Shea Stadium. It has towers, battlements, ramparts, flanking towers, crenels, merlons, machicolations, arrow loops, murder holes, and a moat and drawbridge. "Awfully medieval," remarks Kerr. Wives are always so terribly fussy. I didn't mind the abrasive aspect of the place. It just seemed to be cold all the time.

That covers, let's say, the first fourth of the film, and after that it turns more routine. There's some kind of business going on but nobody will tell Kerr what it is, no matter how hard she pries. We've seen it before: "Rosemary's Baby," "Children of the Corn," and with far more subtlety In "Jane Eyre" and even "I Walked With a Zombie." The business is described precisely be Kerr as "superstitious mumbo jumbo." By the last half everything seems to have collapsed. The director, J. Lee Thompson, appears to have thrown up his hands in despair and had everyone marching around as if hypnotized, their eyes bulging, their steps mechanical -- except for Kerr who is reduced to smashing windows and screaming.

Pretty disappointing.

Atmospheric horror dealt in a skillful and very sober way: this movie works more through suggestion, weaving its narrative through grand scenarios of uncanny intensity which is greatly enriched by the black and white colouring that casts a certain aura all over the action and sharpens the characters' peculiarities.

The plot revolves around an ancient curse that plagues a family, linked with a superstitious awe that borders on paranoia. In itself, it is nothing too original: the distraught mother observes with alarm the sudden changes that take place when her so far devoted husband returns to the family estate, a magnific medieval castle, and tries to unravel what is behind the revolution. Yet, its the subtlety with which the theme is approached that distinguish the movie as above average, and raise it to the standard of artistic endeavor as well as story-telling. I'd say that imagery, especially the vibrant contrast between dark areas of film to which correspond luminescent patches, is one of the most relevant and outstanding elements that craft this movie into looking like an animated painting of bizarre overtones.

With some hints of psychological drama that pervade the atmosphere (not the extent that is achieved with such movies as "The Haunting", 1963, but using the same basic approach) the tense environment is stressed and developed as a succession of drama-infused situations that escalate into a stunning climax.

The horror, something organic, in the old Gothic tradition, relies on the architecture to project its full impact upon a solid cast of actors, whose performances are perfectly in sync the overall attitude of uncomfortable beauty that sets the leitmotiv for the whole movie.

To this we add an ambiguous collection of character that hint at the possibility of the supernatural as well as providing enough dark innuendos to undercut the apparently peaceful family relations, a certain order of blood ties being shown and (potentially) unnatural; and an all encompassing narrative frame that is perfect enacted through the curse: not that in itself but the scenes that finally disclose the secrets pertaining said curse.

Overall, a very worthy effort that has aged well, and that actually be more enjoyable now, stripped of its more direct content and perceived more for the great art work that is the heart of the movie.

I gave this movie 6 out of 10, but it's really a 5.5. It's an old film, and I wondered why I hadn't seen it before. Maybe I have but forgotten about it.

It's possible because although this film has a great cast, the story is rather thin and not scary at all. The actors don't have a lot to work with. Dialogue is forgettable and the plain fact is nothing much happens.

The ending is okay but you're left thinking, is that it? The film was probably about half an hour too long. In which case it might have worked better in a TV series like Journey Into The Unknown.