Attack of the Eye Creatures (TV Movie 1967) Poster

(1967 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
60 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Awful, yet in a funny way
hippiegal3 August 2002
I confess I love 50's & 60's B flicks. But I think in some ways the ones from the 60's were way more out there in both concept and sheer silliness. Take this movie. The monsters look like bad Halloween costumes falling apart. The goofs are too much to list. It looks like it was filmed in someone's back yard. It seems more effort was used to make the actress' hair stand a foot in the air than the entire monster costume budget. ( I love 60's hair by the way.)But it's funny in a super campy, cutsy way. Unlike most vintage B-flicks which can be boring through out much of the duration. Eye creatures has sort of a Ed Wood-esque level of entertainment. I highly recommend it to someone who loves old campy horror movies. But not to someone who doesn't know how to laugh at a movie such as this one.

By the way this is one of my all time favorite MST300 episodes.
20 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
"The The Land of the Midnight Sun" would have been a better title for this one
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki22 September 2003
I just saw this greasy little movie over the weekend (thank you very much "Off Beat Cinema") and I was surprised to see that IMDb has the budget listed for this movie as being $16.000, I was guessing somewhere south of about $10.000, or even $5000. What the hell did they spend the other six grand on? The lead actor's hair gel? Maybe they should have invested in a spell-checker for the title.

A pair of alleged "teenagers" (who appear to be in their mid 20s, and seem like they're just reading their lines from cue cards) discover some sort of tennis shoe-wearing alien invasion while driving around in the dark/ broad daylight/ dark again one night(?), and the police don't believe them. Maybe if they would have told the cameraman to FOCUS the camera the police would believe them then? and the writers (Paul Fairman, Bob Gurney Jr., and Al Martin) might not have taken their names off of the credits?

IMDb lists this as being 80 minutes, but the version I saw was considerably shorter, probably only 65 or 70 minutes. But it was still a long 65 or 70 minutes.

Almost funny in a "so bad it's good" kind of way. Almost, but not quite.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Probably among Larry Buchanan's best!
planktonrules1 January 2009
Two teenagers meet up with scary aliens and when they escape, none of the adults in town believe them. So it's up to the teens to get together to save the Earth--just like in other 50s and 60s sci-fi films like THE BLOB and EARTH VS. THE GIANT SPIDER.

In the last week, I've seen five of Larry Buchanan's films and I've seen a few others over the years. Sadly, while this is a terrible film, it's probably among the very best films he made! In the 1960s, he made almost a dozen remakes of older Roger Corman films and this is one of them. Originally INVASION OF THE SAUCER MEN, this remake is amazingly bland and tame--mostly because it lacks the charm and great looking aliens from the original. The acting is generally surprisingly good for a Buchanan film--most of the actors seem semi-competent and DON'T read their lines from cue cards in a staccato voice. However, the "comic relief" soldiers are pretty dreadful. Plus, the aliens look cheap, the story too close to the original and too little reason exists not to just watch INVASION and be done with it--especially since INVASION is a real cult classic, whereas THE EYE CREATURES is just boring.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No. Just...plain...no.
kikaidar20 May 2000
One of those flicks which play out like some grim, awful train wreck you just can't take your eyes from. Unfortunately, in the case of EYE CREATURES, it's the train wreck from GIANT GILA MONSTER, where you can clearly see the name Lionel printed on the side of one of the cars.

In the 1960s, American-International decided to get in on the television releasing business as had Screen Gems and other branches of the major studios. Studios like Universal-International were making fresh revenue on older titles by making them available for television screenings, so this seemed like a good idea. Well, at the time...

Unfortunately, color films were becoming increasingly popular and AIP's stable, generally made on a budget, were largely black-and-white.

"Inspired," Arkoff and Nicholson contracted with Texas producer Larry Buchannan to make remakes of some of their sci-fi films. Among the films to be refilmed were SHE CREATURE, VOODOO WOMAN, IT CONQUERED THE WORLD and INVASION OF THE SAUCERMEN. Buchannan also included a couple of original films in the package.

