Evil Eyes (2004) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Narcissistic Nonsense
ghoulieguru18 January 2005
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.
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Acceptable low-budget psychological horror story
southerntemper16 February 2007
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.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dust bin Dwellers: Bad D.V.D. rental night courtesy of Asylum.
Captain_Couth7 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Evil Eyes (2004) was another production that was distributed by those lovable morons from Asylum. Unlike most of their productions, this one actually look like a movie. Too bad it wasn't a good one. This film was a step above the usual shot-on-video fare.

The movie is about a washed up writer (Adam Baldwin) who has another chance to make a splash with a big production company. His job is to write a script about a film maker who went insane and chopped up his family with a dull ax that had a wobbly head. When he take the assignment from a Teutonic producer (Udo Kier) strange things began to happen to him whenever he writes. For some strange reason everything that happens comes to happen. Meanwhile for inspiration he decides to live in the same house that the murders occurred. Soon his life and sanity begins to crumble. With pressure from his new client to write something horrific and his impending madness it all becomes too much for the writer and also for the film makers because they obviously have ran out of ideas and created a lame and nonsensical ending that was neither effective nor cool.

The movie was very short and heavily padded out. It seems like most of Asylum's films have that very same problem. Maybe the movie would have worked as a short and if they found a lead actor with an ounce of charisma. Udo Kier was barely in the film and he had more charisma and was more effective in his role than Adam Baldwin. This movie is terrible but not as bad as most of Asylum's back catalog. More Udo Kier and less bad actors and film makers.

Not recommended.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
nogodnomasters27 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Jeff ( Adam Baldwin) is a script writer down on his luck because of that "truth" incident. He is asked to write a bloody horror script by George (Udo Kier) of True Films. The script concerns a family massacre that took place 35 years ago which we see at the beginning of the film. As Jeff attempts to unravel what happened, weird thing happen around him. Oh. And Jeff is about 35 and the woman who was killed was pregnant, but no word on the fetus.

The film is one of those that manages to suck you in and hold your interest as you wait for it to go somewhere, and when it does, ho-hum. Acting fair, but the script needed something other than a guy picking up an axe wrong and mom jerking around with a toaster in the dishwater.

Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity. Woman smearing blood on herself in a passionate manner.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good: Udo Kier, Adam Baldwin, opening scene; Bad: Everything else
TheLittleSongbird20 November 2012
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
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Predictable and clichéd film
slayrrr66611 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"Evil Eyes" is a rather familiar and predictable film.


Struggling writer Jeff Stenn, (Adam Baldwin) is assigned a new project about a decades-old serial killer, and asks wife Tree, (Jennifer Gates) and old friend Nina, (Kristin Lorenz) for help when a strange accident stalls his writing. Boss George Trueman, (Udo Kier) advises Jeff to keep going with the script, even as more accidents occur. As the murder case the script is based on begins to consume his life, he repeatedly questions events as they begin happening in both the script and his life. Trying to control the out of control elements in his life, Jeff eventually discovers a secret about the project that changes the entire outcome of the script.

The Good News: This really didn't have a lot going for it, but what it did have wasn't that bad. The opening set-up is really well played-out, getting the most suspense at the potential it has. The amount of dread built up through this set-up is pretty high, and it starts out the film with the right feeling. The premise, while done before and is nothing new, is still a fun premise that has the opportunity to get some nice mileage out of it's well-worn track. There's some nice gore in here, including some slit throats, a couple mangled bodies, a drill in the eye and some ax action as well. This wasn't all that bad when it was on.

The Bad News: There is several things wrong with this that does need brought up. The film is incredibly predictable, and is a really easy film to guess along the way. Granted, it sets up several different scenarios, but they are all very easy to guess as they're all perfectly logical in the sense the film was headed in, and it's supposed shock doesn't really register as you figured it out along the way. This also extends to it's plot outline, as it's simply a one-note premise that keeps repeating itself. Once you get the trick early on, nothing really happens to change much of it. The premise has also been seen before in several other films, and there's not a whole lot that changes the formula. This is all mostly just a clichéd and predictable film, I really didn't notice much else wrong with it.

The Final Verdict: This would've been decent had it not been so boring, but it's got enough good qualities to say that it's good enough to give it a look. It's been seen before, and much better in the other incarnations, so it's not an immediate viewing, but give it a shot if you can find it.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Language
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Coming From The Asylum, What Do You Expect?
gavin69422 October 2012
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...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Almost a Decent Movie. Almost.
bababear24 June 2010
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Virtual Reality
bennette12 March 2007
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.
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Writing is *Hard*
meehawl6 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This plot has been done many times in the past, and will undoubtedly be redone many times in the future - can we expect ominously precognitive MySpace pages or blogs in the future? Anyway, Kristin Lorenz is exciting and brings a sense of fun to her character but is removed from the main action a little too early. Jennifer Gates as "The Wife" is a bit too Anne Archer... while Adam Baldwin is no Harrison Ford, alas. The cutting is a little disjointed and the narrative feels a little over-forced in places. There are a bunch of minor continuity snafus with lighting and time of day. Nevetherless, this is a well-done little movie considering its obvious limitations in budget and shooting schedule.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed