Deadly Eyes (1982) User Reviews

Daschunds in rat costumes

[Chase_Witherspoon · 6/10 · 2 May 2011]

Cat-sized rats, laced-up on steroid enriched grain apparently destined for starving kids in Africa, overrun the city as former chop-socky filmmaker Clouse applies his unique, high contact brand of action/horror. Breaking with convention early, his sewer mob spirit away a toddler from its high chair – a trail of blood and an empty wonder suit greets the hysterical mother, a scene sure to disaffect plenty of parents so early in the piece, they may not stay for the blood bath still to come. Local teacher and single dad Groom investigates the strange goings on, while courting the attentions of Health official (Botsford) and attempting to dissuade those of an infatuated student (Langlois).

The versatile vaudeville performer Crothers is wasted in a frivolous supporting role, while veteran Canadian actor Linder is also given little respect. Langlois is the most vivacious characterisation, giving conviction and dimension to the sexually confident and nubile young student, enamoured by the worldly but unattainable Groom. Clouse even manages to stage a rat attack during a Bruce Lee cinema retrospective at which his film "Game of Death" is played on the big screen, for those who might appreciate an in-joke.

It's formula filmmaking and Clouse handles both the characterisations and action sequences with adept skill, albeit with little attention to detail or continuity. Groom is an affable leading man, Botsford a more attractive proposition (there's even a fire-lit love scene to really set the mood), and the daschunds dressed in sewer rat costumes, almost look cute in some scenes, as they scamper from one mark to the next below aerial shots that clearly display their canine features. Extremely bloody with plenty of limb gnawing, bone chewing gore, "Night Eyes" is the perfect late night viewing experience.

Creature feature with substance and likeable characters.

[paulclaassen · 6/10 · 7 August 2023]

'Deadly Eyes' received negative reviews from critics and apparently even writer James Herbert - on whose novel the film is based - didn't like it. As for me, I actually really enjoyed this, and I'll tell you why.

While the rats are not the most realistic looking rodents, they are ugly looking things. The film doesn't waste time before the rats start killing, but the film is not only about the rats. There's romance and drama here as well. And I enjoyed this. These events nicely fleshed out the characters, and the characters were very likable.

Sam Groom stars as the film's main protagonist, Paul Harris (portrayed by hunky Sam Groom, with the most beautiful voice!). He is a divorced man living with his young son, Tim. One of his students, Trudy (Lisa Langlois) has a crush on him, and tells one of her girlfriends she will have sex with Paul within a month.

But Paul is not interested in Trudy. He meets and falls in love with Kelly (Sara Botsford), who works for the Department of Health. I found their relationship very natural, and thought Sara Botsford did a great job as Kelly.

Back to the rats; the film shows no mercy as the rats even kill (and eat) toddlers and the elderly. Clever photography makes the events all the more realistic, and the suspense is well crafted. The total mayhem during the climax is reminiscent of 50s and 60s horror movies. Personally, I found 'Deadly Eyes' an above average horror thriller with substance, and a great addition to the 80s horror portfolio. I know it's hardly an original premise, as we've seen this sort of thing a hundred times before. I guess I was hooked on the characters.

Judging by critics, I'm in the minority here, but I loved the movie.

Silly rodents & sappy romance.

[Coventry · 6/10 · 4 October 2006]

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.

Dogs in rat suits terrorize the city

[shuz · 22 April 1999]

Giant rat movie based on excellent book "The Rats", this is a definite addition to the So-Bad-It's-Almost-Good hall of fame. You think you have seen it all until you see the little dogs in rat costumes running everywhere, munching on fleeing, screaming humans. Lisa Langlois plays the standard doomed "bad girl" role well, you just know her days are numbered. Fun no brainer flick, don't expect too much.

Tedious Mess

[spencergrande6 · 5/10 · 12 December 2016]

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).

For rat-movie completists only.

[gridoon · 4/10 · 30 September 2002]

There's too much filler between the unexceptional attack scenes, but the special effects work better than you'd expect, considering their "infamous" and peculiar history. A fun bit of trivia that nobody else here mentioned: Robert Clouse, who made this film, was also the director of the last Bruce Lee vehicle, "Game of Death", clips of which we watch during the extended scene in the movie theater. (**)

Unmitigated trash...but not good trash

[fertilecelluloid · 2/10 · 12 December 2005]

The director of "Enter The Dragon" does James Herbert. The result is unmitigated trash...and not even good trash. This is a total misfire, a Canadian-shot adaptation of one of the greatest British horror novels, "The Rats". How anybody thought this would work is beyond comprehension.

The film retains little of Herbert's novel. There is an attack in a movie theater, which is terribly fake, and the film does retain some of the characters, but it's as if the producers had no respect for the novel's rich characterization and, more importantly, classic London setting. The Canadian setting does not work at all.

I pray that nobody even attempts to turn the sequels, "Lair" and "Domain" into films, not unless the budgets are massive or, more importantly, the producers are smart.

Herbert's "The Survivor", later unofficially remade as "Fearless" (starring Jeff Bridges), was botched also by David Hemmings and producer Antony I. Ginnane.

Very familiar but OK

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 4 September 2002]

Rats eat corn which inexplicably is coated with steroids and grow into large rats with nasty tempers, huge teeth and seem even more intelligent. Science teacher Sam Groom and health official Sara Botsford find out and try to save the city (carefully not named but it was filmed in Toronto).

The plot is old hat but this is reasonably well done. The script is OK and the acting is pretty good (especially Botsford). But what really makes me give this a 7 is the rats. Yes, I know they're dogs in rat suits but they look convincing and the scenes of them chasing victims are scary. Also the attack scenes (especially the one in the theatre) are vicious, bloody and very gory.

So a worthwhile movie for horror fans--especially those who like early 80s horror (like me). But if rats bother you, stay far away from this!

Kills time agreeably enough.

[Hey_Sweden · 5/10 · 17 July 2014]

Rats in Toronto become a ravenous, deadly strain after feasting on grain that had been contaminated with steroids. When all of the grain is burned up, the rats head for the sewers, periodically coming out to start feasting on many unlucky human victims. The unlikely heroes of the piece are science teacher & basketball coach Paul Harris (Sam Groom) and health inspector Kelly Leonard (Sara Botsford), who realize what they're dealing with and try to save the people occupying a new subway line.

Author James Herbert was none too pleased with this not particularly faithful film version of his novel. As directed by Robert Clouse, a man better known for martial arts classics like "Enter the Dragon" and "Game of Death" (the latter is seen on a theatre screen here), it's adequate entertainment. At least this viewer can say that its pacing is quite effective. The rats do claim a fairly high body count, including an infant. Clouse creates some decent atmosphere in some of the shots and underground sequences, although there's never really very much tension throughout the thing. Most genre buffs already know that the rodent menaces were actually played by dachshunds wearing costumes and rather crude rat faces. Some viewers may well wish there was a lot more gore. One good touch is to have this story take place in the wintertime, which does add to the atmosphere. The cast is rather nondescript but certainly likable; Groom and Botsford are reasonably engaging leads. Lovely Canadian scream queens of the time Lisa Langlois and Lesleh Donaldson co-star (Langlois plays a student of Grooms' who in a subplot develops an infatuation with him), but the one person who is really worth watching here is ever lovable Scatman Crothers, who you really miss when he's gone.

Unfortunately, the climax isn't all that exciting, and the ending is quite unsatisfying. Overall the movie is quite amusing if not exactly very good.

Five out of 10.

i'd like to see your Deadly Eyes!!!!!

