Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

bill_golden What an odd little movie. This is one of the earliest Roger Corman films, and I would recommend it only if you are a hardcore, dedicated Corman fan. It's very slow-going, although there was something about the unusual setting of the story that kept me watching for the entire 90 minutes or so. It takes place on an isolated date ranch in the southern California desert. (I'm not sure how many such ranches still exist in Calif. but that's another matter.)Looking for dazzling special effects? Nope, not here. Looking for unexpected chills and thrills? Not here. Paul Birch plays the main character, who lives on the ranch with his wife and teenage daughter, along with a peculiar fellow who lives in a nearby shack, or guest house, if you will. Strange things start occurring, somehow related to a space craft which had landed nearby. Technically, aside from the scenery, this movie is amateurish with lame dialog and terrible editing.Is it worth watching? Probably not. However, if you're in the mood for a very primitive 50's sci-fi story with Roger Corman's name attached to it, give it a look, like I did tonight on TCM when I had nothing better to do.

stephentec While this is a very low budget film, a bit of editing would have helped, and there are several continuity mistakes it has a interesting plot line and some of the acting is good, I just watched it for the first time since I was a kid and I enjoyed seeing Paul Birch again. While not a great film it does bring out some of the feelings of the mid 50s about who we are and what makes us human. As noted in other reviews there are a lot of mistakes, for fun try to find them, the biggest problem was not making enough use of the different treats and showing way too much running back and forth. But with only 6 actors they had to fill with something.

bensonmum2 Not a very hard plot to describe: an alien force lands in the desert and soon begins to use animals (and a few weaker-minded humans) to do its bidding. The terror begins when the animals go berserk and start attacking the humans. In the end, the creature is discovered and defeated by something it cannot understand – love (no, I'm not making that up).The Beast with a Million Eyes was the third movie in a three picture deal Roger Corman had worked out with the cleverly named American Releasing Corporation (later AIP). Because this was the last movie in the deal, there wasn't much money left for a budget as is painfully obvious. Corman's plan to use a mostly invisible, unseen creature that attacked people through thought waves was genius in that it could be done cheaply with little to no special effects. Unfortunately, it makes for one very dull experience. Instead of a cool creature, the movie relies on acting. And as with the special effects, there's little to no real acting taking place in the movie. Most everyone involved is horrible. The only thing of interest to be found in the cast is a very young Dick Sargent of Bewitched fame in his first credited role. The script doesn't help. Actors are forced to say the silliest, most unnatural lines imaginable. The "Million Eyes" of the title are more metaphorical than anything else. The Beast uses the million of eyes of the animals and humans it dominated to see with. Get it? Clever, huh? In fact, the whole title – The Beast with a Million Eyes – is, to say the least, misleading. But I suppose it drew a bigger crowd than a more accurate title like The Shiny Spinning Coffee Pot in the Desert would have. Finally, there's that whole beyond hokey ending where (once again) love conquers all. Oh please! Can we be just a bit more cliché?Obviously, The Beast with a Million Eyes is far from the best sci-fi movie or the best Roger Corman related movie out there. But it does get a bonus point or two for effort and trying something different. Who knows, with a real budget, real special effects, a real Beast, a real script, and real actors, things might have turned out differently.

Maciste_Brother THE BEAST WITH A MILLION EYES is a small brilliant no budget film. It's probably the first existential science fiction film ever made. That's all I need to say about it to explain why I like it.This film was made before the now familiar plot-line of animals attacking humans, like THE BIRDS. In fact, this film reminds me a lot of THE BIRDS, which I think is brilliant but kudos to whoever wrote this evocative no budget wonder. The similarities between the two is really striking. Hitchcock most likely saw this film and was "inspired" by it. Even the low key near minimalistic tone is identical. The existential tone is also unique for that time and was made before TV shows like TWILIGHT ZONE or sci-fi flicks in the late 1960s or 1970s (like Russian sci-fi flicks) made these bleak sci-fi/horror/fantasy themes popular with the general public. Today, these kind of stories are common in movies or TV programs. The B&W cinematography is at times stunning, more than this type of film usually has. Moody and very atmospheric. The sensational title makes sense because the alien uses all the animals to see and control the environment around humans, hence the million eyes. The original title was supposed to be The Unseen and it didn't have the alien part of the end and one can see what they tried to do. But the current ending doesn't destroy the film.Just because the film has no budget, no stars, that it's basically bare-bones, doesn't mean it should be dismissed for the things it tried to do. Yes, the film is far from perfect but I admire it for what it tried to do, certainly in an era that relied too easily on cheesy stuff. It's (intentional or unintentional) low key brilliance.