AKA "Blind Terror", which I think is the better title. Mia Farrow plays Sarah, a young woman who has lost her sight. She is staying with relatives at their mansion in the English countryside but things go terribly wrong when an unknown maniac enters the house. A tense game of cat and mouse ensues when she is left alone with the killer after he has killed the other occupants.
This is a bit of a slow burn but is worth the watch. Sarah really does suffer and Farrow delivers a fine performance, she is the best thing about this film. There are plenty of effective moments of terror on offer. Sarah is unaware that her family members have been murdered, unable to see the corpses scattered around the house but we can see them and it really is quite horrific. Great camera work, good cast - some very familiar faces to British audiences in particular - and plenty of groovy 70's fashions and tunes. The identity of the killer is not revealed until the end, with a red herring thrown in. My only criticisms are that the film is a bit slow at times and I could see no explanation as to why the events took place, but overall a good, tense chiller.
68 Reviews
A Timeless Classic of the Genre
claudio_carvalho1 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
In the countryside of England, Sarah (Mia Farrow) returns to Manor Farm to live with her uncle George Rexton (Robin Bailey), her aunt Sandy Rexton (Diane Grayson) and her cousin Betty Rexton (Dorothy Alison) after an accident with her horse where she was blind. Sarah knows the interior of the house by heart so she can independently move by herself. When her former boyfriend Steve Reding (Norman Eshley) invites her to visit his horse farm, George and Sandy tell that they are going to visit a friend and Betty tells that she has a date so she will be alone for a couple of hours when she returns to the house. Steve still loves Sarah and they ride together in the fields. When Sarah returns, a maniac has killed her family and the gardener Barker (Brian Rawlinson) but she cannot see them dead. On the next morning, Steve gives a horse to Sarah and she leaves the animal in the stable. When she returns to the manor, she finds that her family was murdered and Barker that is still alive shows her a silver bracelet on the floor with the name of the killer. He tells that she is in danger since the killer will return to the manor to retrieve the bracelet. Barker dies and the killer comes back to the house. Will the frightened Sarah flee from him?
"Blind Terror", a.k.a. "See No Evil" is a timeless classic thriller with an original story. I saw this movie for the first time in the movie theater when I was a teenager and I was impressed with the outstanding performance of Mia Farrow in the beginning of her career. This movie has not aged and it is still a scary British movie. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Terror Cego" ("Blind Terror")
"Blind Terror", a.k.a. "See No Evil" is a timeless classic thriller with an original story. I saw this movie for the first time in the movie theater when I was a teenager and I was impressed with the outstanding performance of Mia Farrow in the beginning of her career. This movie has not aged and it is still a scary British movie. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Terror Cego" ("Blind Terror")
Unusual, suspenseful and chilling. Great addition to any collection.
signposts13 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Enjoyable and suspenseful chiller/thriller. The opening scene - a stranger whose identity is suppressed from the waist up, with only a pair of stylish cowboy boots and a pair of well fitting jeans; worn by a young nicely built male figure to tittilate the viewer's curiosity; leaving the cinema and wandering the evening streets.
The viewer is given an insight to this figure's obvious tastes for the darker/seedier side of life by his viewing and reading material. Hinting at the mind within, perhaps giving us some clues that his interests may go further than the drives of a red blooded male.
A young blind woman "Sarah" is staying with her relatives in beautiful manner house. Her Aunt and Uncle obviously very well heeled "refined" and certainly a class above the "riff raff" or "gypsies" in surrounding areas, were accommodating and concerned for Sara's condition (being thrown tragically from a horse earlier causing the blindness).
The only real initial hint to the horrifying events that later transpire is with Sarah's relatives, early in the movie, who happened to drive past this "stranger" on his evening walk in their stylish wealthy car hitting a puddle and splashing his "stylish" boots as a consequence(which obviously were his pride and joy) ....but was this really the trigger? Either way, it certainly seemed to seal the unfortunate wealthy occupant's fate and perhaps gave this apparent drifter the extra motivation he may have been searching for to find a target to focus on and "hit out". Or were they already selected?
The booted stranger's obvious contempt of the wealthy is evident his in scratching of this same car's paintwork on another occasion. This petty revenge for his boot splash from their expensive merchandise would have surely satisfied him? But apparently not....His revenge/hatred is later to be unleashed in full shocking and cold blooded fury in one foul sweep within their own beautiful home. Leaving only Sarah unscathed to live within the same house blissfully unaware of being amidst a literal slaughter house....until her shocking discovery!
In blind terror (literally) she needs to escape, but this is hard when the killer returns to locate his identity bracelet that fell off his wrist during his rampage! One victim, barely alive, in his last moments manages to direct a hysterical Sarah to the bracelet not a minute too soon before "Mr Boots" arrives on the scene. And here is where the movie REALLY gets going. A cat and blind mouse hunt which keeps the viewer transfixed from then on!
MOVITATION:
The movie seems to leave you wondering what the real movitation of the apparent "stranger/murderer" in the stylish cowboy boots REALLY is.... Is "he" an unemployed drifter? A lone psychopath without any reason other than cold blooded urges? Or is there much more to it? A background we don't know about fueling an already inwardly enraged or even "Deranged" mind? Someone who may have been fully employed and giving no outward indication of what murderous feelings lay within and simply seethed and obsessed for years before finally acting out...
Inner hatred and contempt of the wealthier classes? Feelings of bitterness/revenge against his superiors? particularly those who spoke down to their workers?
Sexual frustration/class frustration and perhaps been a victim of Sandy's light flirations, further fueling his anger?
Could the horse incident have been part of it? Sarah blinded by falling from the horse and the horse being shot because of her becoming handicapped? rather than the apparent "broken leg". Being a stable-hand and probably a love for horses, could that too have influenced this murderer's hatred towards these people?
Or did he so value his boots to such a pathological extent that the idea of those of a "higher class" driving past and causing them to become wet and dirty, further influenced his already growing anger at people he felt were out of his league/class?
Or a combination, mixing in with an already sick mind?
One can only wonder!
DISAPPOINTMENTS:
The ending mainly! A surprisingly exposed and blunt ending, after such a well done suspenseful build up, one would have hoped for the climax to be just as effective...yet somehow it left one somewhat flat. At least it did for me to a point. And perhpas few too many "coincidences" one might say, particularly for the more cynical viewer, but so well done throughout most of the movie that it could still keep you pretty spellbound. Mia's performance was, I think, outstanding. All in all, the movie has repeat value! You can certainly watch it more than once.
