"Mansion of the Doomed" is an obscure but good horror film, one which I managed to see in a theater when it was first released back in 1976. Strangely enough, the story about a surgeon descending into madness because he was the cause of his daughter's blindness, works on two levels. As the guilt-ridden Dr. Chaney (Richard Basehart) attempts to restore his daughter's sight, literally removing the eyeballs of unwilling victims and transplanting them, one feels pity for this misguided man. In his madness, Chaney also believes he will eventually restore the eyesight of all of his victims, which makes him even more driven. At the same time, the victims are all imprisoned in a basement cell in the doctor's house, where they, themselves eventually go insane. The horror element lies with the attempts of these horribly mutilated souls to both escape and exact revenge on their captors. The cast is very good considering the limited material they had to work with (most of the shocks are visual) and play their parts with feeling. Besides Basehart, there is onetime screen siren Gloria Grahame as his assistant. Unfortunately, she is given little to do, but it's still good to see her. Trish Stewart is the daughter who eventually realizes where all the eyes are coming from. And Lance Henricksen is her boyfriend (and the first victim). Well directed by Michael Pataki and broodingly photographed, "Mansion of the Doomed", despite it's low budget, is an out-of-the-mainstream terror film, which inspires as much sorrow as fear. A DVD has just been released, but the picture quality is below average, and the sound is just OK.
34 Reviews
Chilling, disturbing, ghastly
sunznc10 March 2011
Here is a film that will make your skin crawl. Richard Basehart plays Dr. Chaney, an eye surgeon who performs many eye transplants on his daughter so that she might once again see.
The transfer from VHS to DVD is poor adding to the creepy, dreamy and eerie feel of the sets and scenes. It adds to the stomach turning queasy feel of the story.
Injuries of the eyes always make people feel frightened so this really strikes a cord. Seeing the after effects of the transplant surgeries and watching the prep of the surgeries is truly unsettling.
The make-up effects are OK and I believe there is some real footage being used at some point but what is more disturbing is the doctor's obsession and the story itself of which I don't want to give away here.
Let me just say that the film is hard to watch and I doubt anyone will want to sit through it twice. It's hard to shake. It leaves greasy little snail tracks on your brain. I am a horror fan I can tell you I don't want to see it again. I'm glad the transfer to DVD isn't all that clear. More clarity would have made it harder to watch.
The transfer from VHS to DVD is poor adding to the creepy, dreamy and eerie feel of the sets and scenes. It adds to the stomach turning queasy feel of the story.
Injuries of the eyes always make people feel frightened so this really strikes a cord. Seeing the after effects of the transplant surgeries and watching the prep of the surgeries is truly unsettling.
The make-up effects are OK and I believe there is some real footage being used at some point but what is more disturbing is the doctor's obsession and the story itself of which I don't want to give away here.
Let me just say that the film is hard to watch and I doubt anyone will want to sit through it twice. It's hard to shake. It leaves greasy little snail tracks on your brain. I am a horror fan I can tell you I don't want to see it again. I'm glad the transfer to DVD isn't all that clear. More clarity would have made it harder to watch.
Oldie but Goodie
joconnor89 April 2006
One of Charles Band's earlier produced movies. A must for a Full Moon/Charles Band fan. Nice to add to your DVD collection though the quality is pretty bad even though it says Digitally Mastered. If this was mastered, I'd hate to see what it was before they worked on it. But the story is a gem of a horror for a low budget film. Also notice that in the end credits Richard Band was an assistant producer. And the screenplay was by their father Albert Band. And fans know where this combination went to. Empire Pictures and Full Moon Pictures. The B-movies improved along with musical scores to form a legendary team for several great videos such as the Puppet Master series and Subspecies, Trancers series as well as the well known Re-animator and From Beyond Lovecraft classics. Being a great fan of Charles Band, it was worth buying for my collection and the cost was reasonably low to purchase. Someone needs to see about getting some of the Paramount/Full Moon pictures released as well. Some of Band's finest videos are not available due to past problems with them. A real shame!
Very Disturbing Horror Gem...
Katatonia12 February 2003
I watch about 2-4 films a day and most of those are horror films. I found a cheap VHS of "Mansion of the Doomed" and bought it since it sounded interesting. This film is truly disturbing and gory, and there are precious few horror movies i can truly say have accomplished that task.
The story involves a doctor and his young daughter (early 20's i guess), and the car accident which leaves her blind. He vows to restore her vision and will do anything to achieve that goal. People begin to disappear (including her fiance) and when they wake up in a jail-like cage they have only empty sockets where their eyes once were. The only problem is that his daughter's vision from the transplants is only temporary and degenerates back to blindness every time. With every transplant his daughter becomes more scarred and can now guess what her father has been doing. More and more people begin to disappear and his jail-like cage in his mansion is becoming crowded. The ending is predictable but is quite effective.
If you are sensitive when it comes to your eyes, then this film will disturb you. Even hardcore fans of the horror genre will find it difficult not to be shocked at times. This film will leave you shocked and disturbed long after the credits roll.
Apparently this was an early Charles Band production, he later formed Empire Pictures and Full Moon pictures. I am surprised I had never heard of this lost gem before. Hopefully someday it will get a worthy re-release.
The story involves a doctor and his young daughter (early 20's i guess), and the car accident which leaves her blind. He vows to restore her vision and will do anything to achieve that goal. People begin to disappear (including her fiance) and when they wake up in a jail-like cage they have only empty sockets where their eyes once were. The only problem is that his daughter's vision from the transplants is only temporary and degenerates back to blindness every time. With every transplant his daughter becomes more scarred and can now guess what her father has been doing. More and more people begin to disappear and his jail-like cage in his mansion is becoming crowded. The ending is predictable but is quite effective.
If you are sensitive when it comes to your eyes, then this film will disturb you. Even hardcore fans of the horror genre will find it difficult not to be shocked at times. This film will leave you shocked and disturbed long after the credits roll.
Apparently this was an early Charles Band production, he later formed Empire Pictures and Full Moon pictures. I am surprised I had never heard of this lost gem before. Hopefully someday it will get a worthy re-release.
An unusual horror/thriller.
poolandrews1 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this last night on a twenty plus year old VHS tape I brought of eBay, under it's UK title 'Massacre mansion'. We open with shots of Dr Leonard Chaney (Richard Basehart) walking through a hospital, he goes to a patient and inserts his thumbs into her eye sockets. As it turns out this is just a nightmare, according to the accompanying monologue by Basehart anyway. He goes on to talk about his daughter Nancy Chaney (Trish Stewart), we see scenes of her swimming in a pool with her boyfriend Dr Dan Bryan (Lance Henriksen) with Doc Chaney lovingly looking on. He also talks of an accident. While driving along a dog runs out in front of Doc Chaney's car, he swerves to miss it and he crashes the car. Nancy, who was a passenger, is blinded in the accident. Luckily Doc Chaney isn't an ordinary Doctor, no he happens to be an eye surgeon! Using his medical expertise and help from his assistant Katherine (Gloria Grahame) he sets out to restore Nancy's sight by an eye transplant. Unfortunately the eyes need to be fresh, which means he needs to kidnap people and take their eyes out. First up it's Nancy's boyfriend and one of Doc Chaney's fellow professionals Doc Bryan. The transplant works to start with, however Nancy soon loses her sight again. Doc Chaney needs to know what went wrong so he prepares another operation, again the eyes are rejected. After several more operations he is still no closer to permanently restoring Nancy's sight. To add to his worries his basement is rapidly filling up with his eyeless victims, who he wants to keep alive so when he has discovered the secret he can give them back their sight too. Produced by Charles and Albert Band (and not a killer toy in sight!), cinematography by Andrew Davis (who would later go on to direct films such as the fugitive and under siege), make up effects by Stan Winston (terminator, jurassic park etc.) and directed by Micheal Pataki, massacre mansion has quality both in front and behind the camera. However that doesn't make it a particularly good film. The central idea is good, Doc Chaney isn't portrayed as a monster, but as a loving father who becomes more and more desperate as the hole he's dug himself gets deeper by the minute. The victims aren't simply there to be used, the film shows them trapped and blinded trying to help and comfort each other, it tries to make them part of the film that you want to care about. There's no real gore in it, except the first transplant which is shown, the others cut away before Doc Chaney begins to operate, but various shots are shown on a black and white monitor that Doc Chaney looks at to help himself, it wouldn't surprise me if this was real eye surgery footage. Whats there is, is quite effective, and the effect of the victims having no eyes is also well done. My biggest problem with it is that it's all rather dull and forgettable, and a little bit slow. Not bad I suppose, just average.
An eye for an eye!!
