Eye of the Beast (2007 TV Movie) User Reviews

Decent B-Movie

[rmorley · 4/10 · 4 August 2007]

If you accept the fact that this is a B-movie from the outset, this isn't too bad of a movie. The writing wasn't too badly stilted anywhere, the story is...well...a fairly predictable "sea monster" story, and the acting, while nothing to write home about, was certainly nothing to complain about. Of course, James van der Beek makes the movie a little easier to watch too. :)

My biggest complaint about the movie, other than the obvious low-budget quality, was the straight-forwardness of it. Establish the town, figure out the relationships, show monster to viewers, nobody believes monster exists, prove monster exists, deal with it, male and female leads fall in love and live happily ever after. Wow, now there's a story that hasn't been told about a million times before!

But in spite of its shortcomings, it was suitably entertaining for a Saturday afternoon where I had nothing better to do. I don't think I'd ever watch it again, but I'm not disappointed at having watched it a first time.

Another hungry sea beast is swimming around out there

[MartianOctocretr5 · 4/10 · 6 January 2008]

And this one seems to know just when to attack so that nobody knows it's out there. Just like all its relatives seem to.

A lot of influence from Jaws (a nice way to say they ripped off some plot devices from it), but there is a well developed story here. The plot centers not to so much on the creature itself, but the lives (and of course some deaths) of those who have encountered it. Witnesses to its existence are treated like an outcast nut cases, while fishing revenues drop mysteriously and steadily, and mutilated bodies wash up on beaches all over. A few characters are given more dimension than to be just screaming victims, but there is a tad too much talking. It's done to give exposition on the characters and the creature they're up against, but there were probably some better ways to do this.

The movie lets the monster remain an unseen foe until near the end, which succeeds at making it more threatening. The monster appears hokey when you do finally see it, although the acting of the people in a life-or-death struggle with the creature is convincing enough to offset this.

Overall, decent enough for rainy Saturday afternoon entertainment.

Sea Monster? Not really, mostly you just see the tentacles....

[Rob_Taylor · 4/10 · 8 September 2007]

Having said that, it was nice to see a movie that recognised its own limitations and didn't pad out every scene with awful CGI.

Don't get me wrong....there is awful CGI at the end, but it brought a warm fuzzy glow to my heart to see them attempting to use more traditional methods to display the monster, or rather, its tentacles.

Of course, seeing someone wrap themselves up in a rubber tentacle is never going to be realistic, bringing back memories of old Tarzan movie "crocodile moments", but at least it was different.

Because of the lack of effects budget, there was actually some story to this flick. Not terribly involved, but enough that it could comfortably thumb its nose at SciFi Channel movies like Pterodactyl and the like. In fact the monster, as in the B-Movies of yore, makes relatively few appearances until the climax.

It is rather predictable and somewhat chortle-inducing. But at least it has the grace to not pretend to be anything other than what it is....a modern B-Movie.

SUMMARY: Rubber tentacles notwithstanding, this isn't the worst movie I've ever seen.

What?!

[troy-daniel-bush · 5/10 · 12 February 2022]

I mean... it's not terrible. In fact it's better than one might expect. But some of the acting, plot contrivances, and the practical and computer generated effects leave a bit to be desired.

They actually used practical effects when they could. They could have been a lot better but... they're there.

And the movie feels really short.

I'll watch it again just to pass the time. And I've always loved giant squid. They're a lovely, terrifying animal.

"Watch out for those lake monsters".

[lost-in-limbo · 5/10 · 24 October 2011]

You can either take them or leave them, where the cheaply made straight to TV horror effort "Eye of the Beast" starring former teen idol James Van Der Beek turned out to be a neat, if unassuming b-production. It might somewhat get bogged down within the halfway mark and consist of some daftly cheesy clichés, but there's enough going on; you know tentacle action (you can't get enough of that), feuding fisherman, James Van Der Beek frowning a lot and to top that off 10 reasons are given to why fishing is a lot better sex. Quite convincing arguments too. The special effects for such a low-budget are well implemented, but actually there's very little (up until to the squid's glorious reveal) and the tentacles when they come into play are mainly prosthetic. It could have used a little more action and creativity in its attack sequences, but Van Der Beek and Alexandria Castillo are agreeable in their parts making it enjoyable to watch. Then there's the constant bickering (ecological messages) and dramas between the characters of this drably lit small ocean community to keep it moving, despite it's fairly laid-back pace. Mildly amusing, lazy afternoon entertainment.