REAL SPOILER, DON'T READ IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO KNOW THE MURDERER'S IDENTITY:
If you watch the movie carefully, take note of the stable-hand in the early scenes. One of the workers in Steve's stables. A young, rather attractive young guy with longish light/medium brown hair. You'd almost miss him if you didn't focus and have good face recall! Notice the name Steve calls him as he's coming out to meet Sarah...you just catch it, but he says no more as he's side tracked towards Sarah as she gets out of the car.
Then make the comparison with name on the bracelet that is later found in Manner House and then the face identity revelation at the end ;-)
The viewer is given an insight to this figure's obvious tastes for the darker/seedier side of life by his viewing and reading material. Hinting at the mind within, perhaps giving us some clues that his interests may go further than the drives of a red blooded male.
A young blind woman "Sarah" is staying with her relatives in beautiful manner house. Her Aunt and Uncle obviously very well heeled "refined" and certainly a class above the "riff raff" or "gypsies" in surrounding areas, were accommodating and concerned for Sara's condition (being thrown tragically from a horse earlier causing the blindness).
The only real initial hint to the horrifying events that later transpire is with Sarah's relatives, early in the movie, who happened to drive past this "stranger" on his evening walk in their stylish wealthy car hitting a puddle and splashing his "stylish" boots as a consequence(which obviously were his pride and joy) ....but was this really the trigger? Either way, it certainly seemed to seal the unfortunate wealthy occupant's fate and perhaps gave this apparent drifter the extra motivation he may have been searching for to find a target to focus on and "hit out". Or were they already selected?
The booted stranger's obvious contempt of the wealthy is evident his in scratching of this same car's paintwork on another occasion. This petty revenge for his boot splash from their expensive merchandise would have surely satisfied him? But apparently not....His revenge/hatred is later to be unleashed in full shocking and cold blooded fury in one foul sweep within their own beautiful home. Leaving only Sarah unscathed to live within the same house blissfully unaware of being amidst a literal slaughter house....until her shocking discovery!
In blind terror (literally) she needs to escape, but this is hard when the killer returns to locate his identity bracelet that fell off his wrist during his rampage! One victim, barely alive, in his last moments manages to direct a hysterical Sarah to the bracelet not a minute too soon before "Mr Boots" arrives on the scene. And here is where the movie REALLY gets going. A cat and blind mouse hunt which keeps the viewer transfixed from then on!
MOVITATION:
The movie seems to leave you wondering what the real movitation of the apparent "stranger/murderer" in the stylish cowboy boots REALLY is.... Is "he" an unemployed drifter? A lone psychopath without any reason other than cold blooded urges? Or is there much more to it? A background we don't know about fueling an already inwardly enraged or even "Deranged" mind? Someone who may have been fully employed and giving no outward indication of what murderous feelings lay within and simply seethed and obsessed for years before finally acting out...
Inner hatred and contempt of the wealthier classes? Feelings of bitterness/revenge against his superiors? particularly those who spoke down to their workers?
Sexual frustration/class frustration and perhaps been a victim of Sandy's light flirations, further fueling his anger?
Could the horse incident have been part of it? Sarah blinded by falling from the horse and the horse being shot because of her becoming handicapped? rather than the apparent "broken leg". Being a stable-hand and probably a love for horses, could that too have influenced this murderer's hatred towards these people?
Or did he so value his boots to such a pathological extent that the idea of those of a "higher class" driving past and causing them to become wet and dirty, further influenced his already growing anger at people he felt were out of his league/class?
Or a combination, mixing in with an already sick mind?
One can only wonder!
DISAPPOINTMENTS:
The ending mainly! A surprisingly exposed and blunt ending, after such a well done suspenseful build up, one would have hoped for the climax to be just as effective...yet somehow it left one somewhat flat. At least it did for me to a point. And perhpas few too many "coincidences" one might say, particularly for the more cynical viewer, but so well done throughout most of the movie that it could still keep you pretty spellbound. Mia's performance was, I think, outstanding. All in all, the movie has repeat value! You can certainly watch it more than once.
REAL SPOILER, DON'T READ IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO KNOW THE MURDERER'S IDENTITY:
If you watch the movie carefully, take note of the stable-hand in the early scenes. One of the workers in Steve's stables. A young, rather attractive young guy with longish light/medium brown hair. You'd almost miss him if you didn't focus and have good face recall! Notice the name Steve calls him as he's coming out to meet Sarah...you just catch it, but he says no more as he's side tracked towards Sarah as she gets out of the car.
Then make the comparison with name on the bracelet that is later found in Manner House and then the face identity revelation at the end ;-)
These Boots Were Made For Stalkin'...
azathothpwiggins9 November 2020
Sarah (Mia Farrow) is staying in the country with her aunt and uncle on their vast estate, far removed from the noise and chaos of the city. Unfortunately, these fine people have returned from a trip to said urban center, unaware that someone there has taken an unsavory interest in them.
Soon thereafter, Sarah returns from an outing, and goes about her usual routine, not knowing that her loved ones have met with a catastrophic end. Sarah is blind, and can't see the carnage as she navigates through the huge house. The dire circumstances become a nightmare, and Sarah finds herself hunted by a murderer, identified -to the viewer- only by his distinctive footwear.
Director Richard Fleischer keeps us in the dark with Sarah, using the camera to trick and jolt us along with her. SEE NO EVIL is another fantastic thriller for Ms. Farrow. This time, instead of the Devil, she must attempt to flee from an unknown psychopath. Her sightless journey is nerve-jangling and treacherous, loaded with a school of red herrings! This film is for lovers of mystery, suspense, and the cold touch of horror...
Soon thereafter, Sarah returns from an outing, and goes about her usual routine, not knowing that her loved ones have met with a catastrophic end. Sarah is blind, and can't see the carnage as she navigates through the huge house. The dire circumstances become a nightmare, and Sarah finds herself hunted by a murderer, identified -to the viewer- only by his distinctive footwear.
Director Richard Fleischer keeps us in the dark with Sarah, using the camera to trick and jolt us along with her. SEE NO EVIL is another fantastic thriller for Ms. Farrow. This time, instead of the Devil, she must attempt to flee from an unknown psychopath. Her sightless journey is nerve-jangling and treacherous, loaded with a school of red herrings! This film is for lovers of mystery, suspense, and the cold touch of horror...
I still can't make up my mind about this film
simon-11830 December 2004
There's been quite a few rainy afternoons when I've dusted down my copy of Blind Terror and settled down to watch it again, and every time I'm left with the same feeling: something isn't quite right about this movie, despite obvious skill in places.
Brian Clemens is hardly an intellectual writer, but as a writer of simple television thrillers he's a legend. And like many of the best TV writers, his success as a screenwriter is varied. Both Blind Terror and And Soon The Darkness point the way forward to Clemens' THRILLER TV series of the Seventies, which effectively exploited the "girl in peril" situation. What makes these two movies different is their rather unpleasant, slightly depressing feel. "Darkness" is very slow and rather uneasy in its voyeurism, whilst Terror is a little too nasty to be a wholly enjoyable thriller.
Perhaps the most telling and interesting sequence is actually the opening credits, with Bernstein's enjoyable but somehow inappropriate music accompanying the faceless killer leaving a cinema that is showing "The Convent Murders" and "Rapist Cult", an only slightly exaggerated take on early Seventies exploitation movies in Britain. He then walks along a street where every shop seems to be selling violence: a TV shop has a set displaying a murder taking place, a toy shop sells toy guns and a newsagent displays grim headlines.
From there the movie is rather predictable, and unfolds at a slow pace (nothing really happens until about 50 minutes in) but is somehow pretty watchable all the same. Along the way there are some fascinating glimpses of Seventies Britain to be enjoyed. But from the inexplicable massacre at the house onwards things feel a little sluggish and the killer is so one-dimensional we do not have much interest in his actions. And why does he try and find the bracelet again at the end, as if Sarah would still have it! The ending is terribly abrupt and nothing is explained.
Fleisher's direction though is careful and he uses a fantastic trick of keeping the camera close on Farrow during her long escape sequence so that we cannot see where she is heading either.
There are also a couple of good moments of surprise but the movie is lacking a real scare and the overwhelming impression is one of gloom.
Brian Clemens is hardly an intellectual writer, but as a writer of simple television thrillers he's a legend. And like many of the best TV writers, his success as a screenwriter is varied. Both Blind Terror and And Soon The Darkness point the way forward to Clemens' THRILLER TV series of the Seventies, which effectively exploited the "girl in peril" situation. What makes these two movies different is their rather unpleasant, slightly depressing feel. "Darkness" is very slow and rather uneasy in its voyeurism, whilst Terror is a little too nasty to be a wholly enjoyable thriller.
Perhaps the most telling and interesting sequence is actually the opening credits, with Bernstein's enjoyable but somehow inappropriate music accompanying the faceless killer leaving a cinema that is showing "The Convent Murders" and "Rapist Cult", an only slightly exaggerated take on early Seventies exploitation movies in Britain. He then walks along a street where every shop seems to be selling violence: a TV shop has a set displaying a murder taking place, a toy shop sells toy guns and a newsagent displays grim headlines.
From there the movie is rather predictable, and unfolds at a slow pace (nothing really happens until about 50 minutes in) but is somehow pretty watchable all the same. Along the way there are some fascinating glimpses of Seventies Britain to be enjoyed. But from the inexplicable massacre at the house onwards things feel a little sluggish and the killer is so one-dimensional we do not have much interest in his actions. And why does he try and find the bracelet again at the end, as if Sarah would still have it! The ending is terribly abrupt and nothing is explained.
Fleisher's direction though is careful and he uses a fantastic trick of keeping the camera close on Farrow during her long escape sequence so that we cannot see where she is heading either.
There are also a couple of good moments of surprise but the movie is lacking a real scare and the overwhelming impression is one of gloom.
A Good Thriller
ragosaal12 April 2007
The first 45 minutes of "Blind Terror" are excellent and you have the feeling you're watching a great thriller. Director's Richard Fleischer handling of the atmosphere and introduction of the psycho killer just by showing his feet wearing cowboy boots is brilliant.
But then the boots chase a blind Mia Farrow and as she gets away the film sort of looses intensity and impact and becomes sort of slow. It recovers later with the final sequences and revelation of the psycho.
Mia Farrow's performance as the menaced blind victim is excellent.
Although no one could say this is not an entertaining and exciting thriller -mainly fans of the genre-, you get the feeling that it could have been even better if that in-the-middle-sort-of-bump could have been avoided.
All in all, "Blind Terror" is a good thriller worth watching. A 7 (out of 10) for me.
But then the boots chase a blind Mia Farrow and as she gets away the film sort of looses intensity and impact and becomes sort of slow. It recovers later with the final sequences and revelation of the psycho.
Mia Farrow's performance as the menaced blind victim is excellent.
Although no one could say this is not an entertaining and exciting thriller -mainly fans of the genre-, you get the feeling that it could have been even better if that in-the-middle-sort-of-bump could have been avoided.
All in all, "Blind Terror" is a good thriller worth watching. A 7 (out of 10) for me.
Mia Farrow contributes an additional assault on our emotions.
Nazi_Fighter_David1 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
In "Blind Terror", Mia Farrow had lost her sight in a fall from her horse, but had come to terms with her handicap and was calm, gay and happy to be reunited with her former lover, Steve (Norman Eshley).
Then the first threads of menace appear: a man, seen only as a pair of high-heeled cowboy-style boots, watches the family constantly... We become aware of his envy of their security and their money, and of Sarah's happiness at being home... And then the threat increased into stark horror... Returning home from a ride with Steve, Sarah discovers the bodies, one by one, of her family, murdered in her absence...
Can you imagine the awful progression of such a discovery in a sightless world?
Petrified in her darkness, Sarah stumbles towards the kitchen, to get out for help... She opens the wrong door and falls down the cellar steps... Recovering consciousness, she hears footsteps overhead...
She makes it to the hall, feels her way towards the front door-but it opens towards her and the family gardener is there, shot in the stomach, trying to warn her...
Now gripped by panic, Sarah makes her way cautiously to the stables, gets her horse and leads it out-only to be thrown and left alone in the deserted countryside...
There is more to come... She walks with uncertain, uneven steps, meets a gypsy, and utters breathlessly to him her story... Unsuspectingly, she hands over her one piece of vital evidence-a broken bracelet inscribed 'Jacko.' We can see, but she cannot... The man's look of alarm as he snatches it from her...
It is Steve who rescues her, frightened and covered in mud from scratching her way out of a clay pit... He takes her home... She seems safe at last... She prepares to take a bath... And as she closes the door, we see the telltale cowboy 'boots' standing in the corner... They walk towards her...
For those who like to scream, "Blind Terror" is a competent but routine heart-stopper...
Then the first threads of menace appear: a man, seen only as a pair of high-heeled cowboy-style boots, watches the family constantly... We become aware of his envy of their security and their money, and of Sarah's happiness at being home... And then the threat increased into stark horror... Returning home from a ride with Steve, Sarah discovers the bodies, one by one, of her family, murdered in her absence...
Can you imagine the awful progression of such a discovery in a sightless world?
Petrified in her darkness, Sarah stumbles towards the kitchen, to get out for help... She opens the wrong door and falls down the cellar steps... Recovering consciousness, she hears footsteps overhead...
She makes it to the hall, feels her way towards the front door-but it opens towards her and the family gardener is there, shot in the stomach, trying to warn her...