[saint-21 · 7/10 · 25 December 2008]

OK, i remember seeing deadly eyes on cable back in or around 84...I haven't seen it since, oh wait , i rented it on video around 90 or so to see how it held up. Well, not bad, but by 1990 early 80's horror films started to show some age. I would like to see a DVD copy though. I remember big rats attacking everyone, they seem to feed off of eating grain to get to this size. It's one was kinda bloody. There's a scene were the rats eat a little baby, attack a subway and movie theater.. And this film is really well remembered for scatman crothers. I love this guy, hes great in everything hes in.. But i don't think he lasts too long here... Maybe we will see warner bros release this on DVD someday.. I cant even find it on you tube. Also its Canadian production so we have a few actresses from another canada film Happy Birthday to Me... Don't think this one did too well at the box office...

Old grounds worth treading once.

[cedde6 · 5/10 · 19 December 2012]

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).

dog food

[stompy · 10/10 · 7 November 2009]

Yeah the movie sucks but we had a great time making it.

I got thrown through a glass window, hurled down a flight of stairs, and had dog food and corn syrup plastered on my face so the dogs would "eat" me...

I gotta tell ya, the dogs were treated like kings.

Each dog could only work 2 hours and they could only shoot for 5 minutes at a time.

They all had air conditioned kennels.

The humans on the other hand... well we just had to fend for ourselves...

George "Stompy" Hollo

'amusing time-waster concerning the mainly human diet of a ravening plague of dachshund-sized rats in downtown Toronto!'

[Weirdling_Wolf · 7/10 · 23 January 2014]

THE RATS (Robert Clouse) This little documented B-monster mash up turned out to be quite an amusing time-waster concerning the mainly human diet of a ravening plague of dachshund-sized rats in downtown Toronto. The real problem with the film is that it is meant to be based on James Herbert's scuzzball splatterfest, and outside of cribbing the title, Clouse ill-advisedly decided to eschew Herbert's wall-to-wall grume and stick to a more conventional modus operandi, which plays like a 1950's Bert I. Gordon quickie, but it's this very anachronistic take on the genre which I found so appealing; 'Deadly Eyes' would make a great double bill with the equally ludicrous, but entirely fantastic 'Food Of The Gods'. A particularly amusing moment (reminding one of 'The Blob') is the sequence in the packed cinema with a clutch of appreciative, vocal fans enjoying the classic sequence from 'Game of Death' where Bruce Lee makes light work of lanky titan, Kareem Abdul Jabbar; when suddenly the rampaging rats chew their way through the shrieking audience; bloody marvelous! Yes, the script is banal, with all the characterizations and performances, outside of the delightful Scatman Crothers cameo being completely perfunctory, but miraculously all this lumpen silliness manages to translate into acceptable late-night fare. (Admittedly it's one of those uninspired schlockers where one's lack of sobriety plays a role in the degree of entertainment said film affords).

Enjoyable, but disappointing considering the source material

[The_Void · 5/10 · 13 September 2006]

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.

Gritty Wintertime Rat Horror!

[Cobbler · 13 May 1999]

Even if you know they're really dachshunds in rat suits, they're still pretty gruesome! It doesn't matter how fast you run, they'll still catch you!! There's a classic scene- an attack on a movie theater-- which you'll be thinking about for days afterward. This flick has a gritty, wintertime dinginess which I like. Plus, it's got Mr. Scatman Crothers- how can you go wrong?? Definitely worth a rental, especially for fans of low-budget horror films of the early 80s.

unintentional comedy gold

[eileenmchenry · 4/10 · 17 January 2004]

Nature runs amok AGAIN as some rats get into a shipment of contaminated grain and get, well, really big. Hijinks ensue as they decide to attend the gala opening of a new subway line. Stupefyingly bad film with choppy action, uneven acting, and a fleet of highly-trained dachshunds in rat costumes. Meant to be watched in total disbelief.

