Deadly Eyes

1983 "Tonight they will rise from the darkness beneath the city... to feed!"
4.9| 1h27m| R| en| More Info
Released: 01 April 1983 Released
Producted By: Orange Sky Golden Harvest
Country: Hong Kong
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

Corn grain contaminated with steroids produces large rats the size of small dogs who begin feeding on the residents of Toronto. Paul, a college basketball coach, teams up with Kelly, a local health inspector, to uncover the source of the mysterious rat attacks and they eventually try to prevent the opening of a new subway line as well as find the mutant rats nest quickly, or there will be a huge massacre of the entire city!

Watch Online

Deadly Eyes (1983) is currently not available on any services.

Director

Robert Clouse

Production Companies

Orange Sky Golden Harvest

Deadly Eyes Videos and Images
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Deadly Eyes Audience Reviews

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.
Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.
Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?
Wizard-8 I had wanted to see this movie for a long time, but none of the video stores in the various cities I lived in stocked it. Finally, I had to purchase the Blu-ray. Was it worth the wait? For the most part, no. Now, the big feature about the movie that made me want to see it - giant rats played by dachshunds - does provide a little amusement, as well as the equally not convincing puppetry work when we see close-ups of the giant rats' faces. However, the bulk of the movie surrounding the rat stuff is extremely tedious to sit through. There simply isn't a lot of story here, and the characters are written in a way to be extremely uninteresting. The script is bad enough, but under the direction of Robert Clouse, the movie moves at a glacial pace and without any real tension. Clouse also makes some very big continuity goofs, like how the weather changes from shot to shot in some scenes, and how the movie seems to be taking place in Canada in some scenes but in other scenes in the United States. If you must see this, wait until it comes on cable and record it, then watch it with your finger hovered over the fast-forward button on your remote. Make sure your remote has fresh batteries, because this movie will give your remote a workout.
jonathan-577 I'm fricking serious - this is a movie about mutant killer rats invading Toronto, and the rats are played by small dogs in rat costumes. The actors are incredibly boring. There's this teenage ingenue who wants to get into the pants of the gym teacher who reminds me of Stephen "Scanners" Lack (BO-RING!!!), but she mostly disappears so this guy can hang out with this middle-aged woman who obviously does not come from a theatre background. Half the time she mumbles so bad you can't understand what she's saying. Scatman Crothers does the old one-day-Carradine trick, but these idiots forget that you're supposed to space the token big-star's scenes out through the WHOLE movie - he's gone within twenty minutes. Admittedly the movie is not as boring as the performers - completely ignorant of or incompetent at the three-act paradigm, nothing new there but in this case it happily means that stuff keeps happening when you're expecting a breather. The rats do devour a baby boy in a high chair and leave a bloody trail to the basement, which would be impressive except for the fact that nobody mentions or even notices this fact for the rest of the movie! It's fun watching the Toronto locations on parade, an old man gets ratted in what we decided is probably the pre-Rubik's Cube Grange Park. Several major plot points which make no sense whatsoever only add to the fun. And like other Canadian tax-shelter movies ("Phobia", anyone?) this is a convincing case study in the utter wrongness of the auteur theory. Clouse was Bruce Lee's director for Christ's sake, you can't blame him for the Corrupt Mayor or the candlelight-and-electric-piano sex scene.
The_Void James Herbert is a great horror writer, and The Rats; the first in a trilogy of rodent-infested horror stories, is surely one of his finest works. However, Herbert seems to suffer from an even more severe case of the same affliction that haunts Stephen King when it comes to movies; and that is that his work never gets the respect that it deserves. Aside from a few character names and the basic central theme, Deadly Eyes has little in common with its source material. The sluggish way that the plot plods out in this film is nothing like the exciting and engrossing way that Herbert wrote the story, and the principal problem here is that it takes far too long to get round to the actual rat attack; and the scenes in-between the horror aren't very interesting. The film focuses on Harris; a gym teacher who teams up with a woman named Kelly from the local health authority when a bunch of rats eat some infected corn and become monsters. It takes a while, but our lead character eventually realises what's going on; and it comes to a head on the subway where the rats have nested.Director Robert Clouse is no stranger to 'when animals attack' films, as he directed the decent 'The Pack' back in the seventies. He seems to not be too bothered about tension and suspense, however, and this is shown throughout as there's a distinct lack of it. We do get treated to some rat attack scenes throughout the film, but nothing too devastating until the ending when the film lets rip as much as the budget would allow. The major problem with the ending is that it's such a missed opportunity! The climax was a real highlight in the book and gave the story more weight than a novel about giant rats had any right to have; but here it's just the standard 'wipe them all out with fire' conclusion. To say this isn't a good film would be a huge understatement, but despite its short comings in just about every department; there's something that is easy to like about this film. Maybe it's the amazingly rubbish acting, or the fact that the rats are simply small dogs dressed up. It's probably best not to think about the book too much and just enjoy the film for what it is; namely, a below average slice of eighties tosh.
Tikkin I thought I was in for a real treat when I found this on VHS under the title "The Rats" recently. However, cover artwork is usually deceptive in the horror genre and The Rats is no exception. There are a few good scenes scattered about, but not enough to make the film good as a whole, even in a cheesy way. The funniest scene is near the beginning, when a little toddler is sat eating, and the rats invade the kitchen and drag him into the cellar (the dragging is shown off-screen though). The only other scene worthy of note is when the rats attack a cinema full of popcorn munchers. This scene is hilarious, as everyone starts yelping as the rats simultaneously bite their feet. Other scenes with the rats in are mostly shot in darkness so it's too hard to see what's going on. You do occasionally see their noses and whiskers, but that's about it. The ending leaves room for a sequel, and is quite cool. Overall, this may be worth a watch if you can tolerate the boredom of waiting until the rats attack. The Rats will never be a cult classic as it's just not interesting or cheesy enough, but may still be worth a watch if this is your thing.