A screenwriter is plagued by nightmares as he writes a script about a family that was slaughtered years before. Soon, the grisly murders he's writing about actually start to happen.A screenwriter is plagued by nightmares as he writes a script about a family that was slaughtered years before. Soon, the grisly murders he's writing about actually start to happen.A screenwriter is plagued by nightmares as he writes a script about a family that was slaughtered years before. Soon, the grisly murders he's writing about actually start to happen.
Kristin Lorenz
- Nina
- (as Kristen Lorenz)
Ronald Rezac
- Mr. Marsh
- (as Ron Rezac)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
Continuing on my curiosity rampage to see if The Asylum were capable of a tolerable enough movie I saw Evil Eyes. It is a bad movie, but not enough to be among The Asylum's worst. The opening scene does have some atmosphere and a sense of dread, Udo Kier is a creepy presence and Adam Baldwin has some likability. That's all I can give for redeeming qualities though. It is very haphazard technically, with camera work and editing that will make you dizzy, lighting that feels dark just for the sake of it rather than enhancing the atmosphere and effects that look as if the technicians were concerned more about quantity rather than quality. Apart from Baldwin and Kier(the latter actually deserved more screen time because if I had to single out the best thing of Evil Eyes he would be it), the acting is amateurish and can't do anything to lift their cardboard characters and stilted dialogue. The story is also a major problem, the opening sequence is the only scene that works in terms of atmosphere and suspense, everything else is padded out predictability to the point of sheer boredom. The gore and killings have nothing that stands out as original, and there is the feel that Evil Eyes wasn't even trying to make sense. All in all, has a couple of redeeming values, other than that Evil Eyes is a mess. 3/10 Bethany Cox
10bennette
I want to keep my movie collection down to a manageable & rational number for reasons I won't go into here. Evil Eyes became a keeper because of its treatment of females. The movie was way too violent first time through, so I wrote it off & forgot about it, or so I thought at the time. But the images of the girls kept coming back on me. They were all attractive in various ways and whoever shot the scenes including them adores the opposite sex as much as I do. And the actresses treatments of their own respective characters bridged the gap between drama and reality. In other words, they were at the same time, themselves and the roles they were playing. You see this kind of melding in live comedy skits, as on Saturday Night Live, but I can't think of another movie with actresses so ready to break out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- GoofsWhile Ed is examining a piece of cloth with a magnifier, he flips the magnifier over from shot to shot (apparently to create a magnified eyeball in the initial shot). Because the magnifier's case is open on one side, the flipping is quite obvious.
- Crazy credits"No animals were hurt during the production of this screenplay. Even the undead ones."
- ConnectionsReferenced in Evil Eyes: Behind the Scenes (2004)
- SoundtracksAve Maria
Composed by Franz Schubert
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $1,000,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 20m(80 min)
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content