"A giant squid in a lake"?

neither good nor bad,

[disdressed12 · 5/10 · 24 April 2008]

but somewhere in between.James Van Der Beek has come a long way since his Dawson's Creek days.he was actually very good here.he plays a scientist sent to a small fishing community to find out why the fish stocks have depleted.Alexandra Castillo is also good as the local only)law enforcement in the town.the movie itself is entertaining enough.there's not really much excitement though.for a creature feature,you don't see much of the creature.most of time,you are shown only a tentacle or two.there is one scene which shows the beast(a giant squid)but it's not a really clear view.for me,Eye of the Beast is somewhere in the middle,so i give it 5/10

Boring and Predictable

[kiawa77 · 3/10 · 30 March 2008]

This movie is boring and predictable. It uses many horror-esquire clichés, and I was pretty much able to call who would die, when, and how in the first 20 minutes of the movie (starting with geek-boy's daddy). There were absolutely no surprises, and so watching this movie was more boring than putting seeds into peat pods (which is what I was doing while watching this).

However, to the credit of the movie makers, the acting was not as sub-par as usual in Sci-Fi Channel movies. It was certainly not outstanding, but it did not have the element of cheese like I've seen lately (including the flick on right after... "Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy") Plus, who can ask for more than a fresh-water Architeuthis as the big evil monster?

Make some popcorn and grade it on a curve

[rhefner2002 · 4/10 · 9 September 2022]

"Eye of the Beast" clearly draws heavily from the "Jaws" scenario, and it's nowhere near the quality of that film. But in spite of being derivative, it never quite lapses into total "bad ripoff" territory, thanks mostly to competent performances.

I can't say much for the script and the dialogue, and the special effects are unremarkable (We never see the giant squid in its entirety). But in the spirit of good bad movies, it kept me watching when I was in the mood for something lightweight and silly.

There is a subplot concerning the resentment between the white and the native American fishermen, who blame each other for over-fishing the waters. But when they realize that the fish are being devoured by the monster, they work together to kill it.

Unfortunately, the climactic battle with the creature takes place at night, so it's hard to see much detail.

Better than the average B monster movie, but not by much.

Conventional but fun monster movie

[lorenellroy · 7/10 · 27 September 2007]

The first thing to do when approaching this picture is to accept that it is a thoroughly conventional low budget monster flick with zero originality .This need not be a problem when the standard ingredients of its type are served up with some professionalism and style and this is the case here. The Beast of the title is a giant squid which is chomping its way through the fishing grounds near a small Canadian township which depends upon fish for its economic well being and as a result the place has fallen upon hard times .A researcher has been sent from a government organisation to investigate the cause of the poor catches and meets with some hostility from the local residents who fear he may advise shutting down the whole fishing area .There is also a deal of racial tension between the majority white population and the Native peoples ,who are firmly convinced of the existence of the squid . Stir into the mix a newly elected female sheriff of Native ancestry and the usual "Jaws" inspired debate between opposing factions about closing down the main industry or carrying on as normal and you have a standard tale redeemed by some decent special effects and competent performances . Its no world beater but it is watchable and professionally done

Stop me when this sounds familiar....

[TheBigHouse · 5/10 · 12 March 2009]

... Opening scene, a young girl on the water at night is taken by a huge, unseen animal from beneath the waves. She is soon reported missing but the small fishing town, desperate to hang onto its fragile economy, is eager to explain the accident away as a 'boating accident'. A young, bearded ocean expert arrives (on a boat) and is introduced to the town's sheriff who, while skeptical of the 'boating accident' theory, is up against pressure from the town. The ocean expert examines evidence, including mutilated remains of the female victim, and is convinced the deaths were predatory - but no one listens to him! When a second victim is taken in daylight on the beach, the town finally accepts they have a BIG problem lurking under the water, but when the sheriff closes the beaches and fisheries, the town is enraged. However, the bodies keep piling up, and the town's people soon realize they've been arrogant and shallow, and their lives are in real danger.

