The Headless Eyes

Hahahaha! This film is great. If you are looking for low-budget crap from the early 70's, check this grade Z film out. No budget, horrible editing, some atrocious acting, and eyeballs.

The plot is so simple, even a 10 year old could have thought of it. A struggling artist decides to rob a woman's apartment in the middle of the night so he can afford to keep his shop open. In the process of the robbery, the woman wakes up and scoops his eyeball out with a spoon. He gets away, only after screaming "MY EYE! AHHHAHHH my eyeeeee....." over and over again. This whole event changes his life and he decides to start killing woman, remove their eyeballs and use them to further his art career.

This movie is so bad, but I really enjoyed it. The beginning of the movie is possibly one of the funniest moments I have ever seen in a movie. When he gets his eye removed and starts screaming about it, the sound editors decided to loop his scream over and over again, looping it about 6 or 7 times. You just have to see it to really understand.

The gore in the film is hilarious. There isn't a whole lot of it, but there are a few scenes noteworthy. If anything, it is far more bloody then it is gory. Don't expect HG Lewis here, though.

If you like this stuff, it is worth a watch. I thought it was great, but that is just my opinion. 7/10

My review was written in March 1983 after a Greenwich Village screening.

"The Headless Eyes" is a 1971 gore thriller so obscure that no credits or details about it are listed in comprehensive horror encyclopedias. It is reviewed here, finally, for the record.

Set in New York, picture opens with lead Bo Brundin robbing a woman in her apartment to raise his rent money (he's a struggling artist). Defending herself with a teaspoon, the victim pokes his eye out, setting of Brundin's grisly mania of killing women and gouging out their eyes with a spoon of his own.

Generically related to the familiar mad sculptor/wax museum films, story has Brundin creating plastic artwork incorporating the eyes. Plentiful blood and adequately simulated gore account for the picture's X rating, awarded by the MPA A in 1973.

Technical quality is extremely poor, with a grainy blowup from 16mm lensing.

Director Kent Bateman did an about-face by helming the G-rated "Land of No Return" starring Mel Torme. "Eyes" is interesting for the earnest overacting of Brundin, who later moved up to a leading role opposite Robert Redford in "The Great Waldo Pepper".

Long ago(the mid eighties, before it became chic to diss bad movies and glorify their ineptitude), I caught this freaky flick the way nature intended, on a late-night horror show on an independent TV station. Even then, before the advent of our culture of irony, I knew I'd seen something so unrelentingly bad that it was remarkable. This movie concerns an artist who, while attempting to rob a sleeping woman to get rent money, has one eye put out by his victim. Driven insane, he goes about the unnamed city where he lives(New York), encountering various people, killing them, then attaching their eyeballs to mobiles and suspending them in blocks of acrylic. The victims include a boozy, bickering middle aged couple, a prostitute, and a middle-aged receptionist in an office building. The film has very little in the way of a narrative structure; our mad artist basically drifts around in a stupor, encountering people and killing them. This may be part of the director's masterplan; this mess apparently was some attempt to make a statement about the isolation of urban living. Viewers are treated to a bizarre dream sequence in which the artist staggers deliriously down canyon-like city streets barefoot and ragged, stopping to bang his fists against what appear to be the tall wooden doors of a church. Holy Fellini on Ripple! There's also a documentary-like sequence in which the landlady of one of the killer's victims is interviewed by a reporter and spouts bland, insincere compliments about a young woman she probably never spoke to("She was a nice girl, never any trouble," etc.)The entire film has a hollow, detached feel to it, something that can't entirely be blamed on the filmmakers' incompetence. Or maybe I'm just an optimist. Make no mistake, it is bad--crummy sound and cinematography, stilted dialogue(when available), superflous characters(the artist's wealthy former girlfriend, a young art student who wants to take lessons)who must have been inserted to give friends of the director parts, and artsy sequences that were intended to show the filmmaker's vision but only showcase his lack of ability. And this flick was on video at one point, but is undoubtably out of print now. If you have any independently owned video shops in your area and don't mind slumming(you know, the kind that have a back stock of wretchedly bad old videos), look for this one. Rent it, get some of your hipper-than-thou friends together, and inact your own episode of Mystery Science Theatre!