Now gripped by panic, Sarah makes her way cautiously to the stables, gets her horse and leads it out-only to be thrown and left alone in the deserted countryside...
There is more to come... She walks with uncertain, uneven steps, meets a gypsy, and utters breathlessly to him her story... Unsuspectingly, she hands over her one piece of vital evidence-a broken bracelet inscribed 'Jacko.' We can see, but she cannot... The man's look of alarm as he snatches it from her...
It is Steve who rescues her, frightened and covered in mud from scratching her way out of a clay pit... He takes her home... She seems safe at last... She prepares to take a bath... And as she closes the door, we see the telltale cowboy 'boots' standing in the corner... They walk towards her...
For those who like to scream, "Blind Terror" is a competent but routine heart-stopper...
Worth a watch for horror enthusiasts, but it missed an opportunity to truly distinguish itself in the genre
kevin_robbins24 October 2023
I recently viewed See No Evil (1971) on Tubi. The plot centers around a blind woman returning home after a long absence, only to unknowingly find herself in a house where everyone has met a grim fate. When the perpetrator realizes she's in the house, her life might be in grave danger.
Directed by Richard Fleischer (Red Sonya), the film stars Mia Farrow (Rosemary's Baby), Dorothy Alison (The Third Key), Norman Eshley (Warship), Robin Bailey (The Diplomatic Corpseg and Paul Nicholas (Tommy).
This movie had great potential, featuring a unique premise, well-established circumstances, and an excellent performance by Farrow. Regrettably, it fell short in delivering the horror elements I anticipated, relying heavily on Farrow's acting to portray the blind woman rather than creating a genuinely eerie atmosphere. Notably, the use of cowboy boots added a playful touch, and the depiction of the corpses was commendable. The bathtub scene in the finale was a standout moment in the film.
In summary, See No Evil is worth a watch for horror enthusiasts, but it missed an opportunity to truly distinguish itself in the genre. I would rate this a 5.5-6/10 and recommend considering Audrey Hepburn's Wait Until Dark as a more captivating alternative.
Directed by Richard Fleischer (Red Sonya), the film stars Mia Farrow (Rosemary's Baby), Dorothy Alison (The Third Key), Norman Eshley (Warship), Robin Bailey (The Diplomatic Corpseg and Paul Nicholas (Tommy).
This movie had great potential, featuring a unique premise, well-established circumstances, and an excellent performance by Farrow. Regrettably, it fell short in delivering the horror elements I anticipated, relying heavily on Farrow's acting to portray the blind woman rather than creating a genuinely eerie atmosphere. Notably, the use of cowboy boots added a playful touch, and the depiction of the corpses was commendable. The bathtub scene in the finale was a standout moment in the film.
In summary, See No Evil is worth a watch for horror enthusiasts, but it missed an opportunity to truly distinguish itself in the genre. I would rate this a 5.5-6/10 and recommend considering Audrey Hepburn's Wait Until Dark as a more captivating alternative.
Very effective chiller
HuggyBear122 May 2007
Well made horror/suspense movie from the early 70's about a woman (Farrow), blinded in a horse-riding accident, who goes to live with her Uncle in a house in the English countryside. While she is out with her old boyfriend, something is happening to her Uncle and the rest of her family back in the house. But on returning, how can she know when she cannot see?
Good suspense - sometimes the viewer is a step ahead of the blind woman, other times we are as blind as she is, a great score and good acting by all makes this a wonderful movie for a rainy afternoon. Interesting to see Michael Elphick and a young Paul Nicholas along for the ride too.
Beautifully photographed and directed.
5 out of 5.
Good suspense - sometimes the viewer is a step ahead of the blind woman, other times we are as blind as she is, a great score and good acting by all makes this a wonderful movie for a rainy afternoon. Interesting to see Michael Elphick and a young Paul Nicholas along for the ride too.
Beautifully photographed and directed.
5 out of 5.
A great 2nd act
bensonmum231 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Finally! I've been looking for this movie for years. I can remember seeing See No Evil when I was much younger and it scaring the pants off me. It's not that the movie is hard to find or out-of-print or anything, but I've never known the name. I recently purchased the DVD as a blind buy and, to my surprise, it's the movie I've been looking for.
As I could have predicted, the film didn't live up to the lofty expectations I've placed on it over the years. The film starts much slower than I remembered. Now I'm one of these people who generally can tolerate the slowest moving films, but the first third of See No Evil is just painfully slow. Nothing happens and it seems to be going nowhere. I was also let down by the ending or should I say the lack of an ending. The film just ends. I would have appreciated a little insight into who the killer was. He's just some guy as far as I could tell. I'm not one of those who needs to be spoonfed plot points to determine what's going on, but give me a clue about identity, motivations, and such.
The middle portion of See No Evil, however, is as good as I remembered. It's full of several tense moments and striking visuals, justifying my purchase of the DVD. The whole notion of a blind girl not knowing that those she shares the house with have been brutally murdered all around her is horrifying. The scene where the camera slowly pans to the other side of the blind girl's bedroom, revealing for the first time her dead cousin, is a real highlight. And Mia Farrow is great in the lead role. I really believed she was blind and I could really feel her terror as the movie progressed. It's an excellent performance from a terrific actress.
Even though See No Evil didn't evoke the same reaction it did during my childhood, I'm glad to have finally rediscovered this movie after so many years of searching.
As I could have predicted, the film didn't live up to the lofty expectations I've placed on it over the years. The film starts much slower than I remembered. Now I'm one of these people who generally can tolerate the slowest moving films, but the first third of See No Evil is just painfully slow. Nothing happens and it seems to be going nowhere. I was also let down by the ending or should I say the lack of an ending. The film just ends. I would have appreciated a little insight into who the killer was. He's just some guy as far as I could tell. I'm not one of those who needs to be spoonfed plot points to determine what's going on, but give me a clue about identity, motivations, and such.
The middle portion of See No Evil, however, is as good as I remembered. It's full of several tense moments and striking visuals, justifying my purchase of the DVD. The whole notion of a blind girl not knowing that those she shares the house with have been brutally murdered all around her is horrifying. The scene where the camera slowly pans to the other side of the blind girl's bedroom, revealing for the first time her dead cousin, is a real highlight. And Mia Farrow is great in the lead role. I really believed she was blind and I could really feel her terror as the movie progressed. It's an excellent performance from a terrific actress.
Even though See No Evil didn't evoke the same reaction it did during my childhood, I'm glad to have finally rediscovered this movie after so many years of searching.
So damp and chilly you may catch a cold...
moonspinner5514 September 2007
Every few years, an otherwise adroit screenwriter in need of some fast cash will write and sell a story like this: blind (sometimes deaf) young woman is stalked by a killer. It doesn't take much--a few added details here and there (in this case, the victim is blind AND orphaned)--and some nastiness for an added effect, such as Mia Farrow unknowingly starting a bath with a body in the tub! It's a cold, grainy thriller with much hysteria and an abrupt ending, but if you're in the mood for yet another woman-in-distress picture, this one at least has Farrow in the lead and she's a lovely presence (though still trying to find her niche at this point, post-"Rosemary's Baby"). Plot-wise, there are some ridiculous turns of the screw, particularly a dead-end thread involving a gypsy family, which may have been forgivable had the filmmakers come up with a sound conclusion. ** from ****
She didn't see it coming.
BA_Harrison19 October 2008
Mention Mia Farrow's name to horror fans and most of them will instantly (and understandably) think of Polanski's classic, Rosemary's Baby; my immediate thought, however, would be of Blind Terror, a lesser known thriller in which Ms. Farrow plays Sarah, a blind girl whose relatives become the target of a psycho killer after her uncle accidentally splashes the loony's precious cowboy boots. I first saw this film at a rather tender age and its macabre concept, senseless killing and shocking images have haunted me ever since.
Directed by Richard Fleischer, Blind Terror opens with our nutter leaving a cinema (having caught the amazing sounding double-bill of 'The Convent Murders' and 'Rapist Cult'). He then passes a newspaper stand displaying horrific headlines, a store with a display of toy guns, and a TV shop showing a bloodthirsty film; violence, it seems, is all around us, although often we choose not to see it. Poor blind Sarah, on the other hand, doesn't have much of a choice: after the soggy-footed psycho pays a visit to her Uncle's farmhouse (whilst she is out with her boyfriend), she returns home, and prepares for bed, all the while blissfully unaware that the bloody corpses of her nearest and dearest lay all around her.
Only when Sarah eventually tries to get into her bath does she realise that something is terribly wrongbecause that's where her uncle's lifeless body has been dumped! Meanwhile, the killer discovers that he has left behind a vital clue that could reveal his identity, and returns to the farmhouse to find it...
Fleischer's deliberately paced and carefully considered direction (which makes brilliant use of imaginative camera angles and cleverly framed shots), combined with excellent cinematography from Gerry Fisher and a completely convincing central performance from Farrow, ensure that this film is a success despite a few rather contrived moments in an otherwise well-crafted script by Brian Clemens (a case of mistaken identity at the end of the film is rather far-fetched, and the fact that Sandy, Sarah's pretty cousin, would date a 'diddycoy' is also difficult to swallow).
Atmospheric, suspenseful, and packed with nerve-shredding moments, Blind Terror is an under-rated slice of 70s British cinema that, although not perfect, is still well worth seeking out.
7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.
Directed by Richard Fleischer, Blind Terror opens with our nutter leaving a cinema (having caught the amazing sounding double-bill of 'The Convent Murders' and 'Rapist Cult'). He then passes a newspaper stand displaying horrific headlines, a store with a display of toy guns, and a TV shop showing a bloodthirsty film; violence, it seems, is all around us, although often we choose not to see it. Poor blind Sarah, on the other hand, doesn't have much of a choice: after the soggy-footed psycho pays a visit to her Uncle's farmhouse (whilst she is out with her boyfriend), she returns home, and prepares for bed, all the while blissfully unaware that the bloody corpses of her nearest and dearest lay all around her.
Only when Sarah eventually tries to get into her bath does she realise that something is terribly wrongbecause that's where her uncle's lifeless body has been dumped! Meanwhile, the killer discovers that he has left behind a vital clue that could reveal his identity, and returns to the farmhouse to find it...
Fleischer's deliberately paced and carefully considered direction (which makes brilliant use of imaginative camera angles and cleverly framed shots), combined with excellent cinematography from Gerry Fisher and a completely convincing central performance from Farrow, ensure that this film is a success despite a few rather contrived moments in an otherwise well-crafted script by Brian Clemens (a case of mistaken identity at the end of the film is rather far-fetched, and the fact that Sandy, Sarah's pretty cousin, would date a 'diddycoy' is also difficult to swallow).
Atmospheric, suspenseful, and packed with nerve-shredding moments, Blind Terror is an under-rated slice of 70s British cinema that, although not perfect, is still well worth seeking out.
7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.
Run Mia Run!
shepardjessica-14 January 2005
After ROSEMARY'S BABY Mia Farrow should have learned to never TRUST ANYBODY..especially if you're blind. The cowboy boots are pretty menacing and Ms. Farrow was incredible playing "victims", but this does tend to meander on a bit. It does have some incredibly frightening moments and great locale, and I rate it a 6 with Mia giving the best performance.
You're in STRAW DOGS "country" here where serial killers run amok "quietly". Well-directed with decent cinematography, but lacking that extra "push" to put it over. Very creepy though for a late-night watch. Ms. Farrow was an under-rated actress, especially in the 60's and 70's. ROSEMARY'S BABY should have netted her gold and she wasn't even nominated...thanks Frank!
You're in STRAW DOGS "country" here where serial killers run amok "quietly". Well-directed with decent cinematography, but lacking that extra "push" to put it over. Very creepy though for a late-night watch. Ms. Farrow was an under-rated actress, especially in the 60's and 70's. ROSEMARY'S BABY should have netted her gold and she wasn't even nominated...thanks Frank!
Don't See This One!
JLRMovieReviews27 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I've always said, the ending makes or breaks a film. Well, in this instance, it breaks it.
We see the boots of a guy hanging out in town, who walks out of a movie theater showing horror/cult movies and proceeds to get mud splattered on his boots by a passing car. Big mistake on the driver's part. Big! This guy holds grudges. Mia Farrow, who lost her sight from falling off her horse while riding, (which we learn later on in the movie) is part of the family, but she is out when the guy comes calling and kills the mother, sister, and father, who incidentally was driving the car that splattered him. When Mia gets back, by walking only in her normal paced steps, she totally misses broken glass and other things obvious to people who can see. She sleeps the whole night not knowing they are in the house and dead. (She thought they went out and got back late at night and slept in awfully late.)
Then, the killer finds he's missing something that would identify him and has to get back to the house to retrieve it. Then the real action begins, or so you think. But the best part of the whole film is the anticipation. Unfortunately, nothing really happens to merit much praise for this film. It's not as good as one might expect. As you're watching it, it feels appropriately eerie and atmospheric. But looking back on it, it feels like a letdown. But, I rate this as high as I did because of Mia's credible performance. And, I did appreciate the sequence when she goes riding with her boyfriend in the sun and the wind, as she feels alive and in love, not knowing what was in the house.