The sheriff (who is also afraid of the water) and ocean expert join with an 'old man of the sea' on a fishing boat, and go out to face the giant beast alone, leading to night time battles where the beast 'goes under the boat' and is tracked with electronic devices, leading to a final showdown. The only difference is that, instead of needing a 'bigger boat', they are told 'we're gonna need 2 BOATS'.

No, I have not just given you a plot outline of JAWS, but indeed 'Eye of the Beast'. It took these guys over 20 years to completely remake Jaws, with a squid, for TV. We all know the Jaws formula worked, but don't you want to deviate from it a LITTLE?!... Oh wait, they did! By suggesting the beasty had been lurking in the town's lake for over 20 years - it just decided to show up now and chomp people when James van Der Beek came to visit?!? A good 'so bad its good' monster movie. Van der Beek actually isn't bad.

Nifty creature feature

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 23 March 2021]

Government scientist Dan Leland (a fine and likeable performance by James Van Der Beek) arrives in a small fishing town to investigate the mysterious disappearances of both fish and people alike. Deland discovers that a local legend about a hideous sea monster is true.

Director Gary Yates relates the enjoyable and engrossing story at a constant pace, offers a flavorsome evocation of the sleepy lakeside community, ably crafts a spooky atmosphere, takes time to develop the characters, and generates a good deal of tension in the harrowing and exciting last third. The solid acting by the capable cast keeps this movie humming: Alexandra Castillo as perky cop Katrina Thomas, Arne MacPherson as crusty fisherman Gunnar Thorson, Ryan Black as the vengeful Will Neepanak, Stephen Eric McIntyre as the scruffy Spider, and Erik Fjeldsted as the antsy Jordy. The briefly glimpsed killer squid looks pretty gnarly while the special f/x are perfectly acceptable considering the modest budget. A cool little flick.

it's a B-monster movie...and a surprisingly good one at that

[TheUnknown837-1 · 7/10 · 8 March 2008]

Out of all the really bad science-fiction creature features that I see quite regularly on the Sci-Fi Channel, there are very few of which I can describe as descent. "Eye of the Beast" is one of those few that is surprisingly good enough to be called descent. The acting is fine, the screenplay is more intelligent than others I can think of, the special effects are better than expected, and since they are mostly shown at night, they are easier to believe. The creature is effectively not shown mostly until the end. Before then, we see nothing of it except for its tentacles (rubber, inflated) that lash out and grab onto people. The plot is kind of ludicrous. A giant squid SOMEHOW gets into a lake and SOMEHOW is not seen until now when it just decides to try human fresh off the docks, but still, it's a B-movie, so can cut it SOME slack. The characterization of the characters is very good, there are some very well-done dialogue and dramatic moments, and the music score really aids it. Ultimately, we have a climax that we really care about, speeches that are actually well-written and don't outstay their welcome (as they do in another B-flick called "Sasquatch Mountain"), and overall, "Eye of the Beast" is a very well-done creature feature. I recommend it for fans of its genre.

Ibsen's An Enemy of the People rehashed

[ferrierdf · 1/10 · 21 September 2010]

They say that there are only a certain number of plots. This movie draws on the play An Enemy of The People for its "outsider spoiling the local economy" plot device. It is also a rehash of Jaws, where interfering with the local fishing takes the place of "driving away the tourists." An Indian-Paleface interracial hatred subplot is tacked on to satisfy Canadian content requirements, and the movie echos the theme of innumerable Westerns. Derivative to a fault. Added non-attraction: hackneyed theme of brave scientist "sticking to his guns" in the face of disbelief and antagonism on the part of both his superiors and the locals.

A little better than I was expecting but didn't involve me all that much

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 1 August 2012]

Of course I was dubious as it was SyFy, but at the same I was wondering if it was going to be among the small handful of tolerable efforts. Eye of the Beast falls short of belonging to the tolerable camp but not bad enough to be among the bottom-of-the-barrel movies. It is decently made, with scenery that does have some atmosphere, the sea is darkly lit but gives a sense of foreboding, and crisper editing than anticipated. The effects are nothing great, but again have been far worse in other movies. The music is suitably haunting, and the acting while not awards-worthy is better than average. On the other hand, the script is stilted with some typically cheesy lines and the monster is under-utilised and not very menacing. I know that sparse appearances can add to more suspense, but when the story and characters don't do much to make the scenes where the monster doesn't appear interesting, you have a problem. The story is dully paced on the whole and with underdeveloped subplots and predictable attack scenes is uninvolving as well. The characters and situations are clichéd and not developed enough to be likable. In a nutshell, a lame movie that could've been better and worse. 4/10 Bethany Cox

an ok b movie with some good acting

[LetsReviewThat26 · 5/10 · 27 August 2022]

I have to admit that the cgi with this film was not as bad as some. Sure its the same type of monster but even the tentecles didn't look half bad. . The script left much to be desired though, as is the case with these films but sometimes the chessy lines can also be the funniest . I was happy to see james van da beek in this he was good and he really felt like he did something to the character. Cannot say the same for the rest of the cast, but they also were not that bad. The plot itself was interesting and though been done many times before was done decent enough Overall an ok ish b movie but not the best or worst.

A good Jaws rip off

[Sergiodave · 5/10 · 14 April 2022]

Watched this on Amazon Prime. A cheap B movie using Jaws as it's base. This is better than most copycat movies, naturally the effects are non-existent, but the acting isn't that bad. Good to watch if you want a laugh.

Another dull, faceless & throughly generic 'Creature Feature'.

[poolandrews · 3/10 · 31 March 2009]

Eye of the Beast is set on Fell's Island in Canada where a small fishing community lives along with local natives. The fish stock in the waters around Fell's Island have drastically fallen to almost zero & the local economy is suffering, marine biologist Dan Leland (James Van Der Beek) is sent in ti investigate & conduct some experiments. It's not long before h has a theory, Dan comes to the conclusion that a giant man-eating Squid lives in the waters around Fell's Island that after having eaten all the fish decides to eat the only other thing left, namely people. Dan teams up with local fisheries official Kat Tomas (Alexandra Castillo) & salty sea-dog captain Gunnar Thorson (Arne MacPherson) to track the beast down & kill it before more lives are lost...

This Canadian production was directed by Gary Yates & is yet another totally forgettable & utterly generic Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' of which there seems to be an endless supply although no matter how bad they get I always seem boneheaded enough to sit down & watch the bloody things. Right, where to start? Eye of the Beast features all the usual clichés of the genre, a small isolated community, some sort of giant or mutated creature, some shallow attempts at social commentary & meaning & some scientist or other who teams up with some local authority figure. It's all here, you can practically tick the boxes off as Eye of the Beast progresses & everything you expect to happen does. My main problem with Eye of the Beast is that it's slow, there's barely any Squid attacks, minimal gore & the Squid only really gets any screen time two minutes before the thing finishes. Virtually nothing happens for the first hour or so. The film is also very dull to watch with dull character's who have little or no personality, it's quite well made & competent but throughly uninvolving or exciting which is worse than being badly made & unintentionally funny for instance which at least would have given it some entertainment value. The highlight of the script is a fairly amusing conversation about why fishing is better than sex with quips like if you catch something fishing it doesn't matter, if you mom catches you fishing alone it's OK...

You would think that a 'Creature Feature' about a giant Squid would actually focus on the giant Squid but Eye of the Beast decides not to & instead sticks to boring dramatics as the locals argue amongst themselves. The Squid doesn't get much screen time, in fact apart from a couple of rubber tentacles the Squid is only seen about two minutes before the film finishes in what I must admit is a fairly decent CGI computer effect but since that's the only CGI effect in the entire film that's where the budget must have went. There's no gore here either, sure there's a severed leg, a torn off arm & a ripped cheek but it doesn't amount to anything much.

