Saw this on a vhs in the mid 80s. Found the demon damn scary then. Revisited it recently on a blu ray. The demon looked pathetic now. Mind you, it jus the scene of the demon which hasnt aged well. If only they wud have stuck with it being more psychological n had not shown the demon, otherwise it is a very good atmospheric horror film with good performances n solid direction. The story is about an American psychologist who arrives in London to expose a supposed warlock through a scientific conference. The psychologist's colleague who was warned by the warlock not to go ahead with the conference becomes a victim of a freak accident. Niall MacGinnis portrayed the role of the warlock well. His get up n looks were funny, same like it was in Jason n the argonauts. Dana Andrews after playing the detective in Laura, played the role of a psychologist convincingly. The director did a terrific job with his Cat people. In that film he relied more on psychology rather than visual impact. If only the studio wud not have forced him to add the demon in this film.

I have watched this film many times and it just gets better.Fantastic set pieces such as the seance scene and also in the lunatic asylum.Niall MacGinnis absolutely steals the show as the sinister Dr Karswell.Ok the demon itself is a bit 'rubber bands and bits of string' (hell, it was made 60 years ago) but that absolutely does not matter as the film is pure atmosphere from start to finish.If you haven't seen it already you're in for an absolute treat!

I realise this film has its fans and they will downvote this review. It's not that the monster effects are bad. Well, they are, but this is not what ruins the film. What ruins it is the fact that the monster is fully revealed within the first 5 or 6 minutes. The smoke effects were scary enough - we didn't need to see more. By revealing a cross-eyed rubber giant right at the beginning, the film lost much of its power to engage and frighten. They could have saved this disappointment for the end, after we had had the chance to enjoy the films many merits. I guess the producer wanted to see all his money on the screen from the start. Had they chosen not to show the demon at all, this film might have been a masterpiece.As horror writer H.P. Lovecraft once said: "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown". Having something unknown, undefined and not entirely visible after us is far more unsettling than something we can see and define.Even the author of the original story upon which this film is based, M.R. James, never described the demon, but rather left it to our imagination, with only hint here or there as to its appearance. James, the master of the Ghost Story, wrote all his stories like that. In his essay on writing fiction, James said "...our ghost should make himself felt by gradual stirrings diffusing an atmosphere of uneasiness before the final flash or stab of horror." All of James's stories follow this rule, so it's somewhat disappointing to see this fundamental rule broken in this adaptation of one of his classics.

This horror certainly has good atmosphere. But when you think the real visual horror sequences of the demon actually harm the movie more than improve it, that's not good. Holden, the skeptical scientist is dull as dishwater, seriously lacking chemistry with Joanna Harrington. I think with her as the lead character it might have been more fun. It doesn't sound right that I actually had more sympathy for Doctor Karswell who is supposed to be the villain and would not have been disappointed had Holden died. Despite the plot or main character couldn't grab me I really liked the séance and hypnosis scene. Thanks to those scenes and the character of Karswell it the movie escapes a failure.