Coventry20 January 2004
I was prepared to see the worst when I pushed the play button, but this early Charles Band production turned out to be a lot better than I thought! It shamelessly steals the plot of Franju's masterpiece `Les Yeux sans Visage', but I hardly see this as an obstacle since the great Jess Franco did the same thing for his Dr. Orloff. It's the macabre fable about a doctor who causes a car-accident, and his daughter loses her sight in it. Driven by love and feelings of guilt, the doctor start to kidnap eye-donors' to cure his daughter Nancy. Charles Band adds very few to the original plot except for a lot of inhuman cruelty and nasty images. The shots of the eyeless people in the basement were pretty disturbing to me, and I like to think I can handle quite a share of morbidity! By the way, the gory images of the cut out eyeballs were the work of Stan Winston, who grew on to be one of Hollywood's most respected make-up artists. The film also proves that acting performances CAN make a difference in these little low-budget gems! Richard Basehart is really good as the surgeon who slowly goes insane and Gloria Grahame is adorable as the devoted assistant. Unfortunately, this underrated actress died a few years later. Mansion of the Doomed also stars Lance Henriksen in an early role. Mansion of the Doomed is especially recommended for being a modest - but very decent - little gem, that doesn't portrays itself as highly original...just as good and gruesome entertainment!
Scary plot but... slow and bad movie.
insomniac_rod3 July 2005
The plot of this one is really disturbing and scary. "Mansion of the Doomed" provides drama, horror, suspense, and most of all cheap gore effects that will surely please the lovers of the red!
The drama is portrayed by the Doctor's situation. He victimizes innocent people in order to take off their eyeballs to later practice eye surgery on her daughter in order for her to recover her sight. Crudely, any father would do the impossible to help a daughter, that's for sure. The fact that this lunatic takes the eyeballs of the victims and later cages them in his mansion is the disturbing factor.
With a plot like that you can expect a brutal and chilling exploitation movie. Well there are some gruesome and disturbing scenes involving negligent eye surgery and that's about it. There's no suspense, even false scares, and you can never say that the movie shocked you, it just disturbs the audience by showing violent scenes.
There's not much to comment about this one, except that if you like the sub-genre you should check this one out. It's as cheesy as you can get but it's plot makes it eerie. The movie wasn't just done correctly.
The drama is portrayed by the Doctor's situation. He victimizes innocent people in order to take off their eyeballs to later practice eye surgery on her daughter in order for her to recover her sight. Crudely, any father would do the impossible to help a daughter, that's for sure. The fact that this lunatic takes the eyeballs of the victims and later cages them in his mansion is the disturbing factor.
With a plot like that you can expect a brutal and chilling exploitation movie. Well there are some gruesome and disturbing scenes involving negligent eye surgery and that's about it. There's no suspense, even false scares, and you can never say that the movie shocked you, it just disturbs the audience by showing violent scenes.
There's not much to comment about this one, except that if you like the sub-genre you should check this one out. It's as cheesy as you can get but it's plot makes it eerie. The movie wasn't just done correctly.
Better Than They Say...
mlhouk917 September 2000
While no classic, this low budget thriller exceeds its reputation. Creating a truly oppressive atmosphere-just what the story calls for-it features a strong performance by Richard Basehart and good support from a young Lance Henrikson. Particularly creepy, though not in a horror movie way, is the sequence where Basehart picks up a little girl to be his next subject, which, while not graphic, may be a bit much for some viewers. Yes, it is a sleazy movie, but for this story that is appropriate. The only letdown is the total waste of Gloria Grahame, who is given little to work with. She deserved better.
Don't bother
gjcannon5 February 2024
It's quite dispiriting when actors with a long career end up in this kind of trashy stuff. In this case. Richard Basehart as the lead at least gets to be centre-stage but Gloria Grahame hardly gets a line, she's practically an extra. The plot is pretty hackeyed. An eminent optoth, ophtmog, ....eye doctor who dotes on his only child, a daughter, loses his marbles when his atrocious driving results in an accident and her blindness. This inspires him to go rogue and start experimnting on whoever is handy to extract their eyes and pop them into his daughter, with variable results. Even a police detective has a close shave. The victims aren't knocked off but kept on hold in the basement as he intends to restore their sight once all the kinks in the process have been ironed out. To pass the time, they compete to see who can do the best zombie impression. It all doesn't end well. Or begin well. And the middle sucks too.
Another decent entry in the mad scientist genre and that too with an amazing tag line. "Keep An Eye Out For Dr. Chaney ... He Needs It!"
Fella_shibby28 March 2022
I first saw this in the late 80s n found it to be a bit boring but aft revisiting it recently, i found it to be disturbing, specially the suffering of the eyeless victims caged in the basement is frightening n very disturbing.