The results were uniformly awful. THE EYE CREATURES fights grimly to be the worst of the lot. There is sooo much to pick to pieces on this film.

Day-to-night filming is dreary, and in the middle of the most "tense" night shots, you can clearly see deep shadows and stray sunbeams akimbo. Buchannan's creatures also evidently cost more than he could justify to make (even though a still clearly shows the material on the feet is simply folded over and stapled underneath the soles). In several scenes, extras wearing black leotards and only the bulky, googly heads plod along with fully costumed aliens.

As for the aliens' ship (a high point of the original SAUCERMEN)? The new face of Terror From Beyond comes in a hubcap draped with Christmas lights and the top of a can of Krylon spray paint as a topper. Run, foolish Earthlings! Run and hide before it's too late!

Then there is the acting -- a heady blend of astonishingly banal "comedy" and theatrics you'd expect in a grade school play. AIP made several attempts at turning John Ashley into the new Fabian (he does a musical number in HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER), but he didn't click, and later went to the Philippines to produce movies there.

Particularly frightening are the stolid minions of the Air Force, who literally combat the eye being by sitting at a monitor screen, spying on necking teens and making smarmy comment. Evidently relying on a largely local cast, Buchannan dredges up the most uniformly repulsive cast imaginable. Only the female lead emerges with a shred of decency.

No contempt was spared in the making of this film. Or in the preparation of fresh prints for later TV release. EYE CREATURES was one of a number of films picked up by Wade Williams, and I assume it was during this transition that the new title, "Attack of The The Eye Creatures" stuttered into being. That pretty much says it for the entire film.
29 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
they really didn't care
moviemeister11 May 2004
I happened to see the mst3k version of this flick, and at one point in the show,the bots and Joel come on with a skit called "they just didn't care",which showed off some of the many glaring errors of the director(of which there was a plethora,many of which even they failed to mention).but the most glaring error of all is the entire supposition of the plot.A group of aliens possessing interstellar travel come to a planet where the light of it's star is instantly fatal to them.But,they forget to bring any protective equipment,even something as simple as a space suit or sun screen.Also, their "flying saucer" was destroyed with a blowtorch.How did such stupid creatures manage to discover interstellar travel.Next to this idiotic idea the rest of the story is just anticlimax.Who cares that the acting is horrid,the effects deplorable,the plot sequence unfollowable,the comedy unlaughable,the costuming unbelievable,and the movie basically just unwatchable. But, like the bots on mst said they just didn't care. consequently,we don't care either. but if its any consolation,the mst3k version is pretty entertaining.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
More like boily, bumpy, kind of bored creatures
InzyWimzy18 February 2001
Y' know, this movie is really funny. Oh, it lies there with cheaply made productions like MANOS, MONSTER A GO GO, etc., but I really think it was meant to be crappy and funny. For example, I'm sure it's really easy to sneak out of a police station with the convenient side exit!! Oh, plus, the creatures themselves (YAWN) look like they were made in someone's garage with styrofoam and cans of spray paint. The particularly naked alien in a black clothing just tickled. So, for laffs and to see how "they just didn't care", watch this one.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"The Aliens Are Welding Back At Me!!"
lemon_magic7 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Here's what happens when you've watched enough episodes of MST3K: You see a profoundly unattractive actor in a bit part the opening scene of "Eye Creatures" and you recognize the seeming hatchet wound in his forehead during his 30 seconds on film, and you remember him as the heroic lead in another terrible film by another terrible director called "The Giant Spider Invasion" (also covered by MST). And you begin to suspect the existence of an infinite Quagmire Of Suck which might swallow you whole if you watched too many movies like this and lost your bearings.

I've read another IMDb members' comment on "Eye Creatures"; he argues that the film was intended to be funny, and if it had been made as a sit-com for TV, it would have come with a laugh track as the viewer notices all the discrepancies, continuity errors, and glitches. I appreciate the commenter's generosity of spirit and tolerant attitude towards the film makers and toward the whole genre of cheap, 3rd rate horror movies. But I am not buying it.

