Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

gavin6942 A screenwriter (Adam Baldwin) is plagued by nightmares as he writes a script about a family that was slaughtered years before. Soon, the grisly murders he writes about start to actually happen.I was attracted to this film by Udo Kier, a great actor, here being the creepy German guy he does so well. Unfortunately, Kier's presence is just about the only good thing I can say about the movie (and even then, his role is rather limited -- though more than a cameo).Surprisingly, or maybe not, the movie is rather boring. Baldwin does not hold my attention well, I have no concern for his character. The death scenes, which offer plenty of potential for creativity, just never impress. A shot of a drill is okay, and a quick shot of a man who looks burned is alright... but it is all too tame.The theme of fiction and reality crossing over is done alright, but if I wanted to see something like that done well, I would watch "In the Mouth of Madness". There is also a satanic undertone, but perhaps far too subtle to even be considered a subplot...

bababear EVIL EYES takes a couple of good actors and a decent idea for a plot, then sinks it under an avalanche of bad writing and directing.Adam Baldwin (not related to Alec and company) plays Jeff, happily married to Tree (I didn't make that up, it's the character's name) and trying to succeed in L. A. as a screenwriter. He gets an offer from George, a producer looking for someone to develop a script about a multiple murder 35 years ago.It seems that a filmmaker named Gramm went quite mad and slaughtered his family. Jeff visits the house where the murders took place, and soon sets to work. As time passes he realizes that what he writes in the script also happens in real life, and to people he knows.This is perilously close to Stephen King's short story "Word Processor of the Gods" but this film is obscure enough that King didn't sue.The film is character driven in that our involvement in the story is proportionate to our involvement in the characters. And that's the sticking point.The characters are not involving. Jeff and George are played by two competent actors who bring presence to their roles. The other actors range from competent to awful. A "tense" scene in which Tree's parents try to persuade her that Jeff must abandon the screen writing project goes nowhere because all three performers are terrible. It's hard to get the old adrenaline pumping when people are reading crucial dialog as if they were reciting the alphabet.The direction is unimpressive, and the staging of the climax is done so ineptly that any impact is lost. The "surprises" revealed in the narrative just lie there.I don't think these are bad actors: they're actors delivering bad performances. The director's mind may have been on delivering shocks and gore and he just didn't worry about the actors.I've done a little directing and quite a bit of acting (all on stage) and watching this I wish I could have had time to work with the actors to help them find the humanity in their characters and connect with them; can you tell I'm a product of the 1960's and a believer in Stanislavski's theory of Method Acting, the search for "theatrical truth" in which actors look for the motivation and feelings of the characters and try to connect this with experiences from their own lives to help them relate to the characters they are playing?Visually, it's a mixed bag. Some scenes are atmospheric, using light and shadow effectively. Others aren't.Still, kudos to The Asylum to making a film that's not a direct rip-off a bigger piece of work.

southerntemper The first time I watched this film on Sci-Fi channel, I lost interest halfway through because I thought it was gratuitously graphic and violent. But, upon a second late-night viewing, I realized that the plot is a real mind-bender. I didn't have enough patience the first time I watched it. Also, the second time, I noticed how hot the main actress is. She looks plain, but she is really sexy. The primary actors do a great job, but some of the peripheral roles are filled by amateurs who really make the film look cheap and self-aware. Compared to some other low-budget movies though, Evil Eyes has well-written, believable dialog.

ghoulieguru Are all screenwriters narcissistic? Seems like a lot of them think that their life is so interesting that it deserves to be told to the whole world as a feature film. In a best case scenario, you get Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation... which I liked because it took that narcissism and made fun of it. In a worst case scenario you get Evil Eyes.For the whole movie, the main character goes around doing screenwriter things: talking to his agent, trying to get some job at Dreamworks, complaining about how no one understands his art... etc. Just like Charlie Kaufman in Adaptation, but without any of the style. Boring, boring, boring.About twenty minutes in, our protagonist gets a job offer. It comes from a strange foreign gentleman (a la Angel Heart) and soon he's off writing a MOW about a guy who killed his wife. Pretty soon, he becomes convinced that the words that he writes can actually kill. If anyone out there has ever read the Stephen King short story called Word Processor of the Gods, you'll recognize the plot... that's clearly what the writer stole... Er... was inspired by.