Eye of the Devil (1967) Online

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 ****

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.

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!

"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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

A truly remarkable cast was assembled for this creepy, highly atmospheric mystery story set in France (but featuring actors with uniformly British accents!) Niven plays the heir to a wine fortune who is suddenly called upon to attend to the vineyards on his family's estate when the grapes threaten to fail. Despite his pleas for her to stay home, his wife (Kerr) brings their two children to join him and she scarcely gets a moment's peace thereafter. Creepy Hemmings is always hanging around with his bow and arrow and his sinister, but startlingly lovely sister (Tate) has an unsettling interest in the children. Meanwhile, sullen priest Pleasance and eternally-worried Robson, as Niven's aunt, add to the unease. The townspeople seem to look on expressionless at every turn. Kerr can't seem to break through to whatever is going on and feels as if Niven isn't himself, but also starts to fear for the safety of her children and herself. Though Niven (especially) and Kerr are clearly too old for their roles, they manage to give committed performances. Kerr deserves special mention for stepping in at the 11th hour (replacing Kim Novak) and giving a lot of emotion and intensity to her part. Most of the acting is strong including Tate, even though her voice is dubbed by a British actress and her big, blonde, 60's hair is inconsistent from shot to shot. It's a shame that her own vocals couldn't be used, but she is one of the most luscious women ever to be seen in film and her purpose here is primarily a decorative one. The always enjoyable Robson doesn't have a great deal to do, but she handles herself admirably. There are bits of disjointed continuity here and there and an occasional lack of cohesiveness, but the film offers some stylish and striking visuals and several very suspenseful sequences. One is a scene in which Kerr visits a grave site and then is surrounded by a dozen hooded figures. Another impressive scene takes place atop one of the castle's parapets. She gets quite a workout as she tries to escape from a locked room, ascends the tall tower of the castle and races around the grounds desperately trying to save her husband's life, which even he isn't that keen on doing. Though Kerr's (and Tate's!) attractiveness could have been brought out more in a color film, the crisp black and white photography adds to the mystery and chill of the plot. Fans of films like "The Witches" (1966) and others with dour, strange villagers ought to enjoy checking this one out.

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.

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.

David Niven and Deborah Kerr who both have been in better films star in Eye Of The Devil concerning the secrets and obligations of a certain French aristocratic family to their land and the peasants there on. Niven is of old French nobility and he married Kerr without telling her all about said obligations.

Way back maybe to Charlemagne's days one of the aristocrats in this wine producing part of France made a deal with old Scratch that a sacrifice would be made to him if the grapevines start withering and not yielding the good grapes. Ultimately the devil demands the head of the family yield himself up for the harvest.

So when Niven starts acting all mysterious and wants to head to the family estate himself, Kerr insists on taking the herself and the kids with him. She gets quite an education in satanic rights.

One thing the Eye Of The Devil does have is one consistently creepy atmosphere. But the leads really don't have much conviction. Donald Pleasance who is the village priest and in league with all the devil worship is his usual evil self. And a pair of beautiful devil worshiping twins David Hemmings and Sharon Tate are beautiful and deadly.

Niven and Kerr had looks that said they'd rather be doing something else. They're what keeps Eye Of The Devil from being a great horror classic.

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 ****

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.".

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.

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.

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.

When people discuss Deborah Kerr and terror or horror films, they tend to talk about her 1961 film version of Henry James' "The Turn Of The Screw", called "The Innocence". While that is a wonderful film, both on it's own merits and as one of the best films (with "Washington Square") based on "the Master's" work, movie viewers tend to forget this wonderful horror film she made six years later with David Niven (their first film together since his Oscar winner "Separate Tables"). It's spirit is considerably more dark than "Separate Tables", and far more frighteningly hopeless than "The Innocence".

Niven is Pierre De Montfaulcon, a French aristocrat who has been living in England for many years. He has married an Englishwoman, Catherine (Kerr) and they have a son and daughter. Niven is called to the village for assistance - the wine harvest is not working out too well, and the locals need him to get it going again. Niven, normally a humorous, lovable type, suddenly clams up. He tries to keep Kerr from following him, but she has never seen the ancestral home and follows with the children. She meets with a false friendliness from one and all that she can cut with a knife. She can't tell what is behind it, but it is like everyone (including Niven) wish she'd return to her city home with the kids (although his son might stay behind). The leaders of the town, the local clergyman (Donald Pleasance) and the local doctor (John Le Messurier) are distant and cold. So is Niven's mother (Flora Robson).

Gradually Kerr begins pasting things together - she is particularly curious about an upcoming annual festival which appears to involve medieval weaponry displays, such as crossbow shooting. She is also soon involved in the fact that there is an old man hiding in the attic of the house (Emlyn Williams), who really does not wish to be seen by the townsfolk. Robson is protecting him.

Eventually Kerr stumbles on the horrifying truth about the secret of the village, and the commitment of the noble family that runs it to live up to maintain a fateful agreement - one that transcends considerations of family and love. Although it has been mentioned on several of the other comments here, I will forgo mentioning what the agreement is - the film "The Wicker Man" has a similar type of agreement in place. But for everyone who has seen that masterpiece (which came out less than a decade later), few probably have seen "Eye Of The Devil", which covered the same territory earlier.

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.