Oh, I agree that the film tries to be light-hearted and amusing (as opposed to dead serious trash like 'Xtro'). A lot of the dialog is obviously meant to be funny, one character (the sap in the sweater-dress) is the broadest kind of comedy relief, and most of the scenes are played for a farcical affect. But the movie is just incompetently made; from the day-for-night lighting, to the badly delivered dialog that is supposed to be funny but ain't, to the incomprehensible plot holes (alien invaders who can be destroyed by headlight beams???) to the non-performances by the actors, to the costumes (which wouldn't be convincing even if they were complete)...you can't point at these things and argue that 'they meant this to be a lampoon of the conventions of the genre' when the movie fails to do a SINGLE THING RIGHT. As Joel and the Robots point out in their final wrap up of the film, "Ladies and Gentlemen, THEY JUST DIDN'T CARE!"

You doubt me? The opening title screen reads "Attack Of The The Eye Creatures". (One 'the' in the small print at the top of the screen - "Attack of The" - and a second 'the' embedded in the 'eyeball-shaped' main portion of the title - "The Eye Creatures"). That's not a lampoon, that's just lack of proof reading. It isn't (intentionally) funny and it signals slip-shod hackwork approaching the viewer at the speed of thought. They just didn't care.

Worth watching for the sake of its hilarious incompetence, but don't believe anyone who argues that "the filmmakers meant it to be that way". Larry Buchanan and Co. simply sh*t something out and hoped that people would somehow want to watch it.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
"Opening strange doors isn't a thing for a good clean-living American girl to do!"
bensonmum218 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
There's a reason that The Eye Creatures (or Attack of the the Eye Creatures . . . huh?) was such perfect fodder for Mystery Science Theater 3000 - it's one gawd awful movie. You could write a thesis on the many obvious faults found in The Eye Creatures. But it's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel – there's no real challenge. When you've got a movie this bad with a plodding plot, rigor mortis stiff acting, beyond laughable special effects, no tension, no drama, and painfully inept direction, writing at length about all the negatives is way too easy. So I won't bother. Instead, I'll just mention the attempts at humor in The Eye Creatures. This is low-brow, sophomoric stuff on a whole new scale. One of the biggest, most grand on-going jokes in the film involves a couple of military types who are supposed to be watching a radar that's tracking UFOs. Instead, they've somehow managed to train their infrared sensors on the kids' local make-out spot. What hilarity! A couple of grown goofs who seem to derive way to much enjoyment out of watching kids necking. Not having sex, mind you - just kissing. How funny is that? Actually, now that I think about it, maybe it is funny in an incredibly sort of pathetic way. Regardless, the attempts at humor injected into this lamo script are about as flat as an alien that's been hit by a car.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So what are they gonna do? Stare at us to death?
Gafke17 February 2005
A small group of lumpy, oozy guys in rubber costumes land on Earth and proceed to just kind of hang out in the woods for a while. The military knows they've landed, and they've got their spaceship surrounded. Too bad there's no one inside of it. The teeners know what's going on too, but no one believes them because they're just kids! When a greasy drifter winds up dead at the hands of an Eye Creature, local clean cut and slightly bad boy Stan Kenton is blamed for it. But he, the drifters roommate, Stan's girlfriend Susan and her tower of hair all know the truth - it was ALIENS!!! And they're determined to vanquish the slimy enemies themselves!

This remake of "Invasion of the Saucer Men" is not only cheesy, greasy and depressing, it was also totally unnecessary, since little about the plot or even the script was altered. There's also the small fact that "Invasion of the Saucer Men" wasn't any great shakes either, so why bother remaking it to begin with? No one in this putrid mess can act, except for the guy who plays Stan and believe me, he cannot save this movie. There's so much to loathe in this film - Susan's gravity defying hair, the roommate and his striped sweater dress, the old guy with the shotgun and the horrible backwoods jargon, the incredibly foul and sweaty soldiers who spend the entire movie watching other people make out. The very film that this movie is printed on seems soaked in sweat and other less savory fluids. It's a bit like watching a cheaply made porno without any sex to make it interesting or entertaining.

