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.
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.