The Eyes of Charles Sand (1972) (TV)

Director:

Reza Badiyi

Writers:

Henry Farrell (screenplay)
Henry Farrell (story)

Release Date:

29 February 1972 (USA)

Genre:

Thriller

Plot:

A young man inherits the ability to see visions beyond the grave. He helps a girl investigate her brother's alleged murder. |

Plot Keywords:

Murder | Deja Vu | Unsold TV Series Pilot | Character Name In Title

Cast

Peter Haskell	...	Charles Sand
Joan Bennett	...	Aunt Alexandra
Barbara Rush	...	Katharine Winslow
Sharon Farrell	...	Emily Parkhurst
Bradford Dillman	...	Jeffrey Winslow
Adam West	...	Doctor Paul Scott
Gary Clarke	...	Raymond
Ivor Francis	...	Doctor Ballard
Owen Bush	...	Gardner
Don 'Red' Barry	...	Trainer (as Donald Barry)
Larry Levine	...	Groom

Runtime:

75 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono

Company:

Warner Bros. Television

Trivia:

Although no musical score was credited due of a composers' strike against TV producers, composer Henry Mancini recognized much of his score from Wait Until Dark (1967), which he hadn't authorized the production company to use. He sued the film's producers and won.

Quotes:

Charles Sand: [reading the will] Neither men of god, nor men of science, can help you now. You are alone.

This one gets a "See"-plus!

Another TV movie that was an intended pilot for a series. Falling short of the "keeper" mark in terms of what the networks craved at the time, "Charles" still contains a wonderfully restrained performance by the dependable Peter Haskell as the titular hero, an inheritor of powers of ESP and clairvoyance that runs in the family. Of course, on the other hand, you have Sharon Farrell as a young woman whose either going insane (something she excelled at playing) or who definitely needs Charles' supernatural help. Add Barbara Rush and Joan Bennett into the mix, and you either have a campy hoot-fest of OTT emoting, or something so irritating, you may turn away and actually watch that rerun of DUMB AND DUMBER for the twenty-sixth time.

What saves it ultimately is capable direction, a storyline that does keep things interesting, (not to mention pre-dating Stephen King's THE DEAD ZONE by over a decade, which contains some striking similarities), and some frighteningly taut setpieces that, though dated, still work to some extent if you watch it with the lights out.

Hard to find, but worth it when you do, if only for sentimental reasons, (like when they used to make REALLY good or at least entertaining 90-minute TV extravaganzas.)