Oh, and don't forget the Eye Creatures themselves, whose running shoes and turtleneck sweaters can be spotted quite easily. They instill no sense of terror as they lumber about, vomiting up blackberry jam and exploding into puffs of smoke whenever a light is shined upon them. These guys look like Styrofoam packing material come to life...a lethargic, pointless life to be sure, but life nonetheless.

The MST3K version of this film is great. The film itself sucks. The director is clearly a sadistic misanthrope who hates his audience. You have been warned.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
They just didn't care....
mrgb4815 September 2009
First of all,this is a remake of Invasion of the Saucer Men,but this movie isn't near as good as that one.Why? Lousy script.Bad "special" effects and last,you can SEE that some of the Eye Creatures only have the headpiece on and that's it! Some are wearing black shirt and pants and tennis shoes.Plus,it goes from day to night and back again in one shot! The so-called "night" shots look as though they were filmed in the afternoon.And let's not forget the title either.The original title was The Eye Creatures,but I think when it was re-released,some idiot decided to add "Attack of the" on the front to make it "Attack of the the Eye Creatures"..I've seen this by way of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and believe me,that's the only way to view this.Not unless you like movies that move slowly..Bad? Yes.Fun to watch on a rainy night? Maybe.As bad as "Plan 9"??? You be the judge..Have fun!!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Loved it when I was 10....
preppy-310 January 2006
A TV remake of "Invasion of the Saucer Men". Now while "Invasion..." is hardly a great movie it looks like "Gone With the Wind" compared to this! I saw it nonstop on TV when I was about 10--a local TV station showed it continuously. I liked it then--but I WAS only 10! Seeing it now I was astounded--but not in a good way. Lousy acting (although John Ashley DOES try), stupid plot, TERRIBLE dialogue and some of the most uproariously stupid-looking monsters I've ever seen. It's the kind of film you just watch slack-jawed in amazement--amazed that anything this bad was made! Halfway through this I started laughing and didn't stop till the movie was over. Truly--this is movie-making at its absolute nadir. A must-see--just to see how NOT to make a movie.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"Plan 9" has nothing on this one!!!
Ghidorah27 April 1999
This is, without a doubt, the funniest movie I have ever seen! Who cares if it was supposed to be a serious horror/sci-fi flick? The script, acting, cinematography, special effects and general production values are, quite literally, laughable. And hilariously so! One example... The climactic scenes all take place in the middle of the night, but instead of actually FILMING it at night they shot it at in the middle of the afternoon with a filter over the lens. Not only does everything cast a well defined shadow, you can even see the sun shining through the trees in a number of scenes! I know I'm weird, but to me THIS is the epitome of enjoyable cinema!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bad movie lovers rejoice.
Hey_Sweden18 October 2021
A remake of the earlier "Invasion of the Saucer Men", Larry Buchanans' "The Eye Creatures" stars B movie perennial John Ashley as Stan Kenyon, a character not unlike Steve McQueens' Steve Andrews in "The Blob". Stan mobilizes the youth of a small Texas burg against invading "space men". Much of the plot is devoted to Stan being investigated by the police when the titular Eye Creatures kill the inquisitive Carl Fenton (Bill Peck) and then frame Stan for the killing. Fortunately, Stan constantly has his leading lady (the cute Cynthia Hull) by his side.

For a while, "The Eye Creatures" is just not that much fun, at least in a "so bad it's good" sense because it's just not funny enough. (For one thing, too much time is spent with two intentional comedy relief characters who wear out their welcome before long.) But it starts "improving", so to speak, and cooking, whenever what I like to call the Mashed Potato Men are stomping around. These aliens are so tacky that they're just a riot. And yes, they *are* multi-orbed, although the eyes are randomly placed on their heads.