Attack Of The Sausage Dogs

[Theo Robertson · 5/10 · 5 May 2014]

Writer James Herbert was something of a folk hero to people of a certain age . You can praise any writer of literature as much as you want but to be a teenager in the 1980s no book was more enjoyable than one by Herbert . The 1980s was a golden period of horror and much of it was kick started by Herbert's 1974 pulp fiction horror novel THE RATS that launched a whole host of other writers such as Guy N Smith who tried to emulate Herbert's style . Time hasn't been kind to his work because horror nowadays isn't as fashionable as it was once and Herbert's books have a very formulaic , predictable structure where every chapter alternates between one that is vaguely important to the plot followed by another that serves to introduce a character only for them to be killed off at the end of the chapter . There's a lot of truth in what critics say that if you read the even numbered chapters in a Herbert novel you can still follow the plot to a tee and the odd numbered chapters are mere padding . That said if you take his books on their own terms they are rather enjoyably disturbing and entertaining . It does become noticeable that the writer had one eye on the cinema/TV market later and DOMAIN the book that ended his Rats trilogy seems a conscious attempt to pitch his novel to a film company hence the nuclear devastated landscape of London is made more film-able by having many key scenes take place in the pitch blackness of or in mist shrouded day scenes which saves on a potential budget . Apparently the writer was very unhappy about his previous books THE RATS and THE SURVIVOR being translated to screen

It seems a bit arrogant of Herbert . Despite bigging up the alleged subtext that THE RATS is supposed to have it's pretty obvious that he wasn't going to win the Nobel prize for literature . Whatever it's faults or merits THE RATS does lend itself very much to cheesy cinematic horror . The screenplay does follow the structure of the novel for the most part with the audience being witnesses to a series of episodic rat attacks and being one step ahead of the main protagonists in the story . There's two problems though . One is that the cinematography is very dark and murky and it's painfully obvious Roger Deakins didn't work on this film but maybe I was just watching a very bad print so should be forgiving . What is less forgivable is the production team trying o get around realising rat attacks on screen . Some of the close ups see animatronics used which are serviceable but for medium and long shots the production team use dachshunds made up to resemble rats . They're made up very badly I hasten to add and the effect is often laughable and even if you didn't know they were sausage dogs you're painfully aware that they're not rats either . Well let's be somewhat charitable and say there is an element of fun to all this as people are eaten alive by the dachshunds and stops the film from having a cynical mean spiritedness

they DO eat the baby!!!

[jonathan-577 · 3/10 · 3 July 2007]

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.

I had fun watching this movie

[atinder · 7/10 · 8 April 2013]

This is very loosely based on Classic James Herbert Novel Rats , I heard nothing but really bad stuff comment about this movie, It taken me while to see it!

As I been in Killer Rats movie mood lately , I gave this go.

You know what, I actually it enjoyed it, I thought it was so much better then I thought it was going to be.

We know no movie is better then any book. no matter how good the movie is never come close to the book.

I found this really well paced it as some really good attack scenes in this movie, some very bloody moment in this movie not not gory.

Those are some big ass rats in this movie (I know their dog in rats suit) They didn't look half that of bad.

The acting was really good in this movie for this kind of movie from the whole cast.

I didn't like some of the sub plot were a little boring at, Girl in love with teacher, they should have skip that, we could got more Rat actions.

The loved the way the movie ended

7 out of 10. I had fun watching this movie!

Right up there with killer puppies.

[Aaron1375 · 2/10 · 1 August 2009]

This was a killer slightly giant rat movie. The main problem with this movie is one similar movies have had a hard time doing. Trying to dress up one animal to make it look like another animal. It was done in the killer shrew as it was apparent they were just dogs with bad costumes taped to them or something and it is very apparent in this movie. What is the animal of choice you ask? Dashaund dogs...yes the wiener dog is dressed up poorly to look like a rat and it does not work at all. The movie might as well had killer kittens or something else as a friendly happy dog just does not do a great job of playing the killer role. Just hard to recommend any movie like this...makes those movies where the animal is just projected onto a screen look amazing by comparison. So that is about it with this movie, wiener dogs dressed up like giant rats with not to many good gory kills to accompany their presence. So yes I would have to say this movie misses the mark, but at least they did not use poodles.

