← Back to Reviews
in
Eye of the Devil, 1966
Catherine (Deborah Kerr) has a happy marriage to her husband, Philippe (David Niven) with a lovely home and two children, Jacques (Robert Duncan) and Antoinette (Suky Appleby). That all changes, though, when Phillipe is summoned back to his home village, a place where the vineyards owned by Phillipe's family provide work and income for half of the citizens. When Catherine and the children follow Phillipe to his home castle, things get very strange very quickly. Catherine is alarmed by the odd and cruel behavior of local siblings Christian (David Hemmings) and Odile (Sharon Tate), and the local priest, Dominic (Donald Pleasence). And it seems that Phillipe's ancestors have an odd habit of meeting untimely ends . . .
This was a really solid recommendation from @crumbsroom, so hat tip for that.
For me, this film ended up feeling like an interesting mix of The Innocents and The Wicker Man. Kerr is really great as a woman who slowly begins to realize that strange things are afoot, and she's the only one not in on them. To quote a person I was watching this with, "Dang, they are gaslighting this woman hardcore."
The real star of this film, for me, was the way that it was shot. In both Hemmings and Tate, director J Lee Thompson has two very interesting, photogenic people on hand, and he makes the most of their unique, handsome profiles. Christian has a habit of shooting the local doves with a large bow and arrow, rarely appearing without them. His presence adds a menacing, old-timey sense to the film. At times, when blowing a huge bugle or riding around on a large white horse, he almost feels more like the herald of some apocalypse. Tate exudes her own menace, using a serene smile whether she's in the middle of a conversation or about to let a character walk off of a rooftop. The camera swoops, weaves, and at times tilts to crazy angles.
There's also a real solid sense of the mythology that the film is building, partly through exposition, but partly through just the way that certain characters exchange glances or drop a piece of information. It's a film that makes sense when all is said and done, and the logic of what happens is part of what makes it so spooky.
There was very little that I didn't like here. I suppose one thing that bothered me was the way that Catherine focused almost exclusively on her husband and (to a lesser extent) her oldest son. I'm not really into the thing of excoriating women for not being perfect mothers, but it's kind of strange just how little she seems to . . . . care about about the well being of her children. At one certain point in particular it felt particularly negligent and just weird. Even in the last 2 minutes of the movie I was like "UM WHAT?!".
Really solid little supernatural thriller with amazing photography.
Eye of the Devil, 1966
Catherine (Deborah Kerr) has a happy marriage to her husband, Philippe (David Niven) with a lovely home and two children, Jacques (Robert Duncan) and Antoinette (Suky Appleby). That all changes, though, when Phillipe is summoned back to his home village, a place where the vineyards owned by Phillipe's family provide work and income for half of the citizens. When Catherine and the children follow Phillipe to his home castle, things get very strange very quickly. Catherine is alarmed by the odd and cruel behavior of local siblings Christian (David Hemmings) and Odile (Sharon Tate), and the local priest, Dominic (Donald Pleasence). And it seems that Phillipe's ancestors have an odd habit of meeting untimely ends . . .
This was a really solid recommendation from @crumbsroom, so hat tip for that.
For me, this film ended up feeling like an interesting mix of The Innocents and The Wicker Man. Kerr is really great as a woman who slowly begins to realize that strange things are afoot, and she's the only one not in on them. To quote a person I was watching this with, "Dang, they are gaslighting this woman hardcore."
The real star of this film, for me, was the way that it was shot. In both Hemmings and Tate, director J Lee Thompson has two very interesting, photogenic people on hand, and he makes the most of their unique, handsome profiles. Christian has a habit of shooting the local doves with a large bow and arrow, rarely appearing without them. His presence adds a menacing, old-timey sense to the film. At times, when blowing a huge bugle or riding around on a large white horse, he almost feels more like the herald of some apocalypse. Tate exudes her own menace, using a serene smile whether she's in the middle of a conversation or about to let a character walk off of a rooftop. The camera swoops, weaves, and at times tilts to crazy angles.
There's also a real solid sense of the mythology that the film is building, partly through exposition, but partly through just the way that certain characters exchange glances or drop a piece of information. It's a film that makes sense when all is said and done, and the logic of what happens is part of what makes it so spooky.
There was very little that I didn't like here. I suppose one thing that bothered me was the way that Catherine focused almost exclusively on her husband and (to a lesser extent) her oldest son. I'm not really into the thing of excoriating women for not being perfect mothers, but it's kind of strange just how little she seems to . . . . care about about the well being of her children. At one certain point in particular it felt particularly negligent and just weird. Even in the last 2 minutes of the movie I was like "UM WHAT?!".
Really solid little supernatural thriller with amazing photography.