Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Executscan Expected more

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Spikeopath Night of the Eagle (AKA: Burn, Witch, Burn!) is directed by Sidney Hayers and adapted to screenplay by Charles Beaumont, Richard Matheson and George Baxt from the novel "Conjure Wife" written by Fritz Leiber. It stars Peter Wyngarde, Janet Blair, Margaret Johnston, Anthony Nicholls and Colin Gordon. Music is by William Alwyn and cinematography by Reginald Wyer.Psychologist Norman Taylor (Wyngarde) is rocked when he discovers that his wife Tansy has been dabbling in witchcraft. She is adamant that it keeps them from harm and is the reason why his career is flourishing. Not convinced at all, Norman sets about destroying all of Tansy's paraphernalia and soon finds his life taking a drastic downturn…What is neurosis? A nerve-change, the physical basis of consciousness as distinguished from psychosis.This, the second of three adaptations of the Leiber novel to get the big screen treatment, is easily the best, a smouldering suspenser ripe with paranoia and atmospheric unease. Subtle in pacing, it's a marked lesson in gaining the most out of suggestion and understated story telling. Clearly not armed with a gargantuan budget, Hayers and his team rely on the strength of writing and acting to let this Eagle soar, and soar it does.Rites and Practice in Black Magic.The back drop is a place of academic studies, where the faculty indulge in get togethers, of drinks, snacks and card games, but this is all a false veneer. Lurking underneath is a veritable hot-bed of spitefulness, jealousies and bitter rivalries that come to the fore once the black magic forces of evil gather to destroy the Taylors.I do (not) believe.It builds with ambiguity lurking overhead, ensuring the belief system of Norman Taylor and the audience is constantly tested, and then the coiled spring is unleashed. The effects work may not be up to much, but it matters not, the impact is considerably suspenseful, even frightening. No gore or histrionics here, just damn great supernatural film making. 8.5/10

AaronCapenBanner Sidney Hayers directed this British adaptation of the Fritz Leiber novel(previously filmed as "Weird Woman" with Lon Chaney Jr.) that stars Peter Wyngarde as a skeptical college professor who is disdainful of anything supernatural or magic, who is shocked to learn that his wife Tansy(played by Janet Blair) is a practicing witch! She insists that it is because of her good magic that he has proved so successful, but he scoffs and destroys her protective charms; strangely, his luck takes a distinct turn for the worse as a result, as it is also obvious that someone else is targeting them with bad magic as well... Good cast in this moderately interesting thriller that does become somewhat too talky, but still mostly works, with exciting ending.

Michael_Elliott Burn, Witch, Burn (1962) *** 1/2 (out of 4) A college professor (Peter Wyngarde) who doesn't believe in witchcraft is outraged when he discovers that his wife (Janet Blair) is practicing it. The professor takes all of her belongings and destroys them and this here leads to trouble. BURN, WITCH, BURN, also known as NIGHT OF THE EAGLE, is without question one of the best films of its type and it would make a great double feature with another British classic from this era, THE CITY OF THE DEAD. Director Sidney Hayers deserves a lot of credit for the feverish pacing that he brings the film and I really loved the paranoia he makes the viewer feel. The first thirty-minutes basically builds up the evils that could come from throwing away witchcraft items and the director really makes you anticipate what's going to happen once the husband does get rid of the items. The second portion of the film we basically see the downfall and I thought these scenes managed to be quite creepy and highly effective. The sequence at the end with the eagle contained some very good suspense and I'd say that the director perfectly selected how much of the creature we should see (had it been more it probably would have been less effective). Both Wyngarde and Blair are perfect in their roles and you can believe them as a couple and this helps us believe everything that is going on with them. Blair's decent into madness was perfectly handled by the actress and I really liked how Wyngarde went from the non-believer to the tortured. The B&W cinematography is highly effective and I also thought the music score fit the film just fine. The only real problem with the film is that it's a bit too predictable but this doesn't take away from the fun.

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.