***MAJOR SPOILERS***
To begin with, there's a gypsy clan camping out nearby and we are shown one in particular who was hanging around the house, but it turns out he's not the killer after all. And, also, once Mia manages to get away from the killer and is running from the house, the movie tends to lose the viewer's interest. And, the final five minutes are ridiculous, as her best friend sees the id bracelet with the name on it, but fails to realize one of his friends has that name. And, not only that, but he then sends everyone else off to look for the killer, "but not you, you stay and make sure she's alright" to the actual killer, who goes into the bathroom, where Mia is taking a bath and he proceeds to drown her, and at the last possible second the boyfriend comes in and saves her. There's no natural progression that allows the viewer to believe such incredible goings on. The ending just totally blew it for me. It might would have been more believable and realistic if she had died, but then why did he go in to kill her anyway? Didn't he know he'd get caught? But they limited themselves also by not showing the killer's face until the ending, like it was some fancy technique; when in fact, it made it all seem awkward. Also, one petty detail, I couldn't stand all the men's haircut. Was this shaggy look a 70s thing or what?
This may be a curiosity piece for some, but I bet once you've seen this, you'll feel let down too.
We see the boots of a guy hanging out in town, who walks out of a movie theater showing horror/cult movies and proceeds to get mud splattered on his boots by a passing car. Big mistake on the driver's part. Big! This guy holds grudges. Mia Farrow, who lost her sight from falling off her horse while riding, (which we learn later on in the movie) is part of the family, but she is out when the guy comes calling and kills the mother, sister, and father, who incidentally was driving the car that splattered him. When Mia gets back, by walking only in her normal paced steps, she totally misses broken glass and other things obvious to people who can see. She sleeps the whole night not knowing they are in the house and dead. (She thought they went out and got back late at night and slept in awfully late.)
Then, the killer finds he's missing something that would identify him and has to get back to the house to retrieve it. Then the real action begins, or so you think. But the best part of the whole film is the anticipation. Unfortunately, nothing really happens to merit much praise for this film. It's not as good as one might expect. As you're watching it, it feels appropriately eerie and atmospheric. But looking back on it, it feels like a letdown. But, I rate this as high as I did because of Mia's credible performance. And, I did appreciate the sequence when she goes riding with her boyfriend in the sun and the wind, as she feels alive and in love, not knowing what was in the house.
***MAJOR SPOILERS***
To begin with, there's a gypsy clan camping out nearby and we are shown one in particular who was hanging around the house, but it turns out he's not the killer after all. And, also, once Mia manages to get away from the killer and is running from the house, the movie tends to lose the viewer's interest. And, the final five minutes are ridiculous, as her best friend sees the id bracelet with the name on it, but fails to realize one of his friends has that name. And, not only that, but he then sends everyone else off to look for the killer, "but not you, you stay and make sure she's alright" to the actual killer, who goes into the bathroom, where Mia is taking a bath and he proceeds to drown her, and at the last possible second the boyfriend comes in and saves her. There's no natural progression that allows the viewer to believe such incredible goings on. The ending just totally blew it for me. It might would have been more believable and realistic if she had died, but then why did he go in to kill her anyway? Didn't he know he'd get caught? But they limited themselves also by not showing the killer's face until the ending, like it was some fancy technique; when in fact, it made it all seem awkward. Also, one petty detail, I couldn't stand all the men's haircut. Was this shaggy look a 70s thing or what?
This may be a curiosity piece for some, but I bet once you've seen this, you'll feel let down too.
A sort of British Giallo
searchanddestroy-114 November 2016
Yes, I am sure Dario Argento must have liked this movie, which was made in the early seventies, at the same he he began his career. I have watched this Dick Fleischer's film at least a dozen times and each time I love it more and more, I discover things I did not the previous time. For instance those camera movements near the floor, showing the feet whilst Mia Farrow walks barefoot - or in socks - through the living room and also the kitchen with the broken glass. This is suspense to me, when you know and see something that the character in the movie does not .. So terrifying. And the astounding Elmer Bernstein music score. It deserves to be seen by new generations of viewers, of audiences at all costs. A true masterpiece. Dick Fleischer was really a great and especially eclectic director, able to make thrillers, science fiction, adventures films as fantastic as for instance Bob Wise was. Maybe only the western genre was not really their cup of tea, although they both have made some, but not the best ever. I have always put both of them in the same basket. And both began their career at RKO pictures, as Mark Robson. And I am not surprised that the writing is from The AVENGERS series creator and best writer too: Brian Clemens.
Pretty good solid thriller
preppy-310 April 2003
A blind woman (Mia Farrow) goes to live at her uncle's huge, remote house in England. Her uncle (by mistake) splashes water on some stranger's boots (we never see the stranger, only the boots). While Mia is away, the stranger comes to the house and kills the entire family. Mia returns and slowly begins to realize something is wrong. Then the killer returns...
Well-made (there's some truly beautiful photography here), well-acted (Farrow is just great) and suspenseful. Also you never see the killer's face till the end--only his boots--it greatly adds to the creepiness. I'm giving it a 7. It just stops short of being a great thriller because it's way too mannered and quiet. I applaud them for not throwing blood on the screen (there's a little but not much) but everything else is just too damn laid back. A bit more emotion or action would have helped.
Still, as it is, a pretty good little thriller. Worth seeing. Watch out for the boots!
Well-made (there's some truly beautiful photography here), well-acted (Farrow is just great) and suspenseful. Also you never see the killer's face till the end--only his boots--it greatly adds to the creepiness. I'm giving it a 7. It just stops short of being a great thriller because it's way too mannered and quiet. I applaud them for not throwing blood on the screen (there's a little but not much) but everything else is just too damn laid back. A bit more emotion or action would have helped.
Still, as it is, a pretty good little thriller. Worth seeing. Watch out for the boots!
A taut thriller
safenoe16 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this ages ago in a cinema believe it or not, and it was plain scary for sure. Anyway, Mia Farrow was most impressive playing a blind character and avoiding the the clutches of the murderers. See No Evil deserves a reboot. I suggest Danny Dyer play the lead role, and I'm sure he will get an Oscar nod finally.
These boots are made for walking.
lost-in-limbo28 August 2006
After being blinded by a horse-riding accident, the young woman, Sarah goes to live with her uncle and aunt in the countryside for a few days. Soon after a visiting a close friend, she returns back home and then discovers that the family and caretaker have been murdered. Now she's all-alone and the killer returns back to the isolated estate to collect something he has left behind.
Well, a friend of mine lent out the film to me and rated it rather highly. So that in mind, I wasn't terribly impressed by it when I got around to it. Did I expect too much? Though I definitely have mix feelings, as it is a fine thriller with skillful direction, piercing music score and gusto camera-work. On the other hand, it was the film's routine material that just didn't shape up and totally build-up the situation. The straightforward plot doesn't generate too much and it contains so many vague avenues and easy coincidences that feel unfocused. After a somewhat leisurely paced first half that has too many plodding scenes, it makes way by finally maximizing the tight knit and scary idea with some relentless scenes of suspense and blistering images. This is when the uniquely formatted and passionate camera-work, like in a third persons point of view, takes hold and along with a hysterical music score. Then it falls at the final hurdle with a clumsy conclusion that I found to be quite unsatisfying. Director Richard Fleischer manages to give the flick a raw appeal; a few thumping shocks and paints an alienating air from its secluded countryside. Now what gave the flick the emotional pull was the genuine performance from Mia Farrow. She's magnificent in quite a challenging role, which she nails down perfectly. You feel every painstaking ordeal she encounters, because the tension mostly arises from this harrowing factor. The rest of the cast were very lukewarm, but competent.
Curious, but nothing more than a modest thriller with a bravura turn by Farrow.
Well, a friend of mine lent out the film to me and rated it rather highly. So that in mind, I wasn't terribly impressed by it when I got around to it. Did I expect too much? Though I definitely have mix feelings, as it is a fine thriller with skillful direction, piercing music score and gusto camera-work. On the other hand, it was the film's routine material that just didn't shape up and totally build-up the situation. The straightforward plot doesn't generate too much and it contains so many vague avenues and easy coincidences that feel unfocused. After a somewhat leisurely paced first half that has too many plodding scenes, it makes way by finally maximizing the tight knit and scary idea with some relentless scenes of suspense and blistering images. This is when the uniquely formatted and passionate camera-work, like in a third persons point of view, takes hold and along with a hysterical music score. Then it falls at the final hurdle with a clumsy conclusion that I found to be quite unsatisfying. Director Richard Fleischer manages to give the flick a raw appeal; a few thumping shocks and paints an alienating air from its secluded countryside. Now what gave the flick the emotional pull was the genuine performance from Mia Farrow. She's magnificent in quite a challenging role, which she nails down perfectly. You feel every painstaking ordeal she encounters, because the tension mostly arises from this harrowing factor. The rest of the cast were very lukewarm, but competent.
Curious, but nothing more than a modest thriller with a bravura turn by Farrow.
Disappointing considering what could have been
The_Void12 June 2006
The last film I saw about a blind woman in peril was the classic 'Wait Until Dark', and I figured that if Blind Terror could deliver just a fraction of the brilliance of Terence Young's masterpiece, it would be at least worth watching. Unfortunately, however, while this film certainly has its moments; I've got to rate it as a disappointment on the whole. As you would expect, good use of the lead character's affliction is made throughout; and Mia Farrow really does do an excellent job of convincing the audience that she is a blind woman, and her plain looks and frail persona help this immensely as she gives a warm lead performance that is always easy to empathise with. The plot follows Sarah (Mia Farrow) after she was blinded by being thrown off a horse. She goes to stay with her aunt and uncle on their farm in the British countryside. She returns home one day to find that somebody else has been there before her, and murdered all the members of the household. After fleeing the scene on horseback, the murderer is still on the loose and she may not be out of danger just yet.
The main problem with this film is that it's not very exciting, and this isn't very good considering that it's supposed to be a thriller. The first half hour is very slow and nothing much happens, other than the scene being set for what is to come. The film reaches its peak around the middle, as the scenes that see Sarah discover that everyone has been killed are genuinely harrowing and filled with suspense. After that, however, Blind Terror grinds back down; and while the fact that the lead is blind is always at the forefront of the tale, and her affliction does provide some interest; this film certainly could have been a lot better. The farmyard setting is good and seeing Mia Farrow get caked in mud nicely accents her desperate situation. This location also provides isolation for the characters, and this helps the film again when it comes to desperation as it's obvious that help isn't readily available. The climax to the murder mystery isn't very good, as any ideas about possible suspects you might have had are thrown out the window, as the murderer's identity is simply thrown into the plot. Overall, this isn't bad; and that is thanks mostly to Mia Farrow's performance. Blind Terror could easily have been a lot better, though.
The main problem with this film is that it's not very exciting, and this isn't very good considering that it's supposed to be a thriller. The first half hour is very slow and nothing much happens, other than the scene being set for what is to come. The film reaches its peak around the middle, as the scenes that see Sarah discover that everyone has been killed are genuinely harrowing and filled with suspense. After that, however, Blind Terror grinds back down; and while the fact that the lead is blind is always at the forefront of the tale, and her affliction does provide some interest; this film certainly could have been a lot better. The farmyard setting is good and seeing Mia Farrow get caked in mud nicely accents her desperate situation. This location also provides isolation for the characters, and this helps the film again when it comes to desperation as it's obvious that help isn't readily available. The climax to the murder mystery isn't very good, as any ideas about possible suspects you might have had are thrown out the window, as the murderer's identity is simply thrown into the plot. Overall, this isn't bad; and that is thanks mostly to Mia Farrow's performance. Blind Terror could easily have been a lot better, though.
Clemens Never Lets Me Down
ferbs5413 October 2007
The appearance of Brian Clemens' name in the credits of any film or television production is, for me, kind of like a Seal of Approval. From the hit '60s TV show "The Avengers" to such marvelous horror films as "Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde" ('72) and "Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter" ('74), the man has never let me down. And, I'm happy to report, his "See No Evil" ('71) is no exception. In this one, the recently blinded Sarah, superbly played by Mia Farrow, comes to live with her aunt's family...a family that is soon butchered by a "maniac on the loose." All we know for sure is that this wacko sports a pair of gold-starred cowboy boots, which knowledge has us glancing suspiciously at the footwear of every male character in the film, natch! It is almost agonizingly suspenseful watching poor Sarah putter around her aunt's home, unaware of the bodies lying so close to her, and that suspense is only ratcheted up several notches when she finally does learn what has happened, and that the killer is on his way back to the house. I don't think the Master of Suspense himself, Alfred Hitchcock, could have squeezed any more tension out of this scenario than writer Clemens and director Richard Fleischer have done. Besides this wonderful setup, which may have viewers recalling such other "handicapped women vs. psycho killer" films as "The Spiral Staircase" ('46) and "Wait Until Dark" ('67), the film gives us some beautiful views of the autumnal Berkshire countryside and another fine score by the great Elmer Bernstein. But this is Farrow's show all the way, and she is utterly convincing as the blind and fragile, yet spunky and surprisingly resourceful Sarah. My stomach was in knots by the end of this British wringer, and I would have to say that "See No Evil" is one that you absolutely must see....
