Eye of the Devil (1966) User Reviews

Great cast! Great premise! ...something went wrong during the elaboration

[Coventry · 7/10 · 6 October 2004]

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.

Loaded with ominous foreboding

[jjnxn-1 · 6/10 · 29 October 2013]

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.

Nice little sinister chiller

[The_Void · 7/10 · 6 July 2006]

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.

Uneven but effective chiller.

[Troy-11 · 4 April 1999]

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 ****

"You can never understand".

[lost-in-limbo · 7/10 · 10 August 2011]

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.".

Falls Short Of A Classic

[vogun-17563 · 7/10 · 25 September 2018]

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.

Sixties madness

[gpeltz · 6/10 · 26 January 2014]

Spoiler Alert;

I am going to assume that you have already viewed this movie, so that we can talk about some of the issues I have with it. First of all, there seems to be a bandwagon of reviewers who liken this movie to "The Wicker Man" Aside from the human sacrifice aspect of a Pagan celebration, the two movies have very little in common. "Eye of the Devil" was the first to deal with this concept, so I have read, but it is entirely a different story.

So with such an outstanding cast, handsome cinematography and successful director, why was this film passed over? I would blame the disjointed editing. The disrupted continuity was bad enough, but the editor employed a technique, I would call it "the Sixties Cut" By jump cutting The film maker conveyed a disjointed effect through editing, emulating the flashy style of the avant guard European film makers (Goddard comes to mind). Interesting to look at when done well, it still disrupts the story-line We see this early on, even before the main titles and it reoccurs several times during the course of this film. One such sequence hints of a different ending to the film; See if you can catch Deborah Carr speeding away from the place, with her two children, while under the watchful eye of Sharon Tates' witch.

In truth I feel the case was never clearly made; That the owner of the estate would have to pay with his life, for the bounty of the crops.

Continuity goes all to pieces in some of the central moments. Like after Deborah passed out after being chased in the woods; we find her back in bed in her room, with no explanation. Likewise earlier, after nearly being thrown off a parapet, same thing.

Another plot point just brushed over was the man in the tower. He planed to escape the sacrifice? and now must never show his face? Above all, the explanation of the thirteen, crucial to the story, is never explained. Another case of botched continuity.

At best this was an interesting relic. As was rightly mentioned, Tate was beautiful, and Hemming's seemed to have little to do as the Archer, but to look young and defiant. I'm thinking that Vincent Price would have been a far better lead choice in this movie, then David Nivens.

An unusual, down-beat thriller, reminiscent of The Wicker Man

[mwilson1976 · 6/10 · 29 March 2019]

David Niven plays the owner of a vineyard, who is called back to the estate when it falls on hard times in order to carry out an ancient ritual which would mean sacrificing his own life. Kim Novak was originally supposed to play his wife, but was replaced by Deborah Kerr when she was injured during production. The film features the debut performance of Sharon Tate as a beautiful witch who lives on the estate with her brother (David Hemmings armed with a bow and arrow), who tries to get kids to jump off castle ramparts and turns a toad into a dove. Also starring Donald Pleasence as a priest who performs black masses. Its very dreamlike and hypnotic. The film is set in rural France and was partly filmed at the Château de Hautefort, all of the cast speak in English accents. It is based on novel Day of the Arrow by Robin Estridge and was initially titled Thirteen.

Perhaps the devil made 'em do it?

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 6 April 2002]

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 ****

Would Some Irrigation Satisfy Satan?

[davidcarniglia · 6/10 · 31 October 2020]

Well, this is rural creepy done correctly--with an authentic French gothic castle, no less. Deborah Kerr spends most of the time trying to figure out why Sharon Tate and David Hemmings are trying to scare, or even kill her. Kerr's husband, played by a very low-key David Niven, acts like it's no big deal. She just doesn't get that the locals are, you know, traditional. Like pagan, satanist, human-sacrifice sort of traditions.

One supernatural thing is how Niven and Kerr managed to have two very young children; they're old enough to be the kids' grandparents. We learn that the drug belladonna "promotes states of trance...religious ecstasy." Kerr certainly has weird experiences: nearly plunging to her death over a castle parapet, and surrounded and tormented by hooded figures in the woods. Donald Pleasance is pretty good as the village priest.

In fact, the whole village is under a sort of Brigadoon-like enchantment. But in a dark, unsettling way. The presence of the monkish figures, and the witchy Tate and Hemmings, leaves a macabre impression, even on church services. There's a sense of impending doom that keeps our interest. What we have is a doubling, or convergence of the sacred and profane: the priest, among others, has a side-job in the pagan stuff. "The earth has to have sacrifice" Niven's father tells Kerr. Well, a bad crop means someone has to go, or, rather, to pay. That's how Niven's family, the Montfalcons, have kept the village appeased since medieval times.

That's a tidy premise for the horror genre. But it's hard to see how Kerr's character could've avoided her husband's dark side all this time--a run of good harvests, I guess. I would've been more intrigued to have the Montfalcons in the background, and the de Carays (Tate and Hemmings) as the main characters. Their roles are far more interesting. In a word, the de Carays are more devilish.

As we wind toward the end, the hooded guys trot by with Phillip (Niven) as their prisoner. Looks like Christian (Hemmings) gets to do the honors by zapping Niven with an arrow from his stout bow. Catherine (Kerr) vows "I shall never come here again." Man, I bet the locals are humbled now. We see the sacrifice has worked: a drenching rain occurs just as Catherine leaves with the kids.

As I've hinted, there's a naturally spooky atmosphere, which is enhanced by the pagan stuff. Nonetheless, Niven and Kerr, for opposite reasons, don't seem to fit in here. It doesn't help that the first sequence plays like an ordinary upper-middle-class family drama; then suddenly, we're in a different movie. Neither of the leads really seemed comfortable or believable traversing this mythic terrain.

I was disappointed, because although there were so many aspects in place here, and a great cast (Niven and Kerr made so many fine movies), the script and plot weren't quite able to support the visual elements.

Incredible '60s cast wasted on a forgettable and muddled bloodcurdler.

[barnabyrudge · 4/10 · 22 December 2005]

With an all-star cast and a director with a string of hits behind him (Northwest Frontier, The Guns Of Navarone, Cape Fear, Taras Bulba), Eye Of The Devil must have looked a good bet on paper. Unfortunately, the final product is a somewhat muddled and murky affair which fails to live up to its potential. There is always something curiously enjoyable about watching talented stars in trouble, and Eye Of The Devil certainly offers a glorious opportunity for such mean-spirited voyeurism.

French land-owner Phillipe De Montfaucon (David Niven, sorely miscast) is summoned back to the family vineyard in the sleepy French town of Bellenac. He implores his wife Catherine (Deborah Kerr) to remain in London with their children Antoinette and Jacques (Suky Appleby and Robert Duncan). However, Catherine ignores his advice and follows her husband to the gloomy ancestral castle. It seems that for the third year in a row the De Montfaucon vineyards have yielded unsuccessful crops, and the townfolk seem to think that Phillipe can somehow rectify the problem. Upon arriving in Bellenac, Catherine is immediately unsettled by the oddness of the people in the area, especially the priest Pere Dominic (Donald Pleasance), and the brother-sister conjurers Christian De Caray (David Hemmings) and Odile (Sharon Tate). Even her husband Phillipe seems to be acting strangely and Catherine is determined to find out why. Gradually she discovers that the entire town is full of satanists and the poor crops are believed to be the result of a long-lasting family curse. As the oldest surviving De Montfaucon male, Phillipe is expected to sacrifice himself as part of a bizarre pagan ritual in order to restore health to the grapes!!

Talk about a wacky plot! The actors take it all very seriously though (not a single tongue in a single cheek to be found), which only serves to make them look pretty foolish. Kerr has the most difficult job, for she is the only normal person in the picture and therefore the only character with whom the viewers can identify. She tries quite hard, but isn't helped in the slightest by the mystifying script. Of the weird characters, Sharon Tate and David Hemmings come off best, their scenes carrying a certain hypnotic fascination though not a deal of sense. There are occasional effective moments during the film, such as the bit where some hooded figures pursue Catherine in a forest, but on the whole it is a very disappointing film which tries too hard to conceal its plot twists and ends up appearing muddled. No doubt there is a cult crowd for this kind of thing somewhere, but from my point of view it's just a wasted opportunity. This was one of the most extraordinary casts ever assembled in the '60s and it's somewhat dismaying when one reflects on what might have been.

Film noir meets horror -- with Sharon Tate!

[Malcolm_Riviera · 8/10 · 30 April 2006]

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!

Fine if unspectacular occult suspense effort

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 7/10 · 22 October 2013]

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.

Good Cast, Poor Movie.

[rmax304823 · 4/10 · 15 October 2016]

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.

Oddball Thriller - More Glum than Scary

[baker-9 · 29 January 2004]

"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.

Kim Novak

[AndersonWhitbeck · 6/10 · 11 January 2010]

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.

Great Cast Wasted

[Craftsman1800 · 6/10 · 14 September 2021]

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.

Deadpan and Disturbing

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 22 October 2013]

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.

A Gothic tale of religious fanatics

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 31 January 2008]

The twelve apostles stood around as Jesus died for the sins of man. In this Gothic story, those same twelve are dressed in robes (presumably of Satanic origin) as the son of a long line of martyrs takes his place and sacrifices himself for the harvest.

Oscar winner David Niven (Separate Tables) is the royal dupe that sacrifices himself for his people. he spends most of his time declaring, "You can't help me. Nobody can." Too bad he wasn't as smart as his father Alain (Emlyn Williams) who bailed out on his duties to be the sacrificial lamb and lives in the tower.

This is a good opportunity to see the considerable acting skills of Deborah Kerr, who died last fall. She plays the wife, who is trying to convince Niven that he is a loony religious fanatic. Kerr, who had six Oscar nominations for films like The King and I and From Here to Eternity, consumes most of the movie's time. Without her, it would be a good short.

Notable supporting roles go to Donald Pleasence, who most know as Dr. Sam Loomis from Halloween; David Hemmings, whose next movie was Blowup, and who played Cassius in Gladiator; and Sharon Tate, the Valley of the Dolls star whose career was abruptly ended soon after this film by another group of cultists - this time real ones.

A great group of actors in a mostly unremarkable film.

Atmospheric but rather weak story

[Johan_Wondering_on_Waves · 5/10 · 9 August 2015]

My rating might be quite harsh but except for a few scenes I didn't find this movie an enjoyable experience. Even though Deborah Kerr does her best to carry the movie like she did marvelously in The Innocents here she is is not really given much of a story to work with nor are the other characters very interesting. Except for Sharon Tate as Odile who made a great (and seductive) witch. The scene where she hypnotized Kerr's character Catherine is one of the best scenes, the other being Catherine getting chased by those devil worshippers in the woods and getting stuck. Unfortunately Tate has very limited screen time. David Niven as Catherine's husband Philippe seems to accept his fate passively and right from the start and also looks rather uninterested the whole movie. Donald Pleasence looks creepy as the priest Pere Dominique but this doesn't really add to the story nor does David Hemmings as some kind of evil Willem Tell. A forgotten movie which best remains forgotten in my opinion.

An atmospheric curiousity of a film perhaps mainly of interest as Sharon Tate's first major role

[RetroRick · 6/10 · 13 May 2020]

It's interesting that this film was originally cast with Kim Novak as the female lead, in the part that would ultimatley be played by (the perhaps slightly too old for the part) Deborah Kerr. Novak fell off a horse during a filming & after attempting to return to continue production pulled out as she found it too exhausting. David Hemmings, who plays one of a distinctly odd pair of male/female siblings, reported however that Novak was heard to have argued with one of the producers Martin Ransohoff and that her departure was not voluntary.

I mention the above because, having just watched Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Leo DiCaprio's character, actor Rick Dalton, gives the reason he is so reliant upon his stuntman (Brad Pitt) as relating to the fact you never now when you might fall off your horse & injure yourself.

Now Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is all about Sharon Tate, and this film too is in a small way too. Tate plays a relatively small part in the Eye of the Devil (that of Hemming's witchy sister) and while her glacial presence doesnt' appear to have gained rave reviews but it's hard to deny that her limpid beauty dominates the film whenever she's in it. It's hard not to imagine that Tarantino studied this film in preparing for his own, and would have made himself aware of the backstory.

Deborah Kerr was beautiful in her day, but approaching fifty at the time she simply does not visually captivate in the same way as Tate & it's tantalising (although I admit hardly warranted) to wonder if it's possible she may have been chosen for that reason. Ransohoff is reported to have 'hailed (Tate) as his great discovery', so could it have been that he helped determine an outcome where Tate would shine undisputed? Pure speculation, but unfortunately perhaps, the circumstances of the production are almost more interesting than the film itself, which though fascinating at times, is mostly gothic melodrama, that overall fails to deliver the kind of tingling of the spine it's presentation seems to promise. This despite attempts to raise the occult stakes by consulting with Alex Sanders, King of the Witches, in pursuit of occult authenticity

The production problems, namely Novak's fall from her horse, her firing & the need to recast the leading lady, together with a rather wooden, overblown script & the final change of the title from 'Thirteen', seems ultimately to have doomed the film at the box office.

Obviously Tate too would be doomed too, as the most famous victim of the 1969 massacre on Cielo drive. Alex Sanders wife, Maxine, would later claim in her book Fire Child that Tate was initiated into Wicca by her husband & that she kept it up. Obviously none of this can't be corroborated, nor would it necessarily relate to what happened. Maxine Sanders was perhaps keen to suggest a link between the Cielo drive murders & the occult connection, apparently claiming that she had leant out a book on blood sacrifice to some acquaintences only to have the tome returned to her with a passage highlighted comprising the words 'kill the pig', something eerily similar to the graffiti scrawled at the murder scene.

The occult theme flowing from this film continues with Tate's subsequent marriage to Roman Polanski (courtesy of an introduction by Ransohoff) who a year later would make Rosemary's baby, just a little before Tate herself would become pregnant with the baby who would die with her on the night of her murder.

The great irony here, in the context of this film, is that the murders of that night would be vastly more gruesome & terrifying that what is portrayed in this film, despite the fact that the entire film revolves around the concept of an occult blood sacrifice. Indeed that is what makes the film so curious. In terms of it's making it appears to set off a catalyst of disasters, almost as though a movie were being directed beyond the parameters of the film itself. Yet the film itself is ultimately not that scary. There is certainly reason to watch the film. It's intriguing, has some good scenes & great atmosphere but ultimately it's real interest is as part of a particular dark sequence within film history

Just Plain Silly

[Jon Kolenchak · 4/10 · 27 July 2005]

I have always loved Deborah Kerr, especially in the film The Innocents. I knew nothing about this film before I watched it, and that was probably a good thing.

The first thing that attracted me to this movie was the casting: Deborah Kerr, David Niven, Flora Robson, Sharon Tate, and David Hemmings. How could one possibly go wrong with a cast like that? Well, apparently anything is possible in cinema.

Without giving away the plot, which most people will figure out around 15 minutes into the movie, let me point out some aspects of this production that are worth noting. One gets to hear one of the most obnoxious and sometimes anachronistic film scores ever composed. One gets to see cinematography that tries so hard to be artsy, but ends up instead looking as though you were watching the film on a violent amusement park ride. One gets to see David Niven give his most extreme "doe-eyed" performance. One also gets to see Deborah Kerr make lots of funny faces, and run up and down seemingly endless flights of stairs wearing very noisy shoes.

It's good for a giggle... if you have your fast-forward button handy.

Entertaining British Chiller, with an all star cast.

[suemartin23264 · 9/10 · 18 July 2007]

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!

Disappointing but watchable

[johnconsultancy · 6/10 · 10 January 2022]

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.

How about the original novel by Loraine?

[Brudgam-Sylt · 5/10 · 9 December 2020]

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.