spencergrande6 Interestingly enough, after this film came out in 82, it was immediately followed by Of Unknown Origin in 83 and then Rats in 84. What kind of originator of a minor genre craze could disappoint? Um, well, this one.Easily the weakest of the rat films I've seen. The storyline diverges all over the place, forgets plot lines, crisscrosses with other ones at random only to forget them again and altogether makes little sense. This isn't surprising considering the credited sources. It's based on a novel, which was turned into a screenplay draft and then that draft was re-drafted into another screenplay. And all of it got mashed together into this unholy mess.That wouldn't even be that big of a deal if the movie at least delivered some actual thrills and fun but it can't be bothered to do that. All the giant rats are actually small dogs in rat suits, and they're adorable to the extent you recognize them as such. The "terror" scenes are poorly plotted and lack imagination or tension. There's no B-movie bloodletting (Robert Clouse probably thought himself better than that, and he may well be, but saddled with this screenplay he should have known better).

Michael_Elliott Deadly Eyes (1982) * (out of 4) Awful "nature gone wild" film from Canada has a bunch of bad grain being eaten by rats, which turns them into large creatures out for human blood.This film pretty much disappeared from the radar until Shout Factory! released a Special Edition of it. This is pretty much in the same vein as NIGHT OF THE LEPUS, THE FOOD OF THE GODS, EMPIRE OF THE ANTS and countless other films where nature goes after man. This film here probably isn't as well remembered as those movies because it really doesn't feature a familiar cast or at least anyone remembered well today. Another problem is that the film is pretty darn bad from the start and continues that way until the end. Even worse is the fact that the "rats" are actually dogs with rat costumes on them, which will remind some of THE KILLER SHREWS.There are countless problems with this movie but we can start with all the characters. All of them are rather bland, boring and you certainly don't care for any of them. The screenplay really tries to build up the relationship between the teacher (Sam Groom) and a health inspector (Sara Botsford) but it just comes across silly as does a subplot dealing with one of the teacher's students constantly trying to seduce him. Another major problem is that the film certainly isn't scary or intense. The animal attack scenes are all pretty stupid with either silly looking costumes chasing people or really bad looking puppets. There's some gore throughout the picture but none of it is all that memorable.The performances are about the only good thing with both Groom and Botsford at least turning in good work. Both of them are certainly much better than the material and we also get a quick spot by Scatman Crothers. Sadly, everything else is pretty much a bust including the annoying sound effects and the rather silly music score.Look, not many of the films in this genre are actually "good" but thankfully stuff like THE FOOD OF THE GODS is so awful that you can laugh. I found DEADLY EYES awful but sadly there just wasn't any laughs to be had with it.

cedde6 A pack of rats get very large, super-vicious and smart(er?) after eating a load of corn ready for shipment but somehow laced with steroids. Teacher, single father and lady magnet Paul Harris (Sam Groom) pairs up in all sense of the term with health official, independent woman and man eater entrepreneur Kelly Leonard (Sara Botsford) to save the city. Very loosely based on James Herbert's first novel, "The Rats" also known under the daft moniker "Deadly Eyes" is a simple yet adroitly crafted horror b movie. There are very little surprises here: the black token character (Scatman Crothers in an all too brief appearance sadly), the stupid canon-fodder teenagers, the old guy who knows about the threat in question are all present in the mix.But that doesn't mean it's all bad, mind you. In fact, there's plenty to keep an 80's horror fan entertained. First and foremost the acting is actually pretty decent although the characters are under developed. The gore ratio is adequate; the attack of the cinema set piece (replacing the novel's horrific attack of the train) throwing some serious punches in that regard. The rats themselves (dogs in rat suits as you probably already know) are a bit of a mixed bag, being equally odd, creepy and grotesque. It is fair to assume that the film got better with time, its 80's origins giving it THAT particular lustre which current horror films often try to replicate (or so they claim) but hardly ever achieve. It certainly isn't earth shattering work and should be avoided by James Herbert's hard core fans at all cost. But if, like my little self, you're an 80's horror film buff then this could be a worthy addition to your collection (if you manage to get your hand on it, that is).

Coventry The plot of "Deadly Eyes" centers on a hunky high school teacher and the romantic adventures he experiences in the big city. Paul Harris (Sam Groom) has to resist the temptation of sleeping with one of his most gorgeous students – not just a student but the head-cheerleader, mind you – and then finds true love when he meets a female health inspector whilst playing in the park with his son. Will our hero be able to explain his new girlfriend what the scarcely dressed teenage beauty is doing in the bedroom of his apartment??? Oh, then there's also an unimportant sub plot about gigantically mutated rats invading the city through the sewage system and bloodily devouring dozens of people. Nothing special, in other words..."Deadly Eyes" is a fairly entertaining early 80's creature feature that'll satisfy undemanding horror buffs, but you obviously shouldn't expect high-quality suspense or even a tad bit of logic. The screenplay was adapted from a novel by the celebrated writer James Herbert, yet the movie is so cheesy & trashy that the skillful writings of the master aren't detectable anywhere. The rats are actually small dogs decorated with over-sized teeth and they always appear to move in slow motion, which doesn't really make them petrifying. The reason for these rodents' aggressive behavior and mutation into giant proportions also remains pretty vague. It has something do with the burning of a big cargo of rotten corn, but don't ask for detailed information. When they attack (especially during the second half of the film), this results in a couple of adorably gross and hectic sequences, for example in a movie theater or in the newly finished subway tunnel. There's also the infamous and highly memorable moment near the beginning where a handful of rats eat a cute toddler! You think this'll be what starts the mayhem, yet neither the child nor her babysitter is mentioned afterwards. Apparently nobody missed them. The acting performances are all pretty mediocre apart from a glorious appearance by the legendary Scatman Crothers. Harmless and fun little horror flick, especially recommended for when you invite a group of friends over on a lazy Saturday evening.