lost-in-limbo Don't you just love coming across films that you've never heard of before and to your surprise it turns out better than it expected. The independent low-budget horror drama "Eyes of Fire" would be one of those films you'll either become attach to or simply can't fathom the fuss. It's easy to see why it's a sleeper though --- just look when it came out (just think of the horror of this period) and there's no-one in the cast that would really stand-out on paper. However the story alone had me intrigued. From beginning to end, it projects up as nothing more than a bizarre, hallucinating mood piece. While not completely satisfying (due to its experimental tailoring consisting of some convoluted writing in the latter acts with a weak ending and cheap tacked on final frame), its unconventional style holds you there despite its purposely slow-grinding pace. The mysteriously spooky nature of it had me thinking of the similar in vein western / horror variation "The Shadow of Chikara (1977)".A creepy folklore / witchcraft horror with absorbing atmospherics (the rich Missouri locations are alienating and suitably eerie) and a mystical layer is formed by it inspired narrative (where its told through narrated flashback) and distinctively lyrical script as we follow some western pioneers led by a reverend on the American frontier in the search of the promised land, but they stumble upon a valley that's inhabited by a devil witch and her captured souls. What really came out of left field was the dazzling direction of writer / director Avery Crounse. While methodical and low-scale, he managed some visually breath-taking imagery of edgy horror and haunting beauty caught by the elegantly earthy and unhinged cinematography. Even during the daylight sequences, it remains just as unsettling and also the authentic, fidgety sound effects of the forest simply unnerve. Brad Fiedel's music score is slight, but skin-crawling and the variable special effects feature plenty of tripped-out colour schemes, tree decorations (you'll see) and loud explosions. It's serviceable, and the make-up FX is decently projected with a spooky looking phantom witch. It's those eyes! There are modest performances by the likes of Dennis Lipscomb, Guy Boyd, Rebecca Stanley and Kathleen Crockett in a very contemplative turn.Fascinatingly offbeat, if meandering and jaded mystical spook flick.

krosszone If you remotely interested in any of the above, check this flick. If you like to dig up weird movies from the 80's that no one heard of, then find this movie. The witch easily ranks as one of the scariest looking creatures of recent memory, kinda like a backwoods cousin to the homeless demon behind the restaurant in David Lynch's MUHOLLAND DRIVE. Do not expect a traditional plot line to build suspense a la BLAIR WITCH. These are second- rate actors sloughing through difficult dialog penned in an antiquated tongue. Once the characters settle in the cabin, the action becomes convoluted, fragmentary-- hard to follow what's happening or even who's who-- but still manages to be unsettling despite its confusing logic. This indie project was written and directed by one man, one vision, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt that this affect was intentional. Admittedly, the little girl's voice-over feels forced and tacked on, like trying to tie loose ends together, but in the process it brings up more information that leaves the viewer pondering. It's actually rare that voice-overs HELP the story (FIGHT CLUB jumps to mind as a positive example).Though the beginning was slow and the backstory negligible, once the conflict started, I was engrossed. I kept wondering where this movie was from, and if I didn't know it was early 80's, it could have passed for a '70's unknown Nicolas Roeg or Ken Russell picture, with those quick edits and trippy effects. So it had a kinda timeless quality that has helped it to endure among the dung heap of horror movies that have been cranked out in the last half- century. Check it.

Maciste_Brother I finally watched EYES OF FIRE and I have to say that it was good. Not great. Just good, certainly for a low budget independent movie. The story, about a bunch of quirky people cast out of an uptight colonial town and decide to live in a cursed area of the forest, was really captivating in some part, while slightly laughable in other parts. The project has a "Shakespeare in the Park" kinda feel to it. I'll let you decide whether that's a good thing or not. Speaking of Shakespeare, the dialogue was pretty good (the words and expressions used sounded authentic). Some of the horror elements in EYES OF FIRE now look like something from your average MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGER episode, which is unfortunate because the rest is fairly good (acting, location, mood...). The really creepy moments in EOF was the woman finding the place with all the feathers. And the shots of the little indian girl with the "eyes of fire". But, in the end, if the nudity was removed from EOF, this would basically be a kid's film, which doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing but EOF is certainly not in the same league as the grueling Canadian backwoods slasher, RITUALS. The only really bad thing in EOF is the ending (I don't think they had any idea how to end it) and the "surprised ending." Geez!Thinking about EYES OF FIRE, I'm shocked to see how much of William Friedkin's THE GUARDIAN owes to this small budget horror film. In EYES OF FIRE, the evil element is a tree (sculpted with human faces on it, like a totem), guarded by a creature who looks like a walking tree, and who controls the spirits of the people it killed/possessed (shown as naked actors). The tree/devil tries to get the group's kids. This is basically the story in THE GUARDIAN, except that it takes place in modern times.If you're into obscure horror films, like I am, make sure to check out EYES OF FIRE. It's an interesting, if not all too successful, atmospheric period horror film.

Lunar_Eclipse_Scoping "Eyes of Fire" has a pretty impressive script to start out with. It lets the surreal events unfold in the most offbeat, unpredictable way, that you can easily view it several times and still discover things. The forest with its many "trees" is so vividly filmed; I never realized simple things like trees, bushes, and pure earth could be made so threatening! The film is just drenched in atmosphere: The haunting sounds of the woods; the often off-kilter camera angles; and the excellent narration by a young lady with an accent so thick you could cut it with a knife! I loved listening to her. The film has a logic and a language all its own. You have to pay attention to the film to appreciate all the developments of the highly "elemental" plot. This isn't a "brain candy" horror flick; you'll have to make an effort to understand certain things, but it's highly worth it. My favorite performance in the film is Karlene Crockett as the fairy Leah. Many of the most beautiful moments in the film involve her, like where Leah crawls into a barrel with the children to keep out of the rain, and a rainbow appears beside it; and Leah playing joyfully in the field of feathers. Then, of course, there's the dark scenes, like the ones where the grotesque figure in black roams the forest, sinking in and out of the ground; and Leah's numerous encounters with the elusive ghosts. I've heard people rag on the special effects, which are a mixed bag; but it's important to remember that this was 1983, and the filmmakers didn't have the budget of E.T. -- or anywhere near it. The effects serve their purpose, and are often quite creepy. They compliment the film, rather than overrun it like many films today.This is a really great film to watch late at night; it has the atmosphere of one of those low-budget chillers network stations would show in the early morning hours before the age of the infomercial, only with more originality. I would rush out and buy this if it were released on DVD; for now I'll just have to settle for my Vestron Video copy. I think this little gem is a masterpiece in its own right; definitely thought-provoking horror, a genre that is too rarely explored. My rating: 8.5/10