With a supposed budget of about $2,000,000 this was shot in Canada & it has competent production values & looks alright. The acting is OK, James Van Der Beek with designer stubble of Dawson's Creek (1998 - 2003) fame is the obvious name actor here.

Eye of the Beast is a throughly dull & generic 'Creature Feature' that is totally forgettable in it's competent yet unexciting blandness. There are much better 'Creature Feature' flicks out there, don't bother with this one.

Not good

[urverksapelsin · 2/10 · 16 June 2018]

A total ripoff of Humaniods from the deep 1980, including the bound at the end between whites and native americans. See the original, skip this. Waste of time.

The best addition to SCI-FI's man eater series even if its not very original.

[jhpstrydom · 7/10 · 4 June 2009]

EYE OF THE BEAST might not be one of the more original monster movies but it is certainly one of the better films from SCI-FI channel's man eater series, because unlike a few other films that are part of this series it actually doesn't feel like a rush job such as VIPERS or a quickly thought up monster mess like YETI, this one really demonstrates some competent film making and decent effort behind it.

The storyline is a lot slower than your average monster movie, this one starts off with a very casual pace taking its time with character development instead of constant attacks every five minutes or so, the acting is also above par, accept for one actor who plays the character Jordy, he over acts a bit.

All in all, a good movie even though it offers nothing new in terms of originality and a worthy addition to the series and to its genre.

Ain't no Jaws....

[afiazuddin-00400 · 4/10 · 21 September 2022]

So, as a B-budget afficionado, I understand that Eye of The Beast, was a B-budget movie. But when originally made, so was Jaws. Nobody anticipated that it would not only win major awards, but remain a cult classic almost 50 years later. Jaws is a high standard to hold a movie to - I get it. But these sea monster genre movies really need to up their game.

Here, the "Beast" is a giant squid in an immense freshwater lake in rural northern Canada. There had been "legends" of course. But the locals pay no mind because they live off fishing and will tolerate no interruption to that lifestyle. Until of course fish numbers are dropping rapidly and without explanation. Enter nerdy good looking science guy and nerdy good looking sheriff girl .... and away we go.

This one was fairly short (thankfully), but still slow, predictable, and with hokey special effects and props. The acting was average, actually, and saved the movie from a lower rating.

Quite fun calamari versus local fisherman (standard formula).

[Bernie4444 · 10/10 · 17 November 2023]

There is no need to second-guess this movie. As you have surmised it is the old standard giant squid in the water versus scientist that nobody listens to. It has got all the standard characters that you find in most of these movies; they are reminiscent of the "Jaws" series. Some of the names or even the same. Do not expect this to be too spectacular as it was made for television.

Dan Leland (James Van Der Beek) misunderstood scientist with dubious background hopefully will be vindicated.

Katrina Tomas (Alexandra Castillo) half-bred full authority adds to a potential love interest.

Gunnar Thorson (Arne MacPherson) the rough tough fisherman says, "There's nothing here go look for yourself!" Snicker snicker.

Krissy Neepenak (Larissa Tobacco) cephalopod chow.

Many others add to this standard cast of characters needed.

After watching this the next movie, you will want to see is "Tentacoli" 1977.

There are Far Worse 'Sea Creatures on the Rampage' Movies

[HansWind · 6/10 · 12 June 2018]

No, this one won't win any awards, but its not too bad either. Anyone who watches this kind of film from time to time has seen much, MUCH worse movies, acting and general film making... The plot is a near identical rip from the 1996 TV miniseries 'The Beast' staring CSI's William Petersen and Charles Martin Smith. If you like that, you'll like this... only less.

Just boring and hateful

[ikonenjuhamatti · 1/10 · 29 July 2023]

This movie is just waste of time, most of the time white people acting pure hatefully against native americans(indians) and it just keep going and going, the "beast" is just a sidestory. It's just painful to watch pure hate against to anyone.

I mist confess that i just watched only 3/4 of the movie, there was nothing to see in that time, no plot twist, nothing clever, just movie go throu train rail. I am big fan of B movies but i'm sorry to say that this was just boring. Hopefully someone see this review or not. Maybe this review is longer than the script of the movie. 24 characters required.