An Incredible Bad Good (or Good Bad) Movie

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 26 July 2014]

Contaminated grain breeds overgrown, killer rats in this Golden Harvest production. Dachshunds were dressed up as rats for the special effects. That is all you need to know.

Exactly how to judge this film is something of a mystery. By no stretch of the imagination is it good in any critical sense. The acting is average, the plot is incomplete, multiple subplots turn up for no reason and never get resolved. The editing is choppy. The special effects are good, even if funny.

Horror fans who like their films cheesy will love this. Others might be a bit more let down, as there is something lacking. The gore is glorious, though, and you can never take that away from them.

Available now on Blu-Ray from Scream! Factory, with more than a handful of bonus interviews.

Hilarious 80's horror garbage.

[Aussie Stud · 1/10 · 9 September 2001]

This has got to be one of the stupidest films since C.H.U.D. that I have ever seen.

In Australia, this film is simply titled "RATS". The box cover is green and there's this hilarious animated picture of a rat with red eyes and sharp teeth gnawing on a severed hand dripping with blood. I thought to myself, "This ought to be good."

When I watched the film, there seemed to be no plot at all. The acting was the funniest thing about the film - there really wasn't any to be seen! For any of you out there who are afraid of rats, don't let the title of this film deter you - the rats themselves are about as tame as the cute koala bears at your local zoo. Picture little dogs dressed up in rat suits running around (never mind that you can see the zippers) and that's about as harmful as this film gets.

I'm not sure what it is about rat films like this that all carry the same cliche's. We have the foolish woman who investigates 'strange noises' in her basement after her baby goes missing, only to be attacked by a mutant rat that jumps out of the dark. We have a man walking his dog in the dark - his dog hears strange noises, breaks free from its leash and runs off into the darkness, only to be stopped short by a piercing yelp and having the owner meeting his own demise after investigating the cause. But this carries one of the most hilarious scenes in cinematic history - seeing Scatman Crothers' body getting dragged down a set of stairs by mutant rats! It actually looks like three dogs pulling a mannequin with lamb chops tied to strings down a set of stairs, but you have to use your imagination here.

Overall, I thought this was also one of the worst films that I have ever seen. This should have been placed under the 'Family' section at video store - there was certainly nothing 'horrific' about this film, other than the fact that it was made on a shoestring budget and featured dogs in rat suits and people that couldn't act.

Save this one for when you're drunk and you need something funny to laugh at.

My Grade: Z!

You're going to need bigger mousetraps!

[GOWBTW · 9/10 · 29 March 2018]

Having a rodent problem is no walk in the park. But when they ingest something in huge amounts, that's when the nightmare begins. It all starts with a grainery storage where the corn feed is not just unsafe for sale, but it contains a steroid that it's a violation of profiting purposes. Once the rats got a hold of the grain, the feeding frenzy starts to take place. High school students are always doing stuff. Sports, homework, going out, etc. However, this will be one night, no one will ever forget. The student and toddler are the starting course of the rats' carnivorous casualties. Then the old man after his date. With all those attacks, how will it end? A brave coach and his son joins with a city official against the madness. Even Though this is an early 1980's horror movie, it was fun though. Showing snippets of one of Bruce Lee's film, it was very nice. I have seen rats the size of cats. Having a gun or a big knife or sword can nip it in the bud. This movie can also make exterminators cringe. Have your guns ready for this film, at least bugs aren't involved. 2 out of 5 stars

Gonna need a bigger mouse trap..