My eyes! AAOOOAAAUUUGGHH! My eyes! That's what I screamed myself after watching this atrocity of a film. No gore, no effects, no acting, no sense. The movie opens with a guy robbing a woman's apartment while she sleeps, and when she wakes up and screams, he tries to silence her by getting on top of her and smothering her mouth and nose. Fortunately she grabs a nearby spoon on the nightstand and slides it along the intruder's temple – no wait, she actually penetrates his eye socket with it!?! With his eye popped out and dangling by its nerve, the man stumbles out of the apartment, out the hall, down the fire escape and crawls to a stop in the alley. The entire time howling the ever-looped line "My EYE! My eyyyyyye!" In case you miss him hearing it during this opening credit sequence, don't worry. It's played and replayed every 7 minutes for the rest of the film. During which time we see the main character (who happens to be a failed artist of some sort) finally get his comeuppance by cutting out the eyes of women and "freezing" them in blocks of ice (?) as art.

The highlight scene has to be the news report in front of the apartment of one of the killer's first victims. First of all (as someone else has pointed out), nobody shows the first hint of suspicion about the creepy-looking guy with the eyepatch being at the crime scene where the victim had her eyes cut out. Secondly, since when are funeral services held at a person's apartment building, complete with coffin being carried down the steps into the street? And lastly, you gotta love the reporter's interview of the folks. He asks one woman what she knew about the murdered, and her answer is pricelessly generic. Perplexed at the woman's response, the reporter realizes he has lost track of who the actor with the scripted line is amongst the crowd and openly calls out the improvised line, "I understand one of you knew the victim quite well" to find the proper response. Obviously, whoever it was that had the all-important line for the scene was stuck in traffic when it was filmed, because we don't get any good answer for the poor reporter.

Oh, and about the guy who plays the "eyeball killer". He's a lot of fun to watch. I always wondered what it would be like if a burned-out community theatre director played a C-horror serial killer. Now I know. With hilarious monologues and delicious overacting, he hams up everything beautifully in what can best be described as Shakespeare's "Othello" meets Lustig's "Maniac". From victim to victim to potential admirer to the incredibly lame finale, we know this guy's insane because he keeps rambling to himself that he's "got to finish" something or other. My guess is there's only about 15 copies of this movie left in existence. It needs to get snatched up quick and given the DVD treatment, so that low-budget horror fans everywhere can take it home and give it the MST treatment. It is indeed that bad.

There's a lot to be said about this grisly extreme low budget thing, much of it not too good so far, however it is a precursor to the Henenlotter style, not a copy of such, as was implied by another commenter. It's not hard to imagine that Henenlotter, Abel Ferrara and maybe even Scorcese caught this at a midnight screening or something when they were younger. If viewed being mindful of its year of production (released 1973 but production started around 1970-71), it comes on the heels of the angst-ridden French New Wave and borrows much from that style. Every independent film "artist" was familiar with the French New Wave, especially New Yorked based ones

There are actually moments that are quite unnerving watching this eye-stealing serial killer move in and out of a psychosis and stalk his prey. Not as nicely done as Michael Lerner's eye-obsessed maniac in ANGUISH, but still effective. It's hinted that he may have two personalities, but it really seems more like schizophrenia. (No, they are not the same thing!) The gore effects are poor to adequate for the time and budget, they would be considered lame by modern standards. As typical for horror films of this period, it's reflective of the bloodshed and violence of Vietnam that was consistently broadcast over television, and of the dread regarding the effects of the war on returning veterans. This is a common theme, that has become more visible as time passes, in horror and other films of violence of the time

While the main character, the killer, has nothing to do with the war, the mental anguish and violence are sure themes of this period. You won't like this much if you must have super-realistic gore effects and hyper-intense action with cardboard characters, but for those horror fans who lived through this period and those who are interested in studying the horror films of the time, this one is worth the few dollars you can buy it for on VHS on Amazon, less than what it costs on ebay, where it's available on bootleg DVDs. With a wonderfully eerie soundtrack as well and a nicely done understated ending. Nice to view on a double-feature with THE SEVERED ARM.