Well made horror/suspense movie from the early 70's about a woman (Farrow), blinded in a horse-riding accident, who goes to live with her Uncle in a house in the English countryside. While she is out with her old boyfriend, something is happening to her Uncle and the rest of her family back in the house. But on returning, how can she know when she cannot see?
Good suspense - sometimes the viewer is a step ahead of the blind woman, other times we are as blind as she is, a great score and good acting by all makes this a wonderful movie for a rainy afternoon. Interesting to see Michael Elphick and a young Paul Nicholas along for the ride too.
In the countryside of England, Sarah (Mia Farrow) returns to Manor Farm to live with her uncle George Rexton (Robin Bailey), her aunt Sandy Rexton (Diane Grayson) and her cousin Betty Rexton (Dorothy Alison) after an accident with her horse where she was blind. Sarah knows the interior of the house by heart so she can independently move by herself. When her former boyfriend Steve Reding (Norman Eshley) invites her to visit his horse farm, George and Sandy tell that they are going to visit a friend and Betty tells that she has a date so she will be alone for a couple of hours when she returns to the house. Steve still loves Sarah and they ride together in the fields. When Sarah returns, a maniac has killed her family and the gardener Barker (Brian Rawlinson) but she cannot see them dead. On the next morning, Steve gives a horse to Sarah and she leaves the animal in the stable. When she returns to the manor, she finds that her family was murdered and Barker that is still alive shows her a silver bracelet on the floor with the name of the killer. He tells that she is in danger since the killer will return to the manor to retrieve the bracelet. Barker dies and the killer comes back to the house. Will the frightened Sarah flee from him?
"Blind Terror", a.k.a. "See No Evil" is a timeless classic thriller with an original story. I saw this movie for the first time in the movie theater when I was a teenager and I was impressed with the outstanding performance of Mia Farrow in the beginning of her career. This movie has not aged and it is still a scary British movie. My vote is eight.
Enjoyable and suspenseful chiller/thriller. The opening scene - a stranger whose identity is suppressed from the waist up, with only a pair of stylish cowboy boots and a pair of well fitting jeans; worn by a young nicely built male figure to tittilate the viewer's curiosity; leaving the cinema and wandering the evening streets.
The viewer is given an insight to this figure's obvious tastes for the darker/seedier side of life by his viewing and reading material. Hinting at the mind within, perhaps giving us some clues that his interests may go further than the drives of a red blooded male.
A young blind woman "Sarah" is staying with her relatives in beautiful manner house. Her Aunt and Uncle obviously very well heeled "refined" and certainly a class above the "riff raff" or "gypsies" in surrounding areas, were accommodating and concerned for Sara's condition (being thrown tragically from a horse earlier causing the blindness).
The only real initial hint to the horrifying events that later transpire is with Sarah's relatives, early in the movie, who happened to drive past this "stranger" on his evening walk in their stylish wealthy car hitting a puddle and splashing his "stylish" boots as a consequence(which obviously were his pride and joy) ....but was this really the trigger? Either way, it certainly seemed to seal the unfortunate wealthy occupant's fate and perhaps gave this apparent drifter the extra motivation he may have been searching for to find a target to focus on and "hit out". Or were they already selected?
The booted stranger's obvious contempt of the wealthy is evident his in scratching of this same car's paintwork on another occasion. This petty revenge for his boot splash from their expensive merchandise would have surely satisfied him? But apparently not....His revenge/hatred is later to be unleashed in full shocking and cold blooded fury in one foul sweep within their own beautiful home. Leaving only Sarah unscathed to live within the same house blissfully unaware of being amidst a literal slaughter house....until her shocking discovery!
In blind terror (literally) she needs to escape, but this is hard when the killer returns to locate his identity bracelet that fell off his wrist during his rampage! One victim, barely alive, in his last moments manages to direct a hysterical Sarah to the bracelet not a minute too soon before "Mr Boots" arrives on the scene. And here is where the movie REALLY gets going. A cat and blind mouse hunt which keeps the viewer transfixed from then on!
The movie seems to leave you wondering what the real movitation of the apparent "stranger/murderer" in the stylish cowboy boots REALLY is.... Is "he" an unemployed drifter? A lone psychopath without any reason other than cold blooded urges? Or is there much more to it? A background we don't know about fueling an already inwardly enraged or even "Deranged" mind? Someone who may have been fully employed and giving no outward indication of what murderous feelings lay within and simply seethed and obsessed for years before finally acting out...
Inner hatred and contempt of the wealthier classes? Feelings of bitterness/revenge against his superiors? particularly those who spoke down to their workers?
Sexual frustration/class frustration and perhaps been a victim of Sandy's light flirations, further fueling his anger?
Could the horse incident have been part of it? Sarah blinded by falling from the horse and the horse being shot because of her becoming handicapped? rather than the apparent "broken leg". Being a stable-hand and probably a love for horses, could that too have influenced this murderer's hatred towards these people?
Or did he so value his boots to such a pathological extent that the idea of those of a "higher class" driving past and causing them to become wet and dirty, further influenced his already growing anger at people he felt were out of his league/class?
Or a combination, mixing in with an already sick mind?
One can only wonder!
The ending mainly! A surprisingly exposed and blunt ending, after such a well done suspenseful build up, one would have hoped for the climax to be just as effective...yet somehow it left one somewhat flat. At least it did for me to a point. And perhpas few too many "coincidences" one might say, particularly for the more cynical viewer, but so well done throughout most of the movie that it could still keep you pretty spellbound. Mia's performance was, I think, outstanding. All in all, the movie has repeat value! You can certainly watch it more than once.
REAL SPOILER, DON'T READ IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO KNOW THE MURDERER'S IDENTITY:
If you watch the movie carefully, take note of the stable-hand in the early scenes. One of the workers in Steve's stables. A young, rather attractive young guy with longish light/medium brown hair. You'd almost miss him if you didn't focus and have good face recall! Notice the name Steve calls him as he's coming out to meet Sarah...you just catch it, but he says no more as he's side tracked towards Sarah as she gets out of the car.
Then make the comparison with name on the bracelet that is later found in Manner House and then the face identity revelation at the end ;-)
There's been quite a few rainy afternoons when I've dusted down my copy of Blind Terror and settled down to watch it again, and every time I'm left with the same feeling: something isn't quite right about this movie, despite obvious skill in places.
Brian Clemens is hardly an intellectual writer, but as a writer of simple television thrillers he's a legend. And like many of the best TV writers, his success as a screenwriter is varied. Both Blind Terror and And Soon The Darkness point the way forward to Clemens' THRILLER TV series of the Seventies, which effectively exploited the "girl in peril" situation. What makes these two movies different is their rather unpleasant, slightly depressing feel. "Darkness" is very slow and rather uneasy in its voyeurism, whilst Terror is a little too nasty to be a wholly enjoyable thriller.
Perhaps the most telling and interesting sequence is actually the opening credits, with Bernstein's enjoyable but somehow inappropriate music accompanying the faceless killer leaving a cinema that is showing "The Convent Murders" and "Rapist Cult", an only slightly exaggerated take on early Seventies exploitation movies in Britain. He then walks along a street where every shop seems to be selling violence: a TV shop has a set displaying a murder taking place, a toy shop sells toy guns and a newsagent displays grim headlines.
From there the movie is rather predictable, and unfolds at a slow pace (nothing really happens until about 50 minutes in) but is somehow pretty watchable all the same. Along the way there are some fascinating glimpses of Seventies Britain to be enjoyed. But from the inexplicable massacre at the house onwards things feel a little sluggish and the killer is so one-dimensional we do not have much interest in his actions. And why does he try and find the bracelet again at the end, as if Sarah would still have it! The ending is terribly abrupt and nothing is explained.
Fleisher's direction though is careful and he uses a fantastic trick of keeping the camera close on Farrow during her long escape sequence so that we cannot see where she is heading either.
There are also a couple of good moments of surprise but the movie is lacking a real scare and the overwhelming impression is one of gloom.
Mention Mia Farrow's name to horror fans and most of them will instantly (and understandably) think of Polanski's classic, Rosemary's Baby; my immediate thought, however, would be of Blind Terror, a lesser known thriller in which Ms. Farrow plays Sarah, a blind girl whose relatives become the target of a psycho killer after her uncle accidentally splashes the loony's precious cowboy boots. I first saw this film at a rather tender age and its macabre concept, senseless killing and shocking images have haunted me ever since.
Directed by Richard Fleischer, Blind Terror opens with our nutter leaving a cinema (having caught the amazing sounding double-bill of 'The Convent Murders' and 'Rapist Cult'). He then passes a newspaper stand displaying horrific headlines, a store with a display of toy guns, and a TV shop showing a bloodthirsty film; violence, it seems, is all around us, although often we choose not to see it. Poor blind Sarah, on the other hand, doesn't have much of a choice: after the soggy-footed psycho pays a visit to her Uncle's farmhouse (whilst she is out with her boyfriend), she returns home, and prepares for bed, all the while blissfully unaware that the bloody corpses of her nearest and dearest lay all around her.
Only when Sarah eventually tries to get into her bath does she realise that something is terribly wrongbecause that's where her uncle's lifeless body has been dumped! Meanwhile, the killer discovers that he has left behind a vital clue that could reveal his identity, and returns to the farmhouse to find it...
Fleischer's deliberately paced and carefully considered direction (which makes brilliant use of imaginative camera angles and cleverly framed shots), combined with excellent cinematography from Gerry Fisher and a completely convincing central performance from Farrow, ensure that this film is a success despite a few rather contrived moments in an otherwise well-crafted script by Brian Clemens (a case of mistaken identity at the end of the film is rather far-fetched, and the fact that Sandy, Sarah's pretty cousin, would date a 'diddycoy' is also difficult to swallow).
Atmospheric, suspenseful, and packed with nerve-shredding moments, Blind Terror is an under-rated slice of 70s British cinema that, although not perfect, is still well worth seeking out.
In "Blind Terror", Mia Farrow had lost her sight in a fall from her horse, but had come to terms with her handicap and was calm, gay and happy to be reunited with her former lover, Steve (Norman Eshley).
Then the first threads of menace appear: a man, seen only as a pair of high-heeled cowboy-style boots, watches the family constantly... We become aware of his envy of their security and their money, and of Sarah's happiness at being home... And then the threat increased into stark horror... Returning home from a ride with Steve, Sarah discovers the bodies, one by one, of her family, murdered in her absence...
Can you imagine the awful progression of such a discovery in a sightless world?
Petrified in her darkness, Sarah stumbles towards the kitchen, to get out for help... She opens the wrong door and falls down the cellar steps... Recovering consciousness, she hears footsteps overhead...
She makes it to the hall, feels her way towards the front door-but it opens towards her and the family gardener is there, shot in the stomach, trying to warn her...
Now gripped by panic, Sarah makes her way cautiously to the stables, gets her horse and leads it out-only to be thrown and left alone in the deserted countryside...
There is more to come... She walks with uncertain, uneven steps, meets a gypsy, and utters breathlessly to him her story... Unsuspectingly, she hands over her one piece of vital evidence-a broken bracelet inscribed 'Jacko.' We can see, but she cannot... The man's look of alarm as he snatches it from her...
It is Steve who rescues her, frightened and covered in mud from scratching her way out of a clay pit... He takes her home... She seems safe at last... She prepares to take a bath... And as she closes the door, we see the telltale cowboy 'boots' standing in the corner... They walk towards her...
For those who like to scream, "Blind Terror" is a competent but routine heart-stopper...
The first 45 minutes of "Blind Terror" are excellent and you have the feeling you're watching a great thriller. Director's Richard Fleischer handling of the atmosphere and introduction of the psycho killer just by showing his feet wearing cowboy boots is brilliant.
But then the boots chase a blind Mia Farrow and as she gets away the film sort of looses intensity and impact and becomes sort of slow. It recovers later with the final sequences and revelation of the psycho.
Mia Farrow's performance as the menaced blind victim is excellent.
Although no one could say this is not an entertaining and exciting thriller -mainly fans of the genre-, you get the feeling that it could have been even better if that in-the-middle-sort-of-bump could have been avoided.
All in all, "Blind Terror" is a good thriller worth watching. A 7 (out of 10) for me.
This one is good. It's very realistic and it stuck with me for years. The story revolves around a blind girl whose family gets murdered, but because she can't see, she doesn't know the bodies and the killer are in the house. It's a really creepy movie. Mia Farrow was completely convincing as a blind girl. I really like this movie and highly recommend it if you want something different.
The appearance of Brian Clemens' name in the credits of any film or television production is, for me, kind of like a Seal of Approval. From the hit '60s TV show "The Avengers" to such marvelous horror films as "Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde" ('72) and "Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter" ('74), the man has never let me down. And, I'm happy to report, his "See No Evil" ('71) is no exception. In this one, the recently blinded Sarah, superbly played by Mia Farrow, comes to live with her aunt's family...a family that is soon butchered by a "maniac on the loose." All we know for sure is that this wacko sports a pair of gold-starred cowboy boots, which knowledge has us glancing suspiciously at the footwear of every male character in the film, natch! It is almost agonizingly suspenseful watching poor Sarah putter around her aunt's home, unaware of the bodies lying so close to her, and that suspense is only ratcheted up several notches when she finally does learn what has happened, and that the killer is on his way back to the house. I don't think the Master of Suspense himself, Alfred Hitchcock, could have squeezed any more tension out of this scenario than writer Clemens and director Richard Fleischer have done. Besides this wonderful setup, which may have viewers recalling such other "handicapped women vs. psycho killer" films as "The Spiral Staircase" ('46) and "Wait Until Dark" ('67), the film gives us some beautiful views of the autumnal Berkshire countryside and another fine score by the great Elmer Bernstein. But this is Farrow's show all the way, and she is utterly convincing as the blind and fragile, yet spunky and surprisingly resourceful Sarah. My stomach was in knots by the end of this British wringer, and I would have to say that "See No Evil" is one that you absolutely must see....
As if rediscovering the world as a blind person isn't hazardous enough, here Farrow must contend with not only figuring out how to make instant coffee, but also fending off a bloodthirsty murderer! She plays a young lady who has lost her sight as the result of a horseback riding accident. After a period of rehabilitation, she comes to stay at a secluded country estate with her aunt, uncle and female cousin. Things start off hopeful enough as her old beau Eshley is still interested in her and welcomes her to proceed with their relationship in lieu of going away to a special school in order to learn a trade. Unfortunately, her uncle Bailey has managed to set off an unstable, boot-wearing, angry, young punk and this leads to a vicious episode of slaughter. Naturally, Farrow eventually finds herself confronting the killer after coming upon bodies, one after another. Just when she thinks she's free, there's an entirely new, and even more harrowing adventure in store for her! The film begins with an obvious message, that society breeds violence through the continual glorification of it in films, on TV and even in toys. The killer is shown walking by every conceivable example of it before Bailey makes the mistake of splashing rainwater on his boots with his fancy car. Farrow is well-cast as the fragile, yet resilient, heroine. Her vulnerable, waif-like frame and wan complexion make her seem like particularly easy prey for the relentless murderer. Though some of her movements seem a bit overdone at times (and the film actually asks the audience to believe that she could walk around a kitchen TWICE to make coffee and never once brush against a plethora of broken glass that is strewn all over the floor), she is generally fine at suggesting the affliction of her character. Eshley is a reasonably dashing hero for her and looks nice in his riding pants. The family members provide adequate personalities in their thinly sketched roles. The film benefits from some lovely location settings and a strong sense of atmosphere. Particular mention must be made of the terrific camera-work which does an excellent job of letting the viewer see only so much of what is present in a room. Where the film fails to a certain extent is in the fact that this is barely enough story to fill a one hour TV anthology and so there's plenty of padding as a result. Also, so many trials and tribulations are piled up on Farrow towards the end that it sometimes comes off as hysterically funny. By the time she (apparently doing most, if not all, of her own stunts) has burst through a wall, rolled down a hill, fallen into mud and is banging a muffler on an abandoned car roof, she has become too much like Mr. Bill for comfort. It's overkill (and that's not the end!) Also, the identity of the killer is not only mishandled (no one seems very surprised by it and his behavior is wildly inconsistent to say the least) but the film cheats a bit in having him change clothing more than once within the course of a day for no believable reason. Still, for tension and wince-inducing creepiness, this film does deliver, especially in its midsection and again near the very end. Composer Bernstein has quite a field day here, especially during the opening credits.
I personally think that See No Evil is a movie with the right amount of suspense. Sarah (Mia Farrow) is a woman whose life has been turned upside down when she became blind. She goes to England to live with relatives and try to rebuild a life with family and an old boyfriend. Her life becomes disrupted when a maniac kills her family. She is unaware of this until one day she comes home from horseback riding with her old flame Steve. She decides to relax and take a bath, only to discover that her family has been slaughtered. I enjoy this movie because it is not over dramatized, all the events in the movie seem to fit. This movie is not overly done. A movie does not have to be filled with blood and slaughter in every scene to be consider a great thriller or suspense. Like the old saying goes, it is all in the eyes of the beholder.
After ROSEMARY'S BABY Mia Farrow should have learned to never TRUST ANYBODY..especially if you're blind. The cowboy boots are pretty menacing and Ms. Farrow was incredible playing "victims", but this does tend to meander on a bit. It does have some incredibly frightening moments and great locale, and I rate it a 6 with Mia giving the best performance.
You're in STRAW DOGS "country" here where serial killers run amok "quietly". Well-directed with decent cinematography, but lacking that extra "push" to put it over. Very creepy though for a late-night watch. Ms. Farrow was an under-rated actress, especially in the 60's and 70's. ROSEMARY'S BABY should have netted her gold and she wasn't even nominated...thanks Frank!
Blind Terror, A.K.A.- "See no Evil" has some truly wonderful moments within it but it's ultimately a generally entertaining little movie but nothing more. This film set's up the entire analogy very nicely for the first quarter of the entire 90 minutes. We are first introduced to our stranger in the cowboy boots at the onset. We quickly learn a great deal about him as he exits a movie theater in the very beginning of the film. This theater is showing what was then to be considered tabu films that within the titles suggest violent and sexual X rated material. For the majority of the film our "Stalker" is rarely shown from the waist up. As he walks the dark English streets at night after exiting the movie theater, subtle images of war and violently related material are backdropped. This gives us some clue that our booted stranger may have interests in psychotic and ghastly sorts of things and possibly spends much of his time dwelling on thoughts that are relative to this. Then we are introduced to our main character portrayed by a very young and unusually beautiful Mia Farrow. We quickly learn that she has fallen victim to some sort of an accident while riding a horse which seems to suggest she some how unfortunately lost her eye sight as a result of the ordeal. She returns home for a visit, and this is when we are treated to the best parts of this movie. As Mia's Character learns to find her way around and re-adjust to life in a world of darkness, she characterizes these aspects so well that it really makes us think about how it really must be to suffer the scourge of blindness. She is quickly associated as a person with a great sense of will and determination, so when she is asked by one of the other characters in the film "What's it like?" we nearly expect her to say "It really isn't so bad, you get used to it". Instead she declares "It's bloody horrible". I really admired the script for allowing us to see this plight in a more realistic manner. For anyone robbed of their right to see I really doubt they would find it anything but a terrible misfortune that it would indeed take much time to adjust to. Mia Farrow lovingly creates a wonderful performance. She's superb and believable as a vulnerable blind woman in peril. Mia Farrow is one of those very unique people that seemed to fit just barely into the Hollywood idea of a starlet. She could have easily ended up doing dove commercials for the rest of her life. But she has always had this earthy, doe like quality to her. She's so sweet and innocent that she fits well into these characters being pursued in horrible ways because she is so delicate that the audience wants so badly to reach out and help her. Of course once she was offered much more challenging roles we all got the chance to find out just what a truly wonderful actress she is. And they certainly broke the mold after they made Mia Farrow. This movie survives only because of her. She is breathtaking to watch in this role. The movie seems to end so suddenly however that ultimately it turns out to be a big let down in the last few minutes. But the film does have some wonderful acting provided by most of the cast, and there are some extremely beautiful shots of the English countryside in the fall season, and much of that is superbly shot. But the only real weakness of this film is that we discover who the killer is so suddenly and then it's all over too quickly. it comes off at that point to feel fairly bland. It's really invigorating watching Mia farrow work her way around the issues and problems a blind character would certainly face, and that in it's self is a real gem. But again without her presence this movie would have probably been a total flop.
"See No Evil" (also known as "Blind Terror") is a very unknown little horror movie that I surprisingly enjoyed quite a lot. The film begins with Sarah (Mia Farrow) who was recently blinded after an accident on her horse. After the accident, she decides to go live with her aunt and uncle and her cousin, Sandy, on their grand estate in the English countryside. One evening, while out with her boyfriend, a mysterious stranger comes to the house and butchers her relatives. Sarah returns home, without knowing of her relative's brutal demise, and ends up spending the night there like normal. When she awakes the following morning, she meets with her boyfriend again, and then returns back home, where she finally makes the discovery of her family's corpses. Little does she know, the killer is hiding out in the guest house, and returns to get a bracelet he had dropped. Sarah escapes on horseback, but ends up lost in the woods, while the killer tries to catch her.
I really, really liked the idea of this movie. A killer murdering all of your relatives in their secluded mansion while you're staying with them - it's a great setup for a horror film. But the fact that our heroine is blind makes it even better for the film. She's a vulnerable character because of her disability, but she still manages to smartly rely on her other senses - primarily touch and hearing. Can you imagine being blind, and finding your relatives dead bodies, after unknowingly spending the evening without even realizing that they're dead? Then on top of that, you've got the maniac who killed them after you? Now, that's scary. The performances in this film were exceptional, Mia Farrow, after having done "Rosemary's Baby" really does a good job playing the blind lead and is very convincing. The rest of the cast is mostly unknown British actors, but the rest of the cast wasn't bad at all.
The thing that stood out to me the most in this movie was the very tricky camera-work that was put to use. The movie is filmed in such a way that we never completely see the killer until the finale. All we see throughout the film are his arm with a silver bracelet on it, and his odd leather cowboy boots and jeans. Other than that, we don't see him. I really have to give the cinematographer some credit because the angles that are used and the clever way that those sequences were filmed are semi-genius. The other moments where the camera-work stand out are when Sarah is in the house with her dead relatives. We see her dead cousin quickly lying on the bed next to her, we see her dead aunt sitting in an armchair while Sarah kneels down, and we see her dead uncle in the bathtub. The interesting thing is, she can't see it - only the audience can. Aside from that, this movie has some great scenery. The countryside was beautiful but eerie at the same time, and the house itself was very grand but had a spooky aura about it also. While some may argue that the film does start out a little slow and has a few dull moments, so what? We get to know Sarah a little more, so we can easily sympathize with her when the horrible events begin occurring. And the ending tricks us also - we think we know who the killer is, but it ends up being a random stranger. You have to pay close attention to the fine details though that are subtly thrown into the film, and it makes things much more interesting
Overall, "See No Evil" or "Blind Terror" is a unique little horror/thriller. It's not gory and isn't completely terrifying, but it's really subtle and has a surreal, eerie quality about it. If you enjoyed this, I'd recommend "Let's Scare Jessica to Death" that was released the same year. While they aren't really alike, they share some similar qualities and both have a strange quality to them. 8/10.
Unexciting thriller that can boast a couple of suspenseful sequences involving a blind girl (Mia Farrow) stalked by a boot-wearing psychopath. Brian Clemens, the man behind TV's "The Avengers", and TV's "Thriller", wrote the literate but restrained screenplay. The film feels like a forerunner to "Straw Dogs" in its authentic depiction of rural English life. Unfortunately, it is a little too mannered and too polite to be effective horror. The premise is a good one, but it is not exploited too well and the killer's totally anonymous status doesn't add interest. Well shot by Gerry Fisher and directed with some flair by Richard Fleischer. The killings happen off-screen and the dead body make-up is of the tomato ketchup variety. Farrow is excellent as the blind girl and even submerges herself in mud and filth in one sequence. It would not be erroneous to call this a very early entry in the slasher genre.
Finally! I've been looking for this movie for years. I can remember seeing See No Evil when I was much younger and it scaring the pants off me. It's not that the movie is hard to find or out-of-print or anything, but I've never known the name. I recently purchased the DVD as a blind buy and, to my surprise, it's the movie I've been looking for.
As I could have predicted, the film didn't live up to the lofty expectations I've placed on it over the years. The film starts much slower than I remembered. Now I'm one of these people who generally can tolerate the slowest moving films, but the first third of See No Evil is just painfully slow. Nothing happens and it seems to be going nowhere. I was also let down by the ending or should I say the lack of an ending. The film just ends. I would have appreciated a little insight into who the killer was. He's just some guy as far as I could tell. I'm not one of those who needs to be spoonfed plot points to determine what's going on, but give me a clue about identity, motivations, and such.
The middle portion of See No Evil, however, is as good as I remembered. It's full of several tense moments and striking visuals, justifying my purchase of the DVD. The whole notion of a blind girl not knowing that those she shares the house with have been brutally murdered all around her is horrifying. The scene where the camera slowly pans to the other side of the blind girl's bedroom, revealing for the first time her dead cousin, is a real highlight. And Mia Farrow is great in the lead role. I really believed she was blind and I could really feel her terror as the movie progressed. It's an excellent performance from a terrific actress.
Even though See No Evil didn't evoke the same reaction it did during my childhood, I'm glad to have finally rediscovered this movie after so many years of searching.
After being blinded by a horse-riding accident, the young woman, Sarah goes to live with her uncle and aunt in the countryside for a few days. Soon after a visiting a close friend, she returns back home and then discovers that the family and caretaker have been murdered. Now she's all-alone and the killer returns back to the isolated estate to collect something he has left behind.
Well, a friend of mine lent out the film to me and rated it rather highly. So that in mind, I wasn't terribly impressed by it when I got around to it. Did I expect too much? Though I definitely have mix feelings, as it is a fine thriller with skillful direction, piercing music score and gusto camera-work. On the other hand, it was the film's routine material that just didn't shape up and totally build-up the situation. The straightforward plot doesn't generate too much and it contains so many vague avenues and easy coincidences that feel unfocused. After a somewhat leisurely paced first half that has too many plodding scenes, it makes way by finally maximizing the tight knit and scary idea with some relentless scenes of suspense and blistering images. This is when the uniquely formatted and passionate camera-work, like in a third persons point of view, takes hold and along with a hysterical music score. Then it falls at the final hurdle with a clumsy conclusion that I found to be quite unsatisfying. Director Richard Fleischer manages to give the flick a raw appeal; a few thumping shocks and paints an alienating air from its secluded countryside. Now what gave the flick the emotional pull was the genuine performance from Mia Farrow. She's magnificent in quite a challenging role, which she nails down perfectly. You feel every painstaking ordeal she encounters, because the tension mostly arises from this harrowing factor. The rest of the cast were very lukewarm, but competent.