Thank God the little girl survives but can someone tell me what happens to the character of Lance Henriksen n the lead character Trish?
The director of this film Michael Pataki directed only two movies n one tv episode but acted in 178 movies, the most famous being Graduation Day, Halloween 4, Rocky 4, Sweet Sixteen, Dead & Buried, Dracula's Dog, Airport '77, The Bat People, Grave of the Vampire, The Return of Count Yorga, Dream no Evil n the tiny role in Easy Rider.
Michael Pataki shamelessly copied from Franju's Eyes Without a Face but somehow succeeded in creating the horror vibe.
No sane fella can find this movie comical cos it is truly disturbing seeing the plight of the eyeless.
Thank God the little girl survives but can someone tell me what happens to the character of Lance Henriksen n the lead character Trish?
The director of this film Michael Pataki directed only two movies n one tv episode but acted in 178 movies, the most famous being Graduation Day, Halloween 4, Rocky 4, Sweet Sixteen, Dead & Buried, Dracula's Dog, Airport '77, The Bat People, Grave of the Vampire, The Return of Count Yorga, Dream no Evil n the tiny role in Easy Rider.
Michael Pataki shamelessly copied from Franju's Eyes Without a Face but somehow succeeded in creating the horror vibe.
No sane fella can find this movie comical cos it is truly disturbing seeing the plight of the eyeless.
Deviate doctor collects eyeballs.
michaelRokeefe6 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Disturbing, gory and fine low budget shocker. A deranged surgeon, Dr. Leonard Chaney(Richard Basehart)is guilt ridden after his daughter Nancy(Trish Stewart)loses her eyesight in a traffic accident he caused. The doc decides to start abducting people at random and removing their eyes in hopes of performing transplants on his daughter. His disfigured victims are kept caged in his dungeon-like basement. With every transplant on his daughter she becomes more and more scarred. Disappointed and disgusted with her father, she manages to help release the eyeless people she has discovered in the basement. The disfigured captives seek revenge... successfully. Other cast members: Lance Henriksen, Gloria Grahame, Donna Andresen, Katherine Stewart and Vic Tayback. Sensitive and disturbing scenes prompt the R rating. Hardcore horror fans should be pleased.
A creepy & disturbing 70's mad doctor horror flick
Woodyanders10 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Charles Band's perfectly grim and upsetting first-ever low-budget indie fright feature is a real creepy, unpleasant and most unnerving shocker starring Richard Basehart as a well-respected, but obsessed surgeon determined to restore his blind daughter's sight by stealing unwitting donors' eyes for extremely graphic and gruesome transplants! Pretty soon Basehart has a basement full of miserable, hideously moaning and hollow-socketed victims who include the always welcome Lance Henrikson (who's fine as usual in his initial foray into the horror genre) and blaxploitation actress Marilyn Joi.
Capably directed with admirable conviction and seriousness by longtime favorite sleaze movie thesp Michael Pataki (who also helmed the outrageously bawdy soft-core musical version of "Cinderella" for Band), with excellent icky make-up f/x by Stan Winston, a splendidly spare'n'spooky Robert O. Ragland score, an appropriately eerie and unsparingly bleak tone (the sequences with Basehart's victims groaning in abject pain and suffering are quite potent and upsetting), solid cinematography by future big deal mainstream Hollywood director Andrew Davis (who went on to direct such big budget action blockbusters as "Under Siege" and "The Fugitive"), sturdy supporting performances by Gloria Grahame as Basehart's loyal, but worried assistant and Vic Tayback as a homicide detective, and a truly startling nice'n'nasty ending, this overall rates as a highly unsettling and effectively rough-edged little B-horror item.
Capably directed with admirable conviction and seriousness by longtime favorite sleaze movie thesp Michael Pataki (who also helmed the outrageously bawdy soft-core musical version of "Cinderella" for Band), with excellent icky make-up f/x by Stan Winston, a splendidly spare'n'spooky Robert O. Ragland score, an appropriately eerie and unsparingly bleak tone (the sequences with Basehart's victims groaning in abject pain and suffering are quite potent and upsetting), solid cinematography by future big deal mainstream Hollywood director Andrew Davis (who went on to direct such big budget action blockbusters as "Under Siege" and "The Fugitive"), sturdy supporting performances by Gloria Grahame as Basehart's loyal, but worried assistant and Vic Tayback as a homicide detective, and a truly startling nice'n'nasty ending, this overall rates as a highly unsettling and effectively rough-edged little B-horror item.
Fetid and nasty - a fine low budget horror!
The_Void10 October 2006
What we have here is a film that shamelessly rips off the classic French film 'Eyes Without a Face', and does it rather well; despite being nowhere near the earlier effort in terms of quality. Rather than the whole face, director Michael Pataki focuses just on the eyes. Seventies cult cinema seems to be obsessed with eyeball violence, and it's not hard to see why as the eyes are the most sensitive part of the body, and having anything happen to them is a worst nightmare for many. While Mansion of the Doomed may not be as graphic and disturbing as its poster suggests it might be, the plot is still macabre enough to satisfy most horror fans. We focus on a doctor who unfortunately has a car crash, which results in the loss of his daughter's eyesight. Consumed with guilt, he decides to put his surgical skills to the test in the form of getting her some new eyeballs. So, naturally, he resorts to abducting various members of the public and proceeds to slice out their eyes in order to quash his guilt and let his daughter have her sight back.
The atmosphere is extremely sleazy, and this is achieved through some dirty cinematography and a focus on the doctor's nasty experiments. The plot gets a little stretched before the end, and aside from the basic premise; there really isn't much to this film, but it's not always important as some of the ideas on display are genuinely horrifying, and definitely make for good horror viewing. The film was obviously shot on a low budget, as there's a very cheap look to it all; but as is the case with many trashy horror films, the low budget style actually elevates the sleaze value of the whole piece. The acting is decent enough, with Richard Basehart delivering a fine performance as the obsessed doctor at the centre of the tale, and receiving understated feedback from Gloria Grahame and Lance Henriksen. Michael Pataki's direction is solid, although the only feature film he directed after this one was an adult version of Cinderella, which I'd love to see. The ending is strong and provides a good climax for a film of this nature, and while overall the film isn't as good as it's main influence; Mansion of the Doomed is still a worthwhile seventies effort.
The atmosphere is extremely sleazy, and this is achieved through some dirty cinematography and a focus on the doctor's nasty experiments. The plot gets a little stretched before the end, and aside from the basic premise; there really isn't much to this film, but it's not always important as some of the ideas on display are genuinely horrifying, and definitely make for good horror viewing. The film was obviously shot on a low budget, as there's a very cheap look to it all; but as is the case with many trashy horror films, the low budget style actually elevates the sleaze value of the whole piece. The acting is decent enough, with Richard Basehart delivering a fine performance as the obsessed doctor at the centre of the tale, and receiving understated feedback from Gloria Grahame and Lance Henriksen. Michael Pataki's direction is solid, although the only feature film he directed after this one was an adult version of Cinderella, which I'd love to see. The ending is strong and provides a good climax for a film of this nature, and while overall the film isn't as good as it's main influence; Mansion of the Doomed is still a worthwhile seventies effort.
Depressing, Creepy, Disturbing but badly made horror film
geminidreamatl244 January 2007
I have been wanting to see this movie for a long time as to the plot and reviews of read on how creepy and disturbing this movie was and to see the legendary silver screen siren of Gloria Grahamm (It's a wonderful life, Greatest Show on earth, Oaklahoma!)and was pleased when I found the DVD for $6 and snatched it up. first of all the DVD says its been remastered on the back. thats a lie since the film had scratches, lines and broken celluloid so I was very disappointed on the film quality. unfortunately the budget shows and thats not a good thing. looks very cheaply done, horrible lighting, badly lit, terrible cinematography, however, does have some really disturbing creepy scenes. PLOT: Dr. Channey (Richard Basehart of Voyage to the bottom of the sea fame) is guilt stricken when his daughter Nancy is blinded in a car crash and is obsessed with restoring her eye sight by transplanting eye balls from one person to her but the creepy thing is he leaves them chained in a dark cold cage in the basement of his house eyeless and alone. when the first transplant works then fails he becomes insane and starts luring innocent people into his home and removing their eye balls with the assistance of his wife Katherine (Gloria Grahamm), as the people begin to pile up and some start to die, the tension mounts as the victims start to take revenge on their captors. a very depressing downbeat film with disturbing creepy moments of the people in the basement and an even more downbeat gory ending. however the movie is not that great and really could of been something really great and scary. awesome make up effects by Stan Winston of the eyeless victims. 5/10
This is one of the sickest movies i have ever seen
90024 April 1999
Warning: Spoilers
It's about a doctor and he has a daughter, and that daughter loses her eyes in a car accident. And now the father tries to transplant someone's eyes so she can get them (the daughter), so he takes people to his house and gives them some drugs so they fall asleep and then he operates their eyes out. And later he has the basement full of people without eyes and it's pretty gruesome. So if you want a sick movie go out and rent this.
The average vote says it all...
marcburrage10 February 2003
This is trash, pure and simple. But it's so bad it'll make you laugh. The fact that Lance Henriksen gets top billing, yet plays a very minor role, doesn't say much for the leads.
Rent it and watch it after a night of hard drinking.
Rent it and watch it after a night of hard drinking.
Good 70's horror
Sergiodave3 January 2022
How far would you go to cure your beloved Daughter's blindness, this is the plot of this low budget but very enjoyable 70's horror movie. Richard Basehart plays the deranged ophthalmologist and is well supported by a horror movie stalwart, Lance Henriksen. It's not in the least bit scary, but was fun.
Over the top gouged eyes in effect
jacywebster1 February 2023
A little more disturbing than you'd expect for it's time, but this movie features two greats, Richard Basehart and film noir actress Gloria Grahame, or three if you want to throw a young Lance Henricksen in there. There's nothing light-hearted in this gruesome movie, and Vic Tayback plays it straight forward as the cop. Basehart and Grahame are great here, and all the lesser known actors are really good too. The story involves a surgical genius eye doctor trying to help his daughter who he's accidentally blinded. Madness ensues. You can get nice fresh eyeballs all over the place, but what do you with the leftovers?
Hokey stuff but worth watching
adriangr3 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was pretty impressed with this. Well the film has a lot to live up to, being a carbon copy of so many other films in the small horror sub-genre that might be known as "brilliant surgeon kidnaps victims and operates on them in an attempt to restore his disfigured daughter to her former glory". It's been done before, most notably in the beautiful "Les Yeux Sans Visage", but let's not forget "Mill of the Stone Women", "Corruption", "Faceless" and I'm sure I've missed a few.
But there are two quite good differences here: in this plot all the daughter needs is a new pair of eyeballs, and secondly, none of the unwilling "donors" in this movie actually die after their surgery, they are collected, caged and left to go mad!. Which makes for some of the best parts of the story.
There are weak spots, however. Richard Basehart is pretty flat as the twisted eye surgeon Dr Chaney (oh please...!) who has no thought but for restoring his daughter's sight. He plays the role on a single note, and give the character no sense at all of anything going beneath the surface. At times I wondered of he had been studying the William Shatner school of acting, as his mumbling and lack of impact got quite annoying after a while. Also - the impossibility of the eye transplants working is obvious very early on. Right at the start, Gloria Grahame (as the doctors assistant/partner) cries "But it's impossible, it would mean destroying the optic nerve" or somesuch argument. The doctor never manages to come back to her on that. And later on, in a scene that actually made me groan out loud, a colleague sees a successful eye transplant and gasps: "But how...?" Dr Chaney just smirks and says "The real question is...why?" No - the real question really IS "how"?!! OK those things aside, the movie does a good job. For all the poor victims, it's a gruesome fate. Being drugged and then waking up in a cage with both your eyeballs missing is a horrific idea and they all manage to portray the right level of hysteria. There's even a great close up of one victim's twitching empty eye sockets near the start. Shame that later on the heavy browed "eyeless" prosthetics make them look like a bit like they are wearing the "Scream" movie killer's mask!! But the plight of these blind, caged victims is what makes the movie. The fact that none of the actors could see through their eyeless make-up probably contributes to their believable portrayals of panic. In fact the character of the daughter almost disappears from the script in the second half of the story, so small is her importance to the tale.
The tension is well maintained though, and things move pretty snappily -Dr Chaney seems to go through victims at an incredible rate. And if you have any fears about losing your eyesight, I think this film will definitely give you nightmares.
But there are two quite good differences here: in this plot all the daughter needs is a new pair of eyeballs, and secondly, none of the unwilling "donors" in this movie actually die after their surgery, they are collected, caged and left to go mad!. Which makes for some of the best parts of the story.
There are weak spots, however. Richard Basehart is pretty flat as the twisted eye surgeon Dr Chaney (oh please...!) who has no thought but for restoring his daughter's sight. He plays the role on a single note, and give the character no sense at all of anything going beneath the surface. At times I wondered of he had been studying the William Shatner school of acting, as his mumbling and lack of impact got quite annoying after a while. Also - the impossibility of the eye transplants working is obvious very early on. Right at the start, Gloria Grahame (as the doctors assistant/partner) cries "But it's impossible, it would mean destroying the optic nerve" or somesuch argument. The doctor never manages to come back to her on that. And later on, in a scene that actually made me groan out loud, a colleague sees a successful eye transplant and gasps: "But how...?" Dr Chaney just smirks and says "The real question is...why?" No - the real question really IS "how"?!! OK those things aside, the movie does a good job. For all the poor victims, it's a gruesome fate. Being drugged and then waking up in a cage with both your eyeballs missing is a horrific idea and they all manage to portray the right level of hysteria. There's even a great close up of one victim's twitching empty eye sockets near the start. Shame that later on the heavy browed "eyeless" prosthetics make them look like a bit like they are wearing the "Scream" movie killer's mask!! But the plight of these blind, caged victims is what makes the movie. The fact that none of the actors could see through their eyeless make-up probably contributes to their believable portrayals of panic. In fact the character of the daughter almost disappears from the script in the second half of the story, so small is her importance to the tale.
The tension is well maintained though, and things move pretty snappily -Dr Chaney seems to go through victims at an incredible rate. And if you have any fears about losing your eyesight, I think this film will definitely give you nightmares.
Ok Tv thriller
alphastudio-6781111 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
A doctor steals peoples eyeballs in order to let his blind daughter see again.
Above average B-acting An intersting but simple story Allmost no suspence & gore Just an average tv movie with unused potential to lift it above this.
Above average B-acting An intersting but simple story Allmost no suspence & gore Just an average tv movie with unused potential to lift it above this.
Very unsettling movie
willandcharlenebrown24 October 2022
Disturbing and a surprise find. I really enjoyed it. There is a point during the movie it gets repetitive but then he even tries to get a little girl and you are like dude!!!!!! WTF! All because he wants his daughter to see. Take a chance on this movie. If you're like me and always searching for a good 70's surprise horror flick. Here it is.
Disturbing and a surprise find. I really enjoyed it. There is a point during the movie it gets repetitive but then he even tries to get a little girl and you are like dude!!!!!! WTF! All because he wants his daughter to see. Take a chance on this movie. If you're like me and always searching for a good 70's surprise horror flick. Here it is.
Disturbing and a surprise find. I really enjoyed it. There is a point during the movie it gets repetitive but then he even tries to get a little girl and you are like dude!!!!!! WTF! All because he wants his daughter to see. Take a chance on this movie. If you're like me and always searching for a good 70's surprise horror flick. Here it is.
The doom follows the viewer for 90 minutes.
mark.waltz7 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
After about an hour, I realized in watching this creepy horror film that it was best to continue viewing it as a dark comedy. It's certainly has many moments that made me reluctantly laugh, but I couldn't help it in the most notable melodramatic moments when several of the kidnapped victims of doctor Richard Basehart escape. One is quickly captured in the front yard (with no neighbors even noticing), and another makes it to the highway with bass hard chasing her, aided by a force that she didn't even perceive in taking care of the situation. Then there is a presence of Gloria Grahame, looking like she stuck additional cotton into her mouth to give her that pouty look, her squeaky voice even more affected than it was when she played Ado Annie in "Oklahoma!".
The story surrounds Basehart's desire to find eyeballs for daughter Trish Stewart who was injured in a car accident and is now blind. It certainly is a gruesome theme, and there's plenty of gore within the context of the film. The snake pit of people that he kidnaps for their eyeballs becomes like a mental institution of the blind, and those scenes are very odd to say the least. The pretty poor black girl who is hired as a nurse and finds herself quickly blinded and kept in the basement is by far the most tragic character. Grahame really gets nothing substantial to do, and her character has no motivation, making her declaration of "Kill them!" to her boss all the more odd. At least with Basehart, there's a reasoning for his madness, even if he is a brutal fiend.
The story surrounds Basehart's desire to find eyeballs for daughter Trish Stewart who was injured in a car accident and is now blind. It certainly is a gruesome theme, and there's plenty of gore within the context of the film. The snake pit of people that he kidnaps for their eyeballs becomes like a mental institution of the blind, and those scenes are very odd to say the least. The pretty poor black girl who is hired as a nurse and finds herself quickly blinded and kept in the basement is by far the most tragic character. Grahame really gets nothing substantial to do, and her character has no motivation, making her declaration of "Kill them!" to her boss all the more odd. At least with Basehart, there's a reasoning for his madness, even if he is a brutal fiend.
