Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

gsygsy A demonstration that a lot can be achieved on a small budget by imaginative filmmakers. The intensity of this movie took me by surprise. I had expected something more plodding, along the lines of Hammer fare from the same period. Instead, here we have inventive camera-work (DOP Reg Wyer, cameraman future DOP Gerry Turpin), a hardworking score by William Alwyn, and a thoughtful leading man in Peter Wyngarde. Director Sidney Hayers had come from TV, where he seems mostly stayed thereafter - a pity, as he clearly rose to the challenge of this material.Best of all are the two excellent performances by Janet Blair and Margaret Johnston. The former, an American who had to come to England to get a part that demonstrated she could really act. The latter, a distinguished stage actress who pulled all the stops out for this rare leading screen role.The pace of the film slackens here and there, but recovers in time for a splendid finale. A couple of scenes would have benefited from retakes because of technical glitches, but I suspect there just wasn't enough money left to do them. It's certainly no worse in this respect, though, than NIGHT OF THE DEMON, which is a clear influence. The Jacques Tourneur movie is more satisfying because of the tautness of its screenplay, but in every other way NIGHT OF THE EAGLE (aka BURN, WITCH, BURN) is as good. I wish it were better known. It certainly deserves to be.

GL84 Attempting to get through to his hysterical wife that her use of charms and trinkets protecting against witchcraft are ludicrous, a man's life changes for the dreadful when he finds himself at the center of a series of strange supernatural hauntings after their destruction.This one turned out to be quite enjoyable for the most part, even though there's some pretty big flaws to this one. The biggest issue with this one that really hurts it is that the later half of the film doesn't really contain much in the way of horror, as what happens to them doesn't have a lot of scares, shocks or gruesome ideas that would turn this into a rather chilling, creepy tale. The threatening student and the resentful colleagues story lines go nowhere, and the rape charge does nothing that really marks this as a horror film, and then the fact that most of these segments are with her catatonic doesn't really offer up much, and with the film's British-like slow-burn pace it takes a while to get going. Still, though, there's a lot of good here in the rather impressive use of magical trinkets and their protective properties, there's some pretty intense scenes and the finale does inject some life into the proceedings by finally having something to do, which does overcome a couple of the flaws and makes it somewhat more enjoyable.Today's Rating/PG: Violence.

vharrison-3 There is something irresistible about older British horror films. Here is one of them. While surfing through NetFlix last night, I ran across this little gem from 1962. The title rang a bell in my memory and I queued it. I became intrigued by the premise and stayed with the film to its exciting ending. Horror film fans who love creepiness at its low key but effective best will find this movie a jewel. It certainly provides a unique insight into academic tenure. The story and acting are great. Admittedly, the film is somewhat dated. It has few special effects. It is nonetheless highly recommended. It still carries a psychological wallop. Enjoy this minor fright classic.

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.