Much like "The Blob", "The Eye Creatures" makes the generation gap an aspect of its presentation, with authority figures like the police chief (Warren Hammack) and Susans' district attorney father refusing to take the kids seriously. So, *naturally*, the kids have to eventually band together.

This is a decent cheesy-B that does have its moments, enough to make it a pleasant (if not consistently hysterical) viewing.

Buchanans' fellow Texas-based filmmaker S. F. Brownrigg was the editor, Edwin Tobolowsky (third cousin of the current character actor Stephen Tobolowsky) was the associate producer, and an unbilled Peter Graves can be heard as the narrator of the USAF briefing film.

Six out of 10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Folks, they just didn't care.
lifeisgood145 April 2006
If you ever have to see this movie, see it with Joel and the bots. Otherwise it will suck the will to live from your body like a black hole made of sheer incompetence. The whole thing is supposed to take place at night, despite the fact that most of it appears to have been filmed on a bright, sunny day. In fact, night and day interchange randomly through the entire movie as though the director wasn't sure of the difference between them. (Example: couple driving in darkness stops their car, the camera switches, and suddenly they're stepping out of their car in broad daylight.) The characters are all either vague, ridiculous or aliens. Whatever they tell you on the summary, there is definitely no plot. The action is morbidly slow and confusing, much like the aliens themselves. The actual title of the movie according to the opening credits is "Attack of the the Eye Creatures." Many of the aliens appear to be wearing sneakers and black backstage garb, but if you can see through the terrible cinematography to notice that, then you've probably seen "Eye Creatures" enough that you don't need to read this piece anyway.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's Funny Because They Have Lots of Eyes!
NyeFan3 July 2000
"The Eye Creatures" is based on the slightly less ridiculous 1957 movie "Invasion of the Saucer Men," and is less an homage as an exact carbon copy, reproducing basically the same characters, scenes and lines, only worse. The one chance that "Eye Creatures" had at improving over the original involves the monsters and the way they are defeated (not to give anything away) but is squandered with the poor production values present. Eye creatures wearing only the mask of their outfit, or running around is comfortable tennis shoes destroy any possibility of respect for this film. Luckily this movie is short enough to be amusing, without stretching on into grating. Best watched on Mystery Science Theater, if possible.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Haste makes waste
lordzedd-322 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, here we go again. Another huge loser from Larry Buchanan. First of all, I doubt for one minute that the army would allow their expensive equipment to be used the way they did. Just to get their rocks off. Secondly, the old man who thinks he owns the whole freakin' mountain. The creatures themselves was kind of cool. But if all can afford is one eye creature, then show only one eye creature. Keep the others behind the bushes like they were suppose to stay. The crawling hand was just awful, you can see the rest of the arm in the light. I was thinking Larry Buchanan did it again by ripping off an older movie INVASION OF THE SAUCER MEN, but I did some research and he just based it on the same book THE COSMIC FRAMED which would explain all the similarities. But that doesn't explain the costume goofs, the character issues and the plan cheapness of the flick. I give THE EYE CREATURES....A HALF A STAR.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Larry Buchanan Does It Again!
Widget-53 February 1999
Director Larry Buchanan tries his grubby hand at remaking yet another AIP sci-fi flick; this time, it's the teen-comedy "Invasion of the Saucer Men" (in which aliens bug the heck out of some kids necking in Lover's Lane). While "Saucer Men" is by no means a masterpiece of American cinema, a single watching of Buchanan's remake makes the earlier film look like high art by comparison...

Buchanan's distinctive directorial flair gives "The Eye Creatures" its peculiar sheen: ridiculous rubber monsters with too-visible zippers on their costumes (some don't have _any_ costumes at all!), night scenes that suddenly transform into daytime shots, a pair of oily peeping-tom servicemen watching the action on Lover's Lane...I could go on, as I'm sure you can, too. If you can, catch it on MST3K or you'll miss the only entertainment value this waste of celluloid has to offer.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Terrible
Quetzl30 June 1999
One of those rare, rare movies where absolