Protraph
Lack of good storyline.
Afouotos
Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
HottWwjdIam
There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.
JohnHowardReid
Producer: Albert Fennell. Executive producers: Julian Wintle and Leslie Parkyn. An Independent Artists Production. (Available on a severely cut (to only 83 minutes) DVD from Optimum Home Entertainment).Copyright in the U.S.A. 10 March 1962 by Alta Vista Productions. Presented in the U.S.A. by James H. Nicholson and Samuel Z. Arkoff. U.S. release through American International: 25 April 1962. New York opening at neighborhood theaters on a double bill with "Tales of Terror": 4 July 1962. U.K. release through Anglo Amalgamated: 13 May 1962. Banned in Australia. 87 minutes in the U.K. 90 minutes in the U.S.A. U.S. release title: Burn, Witch, Burn.SYNOPSIS: Tansy Taylor, the wife of an English university professor, secretly practices witchcraft to further her husband Norman's career. When he accidentally discovers this, he destroys her instruments of magic. Following Tansy's warning that his action has left him vulnerable to evil forces, Norman's luck changes.NOTES: Location scenes filmed in Penzance, Cornwall.COMMENT: Directed with authority and style. The script, however, seems far-fetched, and the transformation of Professor Carr is a bit hard to take. One of the most telling points against the script's credibility is that Tansy (silly name!) makes no attempt to tell her husband that a member of the faculty is practicing voodoo. Instead, she talks vaguely for hours about protection. Why isn't she specific?The special effects are faultless, whilst photography, music, and especially Ralph Sheldon's sharp film editing contribute greatly to the picture's eerie atmosphere. Indeed, Gilbert Taylor's camera-work — both on location and in the studio — is astonishingly creative, considering the shoddy work he often turns out for quota quickies.Janet Blair walks off with the movie's acting honors. The other players, however, are never less than able.
dsewizzrd-1
Film work must have been thin on the ground in 1962 in Britain as quite a lot of decent actors struggle valiantly in this hoary old chestnut.There's a good orchestral score (if hackneyed) and some nice cinematography too, although the producers couldn't be bothered colourising the film.A young couple just moved on from a post in Jamaica are in a rivalry for a position in a provincial medical college with the catty middle class staff of the college. Quite apropos of nothing at all, the wife dabbles in a bit of voodoo to help her husband. There's some lovely knitwear. The print is surprisingly good as this is the type of nonsense that would have been run on television in the 1960s and 1970s about a million times.
bobvend
Originally titled "Night Of The Eagle", this is a very effective chiller with fine acting throughout. Linda..err..Janet Blair plays a housewife with a hobby that proves too strange for her professor husband (Peter Wyngarde) to turn a blind eye to. When hubby makes his wife give up her spooky pastime, things start to hit the fan in short order. There are some nice touches here that foreshadow later horror masterpieces, "Rosemary's Baby" in particular. Faculty life at the quaint northern England college is rife with not-so-petty jealousies and a back-stabbing or two. The main um...(pot)stirrer on the staff, wonderfully played by Margaret Johnston, makes it known early on that she's a witch with a capital "B".A very attractive and more-than-capable cast, a good atmospheric production that does itself proud in black & white; and just when the suspense begins to sag a bit, a very good surprise twist. It's all here, and well worth your time.
Edgar Soberon Torchia
I saw "Night of the Eagle" last night, after watching it in 1962, and I was surprised again. No wonder I had not forgotten it after all these years. I could not remember details, but as I watched it (and judging it from 1962 standards) I realized how good it is: first it has quite a frightening tale to tell, frenetic rhythm, and more than a few remarkable dramatic scenes. All fits in its place, even Janet Blair's melodramatic performance (in contrast, for example, with Nancy Kelly's overacting in "The Bad Seed", that seriously affects the film, which seems dated today). By today's standards what may be the worst part of "Night of the Eagle" is the special effects, but on the positive side you have tension built from almost nothing (as in the scene Blair searches for a little doll after a bridge session), effective editing, a good score, fine performances, a sexual undercurrent all through the movie that today would be explicit, and raw sensuality from leading actor Peter Wyngarde, who had previously been cast as the servant who supposedly had involved children Flora and Miles in sexual activity in "The Innocents". There's even a homo-erotic feeling in the way his body is displayed (I have no idea if director Sidney Hayers or Wyngarde were homosexuals, or if they did it on purpose; this is just an impression I had, but it seemed logic to me since the man is accused of raping a student, and all women in the university should envy Blair, with those senior husbands of theirs.) Sometimes things seem illogic, like Wyngarde entering a cemetery, but as he has read in his wife's notes, that is a perfect place to perform a rite, what in fact he is going to do. I do not know how the novel ends, but the happy ending the film has, is a bit of a turn down... or maybe it's just a thought of our times, when pessimism is more common compared to the high hopes of the early 1960s. A very good film, which I recommend, always keeping it in its own space and time perspective.