Curious, but nothing more than a modest thriller with a bravura turn by Farrow.
Every few years, an otherwise adroit screenwriter in need of some fast cash will write and sell a story like this: blind (sometimes deaf) young woman is stalked by a killer. It doesn't take much--a few added details here and there (in this case, the victim is blind AND orphaned)--and some nastiness for an added effect, such as Mia Farrow unknowingly starting a bath with a body in the tub! It's a cold, grainy thriller with much hysteria and an abrupt ending, but if you're in the mood for yet another woman-in-distress picture, this one at least has Farrow in the lead and she's a lovely presence (though still trying to find her niche at this point, post-"Rosemary's Baby"). Plot-wise, there are some ridiculous turns of the screw, particularly a dead-end thread involving a gypsy family, which may have been forgivable had the filmmakers come up with a sound conclusion. ** from ****
this is one slow movie.it's about a family who gets murdered,and their blind daughter eventually discovers they are murdered and tries to get help,while avoiding being killed.there is almost nothing happening for the 1st 50 minutes or,and then things pick up,but nit much.the killer is never revealed until the end,and the end is pretty anticlimactic.the killings seem random,but if you pay close attention from the beginning,the killer may have what he perceives as motive,though it's very murky and twisted.the one good thong about this movie is Mia Farrow,who is very effective as the blind woman who terrified and alone.other than that,though,i wasn't very impressed.for me,See No Evil is a 3/10
A fragile young girl, who became blind by an accident, returns home to a horse farm, where her family is subsequently murdered by a rampageous killer with boots.
Traditional British screamer with the usual setting of British countryside, haunting music score, cunningly measured shock moments, and an impressive lady-in-jeopardy performance from Farrow; all very cliché-filled, but still efficient and suspenseful.
The last film I saw about a blind woman in peril was the classic 'Wait Until Dark', and I figured that if Blind Terror could deliver just a fraction of the brilliance of Terence Young's masterpiece, it would be at least worth watching. Unfortunately, however, while this film certainly has its moments; I've got to rate it as a disappointment on the whole. As you would expect, good use of the lead character's affliction is made throughout; and Mia Farrow really does do an excellent job of convincing the audience that she is a blind woman, and her plain looks and frail persona help this immensely as she gives a warm lead performance that is always easy to empathise with. The plot follows Sarah (Mia Farrow) after she was blinded by being thrown off a horse. She goes to stay with her aunt and uncle on their farm in the British countryside. She returns home one day to find that somebody else has been there before her, and murdered all the members of the household. After fleeing the scene on horseback, the murderer is still on the loose and she may not be out of danger just yet.
The main problem with this film is that it's not very exciting, and this isn't very good considering that it's supposed to be a thriller. The first half hour is very slow and nothing much happens, other than the scene being set for what is to come. The film reaches its peak around the middle, as the scenes that see Sarah discover that everyone has been killed are genuinely harrowing and filled with suspense. After that, however, Blind Terror grinds back down; and while the fact that the lead is blind is always at the forefront of the tale, and her affliction does provide some interest; this film certainly could have been a lot better. The farmyard setting is good and seeing Mia Farrow get caked in mud nicely accents her desperate situation. This location also provides isolation for the characters, and this helps the film again when it comes to desperation as it's obvious that help isn't readily available. The climax to the murder mystery isn't very good, as any ideas about possible suspects you might have had are thrown out the window, as the murderer's identity is simply thrown into the plot. Overall, this isn't bad; and that is thanks mostly to Mia Farrow's performance. Blind Terror could easily have been a lot better, though.
A blind woman (Mia Farrow) goes to live at her uncle's huge, remote house in England. Her uncle (by mistake) splashes water on some stranger's boots (we never see the stranger, only the boots). While Mia is away, the stranger comes to the house and kills the entire family. Mia returns and slowly begins to realize something is wrong. Then the killer returns...
Well-made (there's some truly beautiful photography here), well-acted (Farrow is just great) and suspenseful. Also you never see the killer's face till the end--only his boots--it greatly adds to the creepiness. I'm giving it a 7. It just stops short of being a great thriller because it's way too mannered and quiet. I applaud them for not throwing blood on the screen (there's a little but not much) but everything else is just too damn laid back. A bit more emotion or action would have helped.
Still, as it is, a pretty good little thriller. Worth seeing. Watch out for the boots!