Eminently forgettable TV monster flick

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 10 July 2016]

Movies about sea monsters have been ten a penny since, well, time began. JAWS helped revitalise the genre in the 1970s, forever banishing memories of campy '50s B-movie and making the monster actually FRIGHTENING. Since then, our screens have been deluged with octopi, giant squids, killer fish, piranha, made-up monsters of the deep, sharks, barracudas, you name it. This cheap television movie opts for the giant squid menace, a creature already tackled more than one, most prominently in THE BEAST, a '90s miniseries by Peter Benchley, the writer of JAWS himself. So why does EYE OF THE BEAST exist?

To make a buck or two. I can see no other reason for this movie. It's a completely unoriginal, seen-it-all before offering. You know the story by heart: there's a series of unexplained deaths at sea. A scientist turns up to investigate, enlisting a pretty policewoman to help. More people die. The locals are reluctant to stop fishing and there's plenty of antagonism. Eventually, evidence reveals the existence of the creature and the locals go out to sea to kill it. Blah blah blah...

It's pure hokum, not helped by the efforts of a less-than-impressive cast. I liked the Chilean actress playing the heroine, Alexandra Castillo, but that's about it. James Van Der Beek, from TV's DAWSON'S CREEK, is the hero, but he still feels like an out-of-his-league teenager to be honest: he commands no screen presence, offers no masculinity. There's a sub-plot involving racial tension between the white townsfolk and the native fishermen, but nothing is made of it other than some low-key tension. This was filmed in Manitoba, Canada, but there's little to distinguish the scenery from any dime-a-dozen monster flick. They had the chance to show off the locales but they blew it.

So, does this film have any saving graces? A few. The special effects are decent, for once. There are some excellent CGI animations at the climax, when we get to see the beast in all its glory, and before then some nicely animated killer tentacles. I wasn't expecting any bloodshed – this IS a TV movie, after all – but there's a cool bit where a victim's arm pops off and we see some squirting blood from the de-tentacled monster. The main problem is that this never, ever, even once goes anything near 'scary'. It's just routine, seen-it-all-before, and eminently forgettable.

Every bit as bad as you would expect...

[paul_haakonsen · 3/10 · 16 May 2023]

Right, well I have to admit that I wasn't exactly harboring much of any expectations to this 2007 movie from writer Mark Mullin and director Gary Yates. Why? Well, a movie that starred X and had a giant squid in it didn't exactly seem like the killer combo. However, I have seen a fair share of the movie in the 'maneater series', of which "Eye of the Beast" is a part, and thus I opted to sit down and watch this movie, as I stumbled upon it by random chance here in 2023.

Writer Mark Mullin managed to put together a rather generic, albeit a uniquely boring script and storyline. For a movie about a killer giant squid, the movie's storyline takes place on dry land for 90% of the 90 minutes that the movie ran for. An odd way of writing a story about a giant squid, I would say. And it didn't help much that the story itself was bland, lacking thrills, and just sort of slow paced, monotonous and downright boring.

The acting performances in "Eye of the Beast" was every bit as exciting and thrilling as the storyline itself. So don't get your hopes up. I am not overly familiar with James Van Der Beek, but this definitely didn't make me a fan either.

You would think that a movie about a killer giant squid would actually include a giant killer squid, now wouldn't you? Yeah, writer Mark Mullin and director Gary Yates might not have gotten that memo, because you have surprisingly little screen time that actually includes the giant squid.

Visually then I will actually say that "Eye of the Beast" was okay. It wasn't top of the line special effects, mind you, but the effects department pulled it off nicely enough. I have seen creature features with far worse special effects than what you have in "Eye of the Beast", so that definitely was in favor of the movie.

The best thing about "Eye of the Beast" was ultimately the movie's cover. I kid you not.

"Eye of the Beast" is not a movie I would recommend for fans of the creature feature genre to sit down and watch. There simply wasn't enough happening throughout the course of the 90 minutes to warrant this being a proper creature feature.

My rating of "Eye of the Beast" lands on a three out of ten(tacles) - pardon the pun.