Surprisingly gruesome and unsettling horror film.
HumanoidOfFlesh15 June 2005
A once gifted surgeon Dr.Chaney has never managed to overcome the painful memory of a tragic car-accident that left his young daughter Nancy blind.Lost in his own private hell of insanity,he kidnaps young people and makes them involuntary donors in an operation attempt to restore his daughter's eye-sight.The real horror begins when the people he disfigured rise up from the dungeon where he keeps them captive to get revenge.This gruesome Charles Band production has real-life footage of actual eye surgery and some gross makeup effects(supplied by Stan Winston).The cinematography by Andrew Davis is pretty good and the film is as dark and creepy as they come.The suffering of the eyeless victims stored in the basement is truly disturbing and effective.Give it a look,if you are not easily disturbed.9 out of 10.
Surprisingly Well Done
captainpass10 April 2021
MOTD is famous for being a gruesome "Eyes WIthout a Face." It is that. But it also has some surprisingly strong acting (given the genre), cinematography, direction and, yes, writing.
The story-line is simple enough: The mad scientist undone by his belief that his talents can undo the past. The old ends-justify-the-means tale of human nature. But what sets this one apart is is the Edgar Allan Poe-style writing and the cast that brings it to life:
Richard Basehart plays the gruff, self-assured Dr. Chaney; Gloria Grahame as his (coldly realistic) helpmate Katherine and an ensemble of victims, including Lance Henriksen, who do a fairly good job of conveying the depravity of it all. (If there is a weak link here, it is Trish Stewart as "Nancy,.") Basehart's Chaney is the core of the film, yet his is a character that develops over time: Early on, he puts aside his professional moral qualms and almost convinces himself of the utility of his cruelty. However, over time, he comes to recognize that he is being undone by his own actions and by chance--something that Katherine recognizes from the start. (And I would note also the very Edgar Allan Poe-like theme of his actions effects on Nancy: Her beauty subsides in direct proportion to his determination to restore the past.) All said and done, character development is not the sort of thing expected in B-movies.
Like the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," there is a sort of gritty 70s realism here that lends a plausibility to the plot. Unlike the TCM, however, there is no "dark humor" to offset the darkness. This is why, in last analysis, MOTD is often regarded as little more than a gory, bleak B-movie. I disagree with that assessment, but understand why viewers would label it such. My own two cents is that Pataki would have profited from toning down the gore. It wasn't really needed. The writing is tight; the direction very competent; and features some remarkable moments in a film where one would not expect the same.
The story-line is simple enough: The mad scientist undone by his belief that his talents can undo the past. The old ends-justify-the-means tale of human nature. But what sets this one apart is is the Edgar Allan Poe-style writing and the cast that brings it to life:
Richard Basehart plays the gruff, self-assured Dr. Chaney; Gloria Grahame as his (coldly realistic) helpmate Katherine and an ensemble of victims, including Lance Henriksen, who do a fairly good job of conveying the depravity of it all. (If there is a weak link here, it is Trish Stewart as "Nancy,.") Basehart's Chaney is the core of the film, yet his is a character that develops over time: Early on, he puts aside his professional moral qualms and almost convinces himself of the utility of his cruelty. However, over time, he comes to recognize that he is being undone by his own actions and by chance--something that Katherine recognizes from the start. (And I would note also the very Edgar Allan Poe-like theme of his actions effects on Nancy: Her beauty subsides in direct proportion to his determination to restore the past.) All said and done, character development is not the sort of thing expected in B-movies.
Like the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," there is a sort of gritty 70s realism here that lends a plausibility to the plot. Unlike the TCM, however, there is no "dark humor" to offset the darkness. This is why, in last analysis, MOTD is often regarded as little more than a gory, bleak B-movie. I disagree with that assessment, but understand why viewers would label it such. My own two cents is that Pataki would have profited from toning down the gore. It wasn't really needed. The writing is tight; the direction very competent; and features some remarkable moments in a film where one would not expect the same.
Eh...
chadledwards7 February 2002
Richard Basehart plays a doctor whose daughter is blinded in a car accident; the remainder of the film focuses on Basehart's attempts to restore his daughter's sight by kidnapping people and removing their eyes for unsuccessful transplants. Not bad horror flick, and very well-acted for such a low-budget effort. Basehart registers strongly as the determined doctor, as does '50's 'bad girl' Gloria Grahame as his devoted assistant, even though she is given very little to do. But be warned, this film is not for those with weak stomachs.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