Dull script defeats good direction.
gridoon24 May 2003
Virtuoso direction by Richard Fleischer, and some great camerawork. And an utterly convincing Mia Farrow as the blind, defenseless heroine. But, boy is the script of this movie dull! An excessively simple AND poorly explained story is needlessly stretched out to 90 minutes. Recommended only if you can't find a truly first-class thriller to rent. (**)
Unexciting but occasionally suspenseful slasher
fertilecelluloid24 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Unexciting thriller that can boast a couple of suspenseful sequences involving a blind girl (Mia Farrow) stalked by a boot-wearing psychopath. Brian Clemens, the man behind TV's "The Avengers", and TV's "Thriller", wrote the literate but restrained screenplay. The film feels like a forerunner to "Straw Dogs" in its authentic depiction of rural English life. Unfortunately, it is a little too mannered and too polite to be effective horror. The premise is a good one, but it is not exploited too well and the killer's totally anonymous status doesn't add interest. Well shot by Gerry Fisher and directed with some flair by Richard Fleischer. The killings happen off-screen and the dead body make-up is of the tomato ketchup variety. Farrow is excellent as the blind girl and even submerges herself in mud and filth in one sequence. It would not be erroneous to call this a very early entry in the slasher genre.
A gem of a movie
meathookcinema8 October 2018
I knew this would be a great film when I saw it was written by Brian Clemens who wrote, amongst other things, the amazing series called Thriller. I wasn't wrong. This is a cracking movie.
Mia Farrow plays Sarah, a girl who is returning home after being in hospital after a fall from a horse has made her go blind.
She is greeted by her mother and father. She goes for a nap and doesn't realise that when she wakes up her entire family have been murdered. There is a VERY unsettling sequence in which she doesn't realise this and goes about her business with the dead bodies of her nearest and dearest around her. When she enters the kitchen we are shocked to discover that as she makes a cup of coffee the killer is actually sat at the kitchen table watching her every move while she is completely oblivious.
She soon discovers everyone is dead. And thats when things start to become really tense.
The killer is kept secret from the audience but it identifiable only because of a distinctive pair of boots he wears, each with a star on them. The killer's walk from the cinema at the very start of the film is an incredible sequence.
Theres stars from stage and screen in this film. Norman Eshley (Tristran's dad from George and Mildred), Michael 'Boon' Elphick, Paul 'Just Good Friends' Nicholas and Lila Kaye, the landlady from The Slaughtered Lamb in An American Werewolf in London all appear.
Mia Farrow is totally believable in the lead role and coupled with some excellent direction and we have some truly tense, edge of the seat moments. Check out the scene where she moves around and through the arches in the huge house she lives in so that the killer won't see her. Outstanding acting and camerawork.
I watched Indicator's Blu ray for this review and it is exceptional. Theres even another cut of the film that went by the title 'Blind Terror' on the disc. Indicator are fast becoming a Blu ray label to rival the very best Blu ray companies out there.
Mia Farrow plays Sarah, a girl who is returning home after being in hospital after a fall from a horse has made her go blind.
She is greeted by her mother and father. She goes for a nap and doesn't realise that when she wakes up her entire family have been murdered. There is a VERY unsettling sequence in which she doesn't realise this and goes about her business with the dead bodies of her nearest and dearest around her. When she enters the kitchen we are shocked to discover that as she makes a cup of coffee the killer is actually sat at the kitchen table watching her every move while she is completely oblivious.
She soon discovers everyone is dead. And thats when things start to become really tense.
The killer is kept secret from the audience but it identifiable only because of a distinctive pair of boots he wears, each with a star on them. The killer's walk from the cinema at the very start of the film is an incredible sequence.
Theres stars from stage and screen in this film. Norman Eshley (Tristran's dad from George and Mildred), Michael 'Boon' Elphick, Paul 'Just Good Friends' Nicholas and Lila Kaye, the landlady from The Slaughtered Lamb in An American Werewolf in London all appear.
Mia Farrow is totally believable in the lead role and coupled with some excellent direction and we have some truly tense, edge of the seat moments. Check out the scene where she moves around and through the arches in the huge house she lives in so that the killer won't see her. Outstanding acting and camerawork.
I watched Indicator's Blu ray for this review and it is exceptional. Theres even another cut of the film that went by the title 'Blind Terror' on the disc. Indicator are fast becoming a Blu ray label to rival the very best Blu ray companies out there.
An average, suspenseful thriller with good actors
ernesti30 October 2012
I wasn't quite sure what to expect of this movie and after seeing i didn't really know how to rate it. I'll try anyway.
The idea of a blind main character is somehow original but just about anything else makes it an average and somewhat predictable thriller. The film offers a few scares and some intense scenes and towards the end everything is very obvious and predictable.
The movie could have been made more suspenseful with the use of more sound effects and ambient but i can understand that the movie portrays the blind main character's feelings and how she was clueless of the horrific acts that took place in the house while she was away.
The movie looks aged but still it is enjoyable for thriller fans. It is not too special but it isn't too bland either. I could say that it's far better than the mainstream thrillers of today. The filmmakers used to make good movies in the past, even in the mainstream.
In overall the film was enjoyable and it's not a bad choice for a viewing with friends.
The idea of a blind main character is somehow original but just about anything else makes it an average and somewhat predictable thriller. The film offers a few scares and some intense scenes and towards the end everything is very obvious and predictable.
The movie could have been made more suspenseful with the use of more sound effects and ambient but i can understand that the movie portrays the blind main character's feelings and how she was clueless of the horrific acts that took place in the house while she was away.
The movie looks aged but still it is enjoyable for thriller fans. It is not too special but it isn't too bland either. I could say that it's far better than the mainstream thrillers of today. The filmmakers used to make good movies in the past, even in the mainstream.
In overall the film was enjoyable and it's not a bad choice for a viewing with friends.
See No Point.
jonathancanucklevine3 June 2021
I can't decide whether this movie is a turkey or a dog. Maybe a turg. Or a dogkey. No matter, it's trash, and I can't figure out why, in the middle of a run like The Boston Strangler, 10 Rillington Place, The New Centurions, and Soylent Green - all true modern classics - Richard Fleischer would churn out something so terrible. Right from the outset it's bad; the nameless, faceless psycho malefactor is only allowed to express itself via a tacky pair of cowboy boots, and it's a gimmick that falls flat. Farrow as the blind victim offers no insight (pun intended) into her character or predicament, opting instead for wandering around a giant mud bog and banging on stuff. There's just nothing here. Nothing.
Now, if you want a blind-woman-in-peril movie, do not pass go, and do not collect $200: Go directly to "Wait Until Dark".
Now, if you want a blind-woman-in-peril movie, do not pass go, and do not collect $200: Go directly to "Wait Until Dark".
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