**SPOILERS** Weird and mysterious British horror movie with the biggest mystery in it is why the almost entire British cast. With the exception of American actress Sharon Tate, played Frenchmen and Frenchwomen in the film? There's also the mystery of how Philippe de Mantfaucan, David Niven, and later his wife Catherine, Deborah Kerr, could travel from London England to the village of Bellenac in the wine country of France. They do this across the twenty miles of water separating those two countries ,the English Channel, by automobile? This in 1967 27 years before the underwater Channel Tunnel connecting England and France was built!

Phlippe throwing a party in London gets the bad news from one of the visiting French villager from his hometown that the vineyards in Bellenac have failed to sprout their grapes for the third summer in a row.Telling his wife Catherine to say home with the kids Jacques & Antoinette, Robert Duncan & Suky Appleby,Philippe jumps in his car and drives to Bellenac to see what could be done to get the vineyards back in business.

The movie is somewhat muddled in it's presentation of Bellenac and it's townspeople in that their a bunch of Devil worshipers who've been secretly practicing Satanism for over 1,000 years. Among the people in town are a number of real oddballs like the town Vicar Pere Dominic, Donald Pleasence. It later turns out that he's in fact the towns #1 Devil cleric. Then there's the brother & sister act of Odile & Christian de Caray, Sharon Tate & David Hemmings. Odile turning frogs into doves and Christian shooting the Dove dead with his bow & arrow. We, and Catherine,later learn from Philippe's aunt Contess Estell, Flora Robson, that all the male members of the de Montfaucon clan must be killed in order to keep the grapes in the vineyards strong and healthy ,and provide the town of Bellenac with a study source of income. Unlucky Philippe is the next male member of that clan that's been picked to pay the ultimate price.

Illogical story that really tax's both your mind and body, There's a crazy scene in the woods outside the de Montfaucon family mausoleum where Catherine is chased by a gang of hooded Devil worshipers in order to scare the living hell out of her. There's the scene with Odile who tried to hypnotize her into jumping off the de Montfaucan castle tower. There's also Philippe's father Alain, Emlyn Willimas, who instead of having himself offered up as a sacrificial lamb to Satan faked his death. Father Alain has been hiding out in the de Montfaucan castle's attic ever since,away from all this insanity going on in Bellenac. It's just too bad that Alain's slightly mad son Philippe didn't have enough sense to do the something similar like just staying back home in London.

The ending of "Eye of the Devil"is a bit drawn out and just goes on and on. By then you don't care one way or another if Philippe, who's determined to have himself killed, ends up dead or not with his wife Catherine running around in circles trying to prevent her husbands human sacrifice from happening.Were given a little tidbit of what the future holds in store as the movie ends with little Jacques accepting his role as the only remaining male de Montfaucon, everyone by then forgot about the reclusive Alain. Jacques can hope that this time around, for the next seventy years or so, the grape crop in Bellenac won't go sour on him like it did on his father Philippe.

This movie certainly has the gloomy look down pat! Deborah Kerr is, as always, quite good, and Donald Pleasence and Flora Robson register in their rather smallish parts. But, my goodness! What the devil is going on in this movie? The story is as murky as its castle setting. David Niven seems to be sleepwalking through the film. Ultimately, VERY confusing and VERY unsatisfying. NOT recommended, unless you really like the off-beat and dark.

I consider to be one of those English thrillers that just looks good. It uses a lot of standard elements, is sometimes a little jerky in its storyline, but in the end produces the desired effect. I also like the camera work, which is also standard, but it again gives the desired effect. I also like Deborah Kerr, she is always effective in her roles.

Madame la Marquise (Deborah Kerr) arrives in a desirable but gloomy French manor where everything is not exactly all right:

-Her husband (David Niven) is attending black masses .

-An archer (David Hemmings) is always killing doves.

-The hunter's sister (Sharon Tate: the brother and the sister are all dressed in black leather) is changing toads into doves.And she can stop the rain too.

-The marquise's children are performing acrobatics on the rampart walk.

-When you take a walk in the park,twelve hooded sinister-looking weirdos try to catch you.

This aside,Madame la Marquise ,everything's all right.

Jack Lee Thompson ,who made good adventure films (North West frontier)or war epics (Guns of Navarone) is less at ease in the horror and fantasy field ;casting Kerr and two children will make the audience inevitably think of "the innocents" by Jack Clayton (1961),but the two works are worlds apart artistically speaking.

However,Thompson's film is not bad ,he sometimes succeed in creating a mysterious misty atmosphere and the good cast (also including Flora Robson) and a black and white cinematography helps.

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.

First off, this is a terrible movie. It was terrible when I saw it at a sneak preview in LA (where 3/4 of the audience had bailed by film's end), and having just watched it again all these years later, it's terrible now. Only here at the IMDb can you find a bunch of armchair experts proclaiming this a "great" film. In fact, there is no film, none, that doesn't have someone here proclaiming it a lost masterpiece. Secondly, the score is excellent as is the photography, and the performances are fine.

Then you've got all the people here telling us how wonderful Sharon Tate is in this film. Yes, she's spectacularly beautiful but since her entire performance is dubbed by another actress, I don't know how you can call the performance great. And not one person here mentions the dubbing - certainly they don't think Miss Tate, a Texas native, could do that flawless and obviously real English accent, do they?

It's also interesting that while the title change to Eye Of The Devil is reflected in the main titles, the end title still carries the original title of 13.