Producers: Martin Ransohoff, Leslie Linder. (Available on a superb Columbia Tri-Star DVD.) A Filmways/Genesis Production, released world-wide by Columbia. Filmed on location in Berkshire, England. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall: 2 September 1971 (ran 4 weeks). 7,985 feet. 89 minutes. Original title: "Blind Terror".
COMMENT: A remarkable return to form by director Richard Fleischer. In fact, it is his most inventively and imaginatively directed film since "The Narrow Margin". The central situation, suggested by Jimmy Sangster's "Scream/Taste of Fear" (1961), is really scary (this time the heroine is blind which seems even more terrifying because it makes her even more helpless than was Sangster's crippled heroine).
The mood is sustained by sharp cutting and inventive camera angles which gradually disclose the horror to the audience, plus deft camera movements (the camera very slowly tracking along the corridor to the closed bathroom door followed by the extremely fast track backwards as Miss Farrow rushes out).
One of the film's major assets is its glowing color photography where the autumnal beauty of the woods is so starkly contrasted with the elegant country house interiors and the horrors within (a very effective change from the usual Gothic haunted house thriller). Mia Farrow's performance is totally engrossing and the support cast is very capable.
However, I felt the film could have retained its terror atmosphere longer. The second half of the film is less enervating for the audience, as the plot turns into a picaresque mystery thriller. And despite the trick on the audience, the identity of the killer does not really grip our imagination because he has not been worked into the plot enough beforehand (despite all the low-level shots of his boots).
Yes, I am sure Dario Argento must have liked this movie, which was made in the early seventies, at the same he he began his career. I have watched this Dick Fleischer's film at least a dozen times and each time I love it more and more, I discover things I did not the previous time. For instance those camera movements near the floor, showing the feet whilst Mia Farrow walks through the living room...So terrifying. And the astounding Elmer Bernstein music score. It deserves to be seen by new generations of viewers, of audiences at all costs. A true masterpiece. Dick Fleischer was really a great and especially eclectic director, able to make thrillers, science fiction, adventures films as fantastic as for instance Bob Wise was. Maybe only the western genre was not really their cup of tea, although they both have made some, but not the best ever. I have always put both of them in the same basket. And both began their career at RKO pictures, as Mark Robson.
I've always said, the ending makes or breaks a film. Well, in this instance, it breaks it.
We see the boots of a guy hanging out in town, who walks out of a movie theater showing horror/cult movies and proceeds to get mud splattered on his boots by a passing car. Big mistake on the driver's part. Big! This guy holds grudges. Mia Farrow, who lost her sight from falling off her horse while riding, (which we learn later on in the movie) is part of the family, but she is out when the guy comes calling and kills the mother, sister, and father, who incidentally was driving the car that splattered him. When Mia gets back, by walking only in her normal paced steps, she totally misses broken glass and other things obvious to people who can see. She sleeps the whole night not knowing they are in the house and dead. (She thought they went out and got back late at night and slept in awfully late.)
Then, the killer finds he's missing something that would identify him and has to get back to the house to retrieve it. Then the real action begins, or so you think. But the best part of the whole film is the anticipation. Unfortunately, nothing really happens to merit much praise for this film. It's not as good as one might expect. As you're watching it, it feels appropriately eerie and atmospheric. But looking back on it, it feels like a letdown. But, I rate this as high as I did because of Mia's credible performance. And, I did appreciate the sequence when she goes riding with her boyfriend in the sun and the wind, as she feels alive and in love, not knowing what was in the house.
To begin with, there's a gypsy clan camping out nearby and we are shown one in particular who was hanging around the house, but it turns out he's not the killer after all. And, also, once Mia manages to get away from the killer and is running from the house, the movie tends to lose the viewer's interest. And, the final five minutes are ridiculous, as her best friend sees the id bracelet with the name on it, but fails to realize one of his friends has that name. And, not only that, but he then sends everyone else off to look for the killer, "but not you, you stay and make sure she's alright" to the actual killer, who goes into the bathroom, where Mia is taking a bath and he proceeds to drown her, and at the last possible second the boyfriend comes in and saves her. There's no natural progression that allows the viewer to believe such incredible goings on. The ending just totally blew it for me. It might would have been more believable and realistic if she had died, but then why did he go in to kill her anyway? Didn't he know he'd get caught? But they limited themselves also by not showing the killer's face until the ending, like it was some fancy technique; when in fact, it made it all seem awkward. Also, one petty detail, I couldn't stand all the men's haircut. Was this shaggy look a 70s thing or what?
This may be a curiosity piece for some, but I bet once you've seen this, you'll feel let down too.