[PredragReviews · 6/10 · 5 April 2017]

Whether you like this or not will probably depend on your enjoyment of 80's style horror. It's a fun, cheesy 80's flick. Dachshunds dressed up in rat costumes terrorize the city. There's really nothing more to it than that. Set in an unnamed city with Toronto doubling up for a cold, snowy location in the US, jobsworth government health official Kelly Leonard (Sara Botsford) seizes a huge batch of imported grain that has been found to be loaded with steroids. As the owner of the offending batch watches on, Kelly and her righthand man George (Scatman Crothers of The Shining) burn the whole containment which inadvertently forces the resident rat population scurrying for the city sewer system. Not a huge problem as the underground tunnels are already home to thousands of the furry critters but as these particular rodents have chowed down on the steroid infused grain these are not your normal vermin. Mutated, oversized and extremely aggressive, the super rats are now loose in the city and seemingly growing in numbers attacking anyone or anything unlucky enough to cross their path.

Despite a rather tired premise The Rats remains entertaining enough as long as you can ignore plot holes, hokey science and questionable special effects. Robert Clouse keeps the pace brisk and the movie is well worth seeing alone just for the cinema attack scene and the subway train finalé (which leaves The Rats wide open for a sequel that for whatever reason never materialised). Why the filmmakers attached James Herbert's name to the credits when not one soul could muster the energy to read the source novel is beyond me; Herbert should have taken legal action appropriately, but hopefully (if he did not) he received a payment of substantial worth anyway. This is not an adaptation of the Herbert novel at all, as the screenwriters seemed to have invented every other plot point on from the time when the boy gets his hand bitten by a rat. True, Herbert's book would have been too gross and expensive to film but this is a ludicrous movie counterpart at best.

Overall rating: 6 out of 10.

Well staged action throughout, but this monster movie's too low budget to have much effect

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 24 October 2016]

A disappointingly weak adaptation of James Herbert's nasty novel of the same name, this plodding movie strings together a number of passable action sequences of people being attacked by giant rats with some dull characterisation involving everyday run-of-the-mill characters that it's difficult to care two hoots about. The movie has a cold, clinically detached feel to it which oddly seems to be the case with most horror movies filmed in Canada - check out Cronenberg's early work if you don't believe me. This opinion comes from a big fan of monster movies, too, so be prepared to rate it even lower if you're not a fun of such fare.

From the twelve minute (!) pre-credit sequence to the supposedly shocking freeze-frame of a papier-mâché rat "head" lunging at the camera at the end of the film, you won't find much to shock or terrify you with this movie. It may just send you asleep though. While the rat attack sequences are undoubtedly the highlights of the movie and contain some nicely gory touches, most are filmed in too-dark locations to disguise the fact that the oversize rats are simply dogs dressed in rat costumes. I know that the film got a lot of stick for having dogs as the villains, but for me the effect is pretty realistic in long-shot.

The increasingly bizarre murders are initiated by a genuinely shocking attack on a young baby, followed by an old man, a professor, a kid in a bowling alley and even patrons of a cinema (showing GAME OF DEATH of all things) getting chewed by the pesky rodents. Events culminate with the rats loose in a subway and a train containing the mayor and guests of an official opening party breaks down and everybody gets bloodily massacred. The film's token hero, his love interest, and child find themselves besieged by the ravenous critters before escaping with the help of a well-timed explosion, and then the film just suddenly freeze-frames at a downbeat moment with no finalisation or epilogue to finish it off. It looks like they ran out of film!

The lack of appealing characters really hurts the film too, and makes it difficult to care. Sam Groom, the film's lead, is a good actor but his teacher, while well characterised, is just boring and ordinary and displays little heroic tendencies. The rest of the unknown cast are okay, but nobody really shines with the exception of token star Scatman Crothers, who ends up being just as unlucky as he was in THE SHINING. Even the gore effects, while nicely bloody, are only shown in quick glimpses perhaps to disguise the low budget. I found this to be a watchable film but a distinctly unimpressive one which is already beginning to fade from my memory, despite the fact I only watched it yesterday. I'm sure that in a week's time all I'll have will be a fleeting memory...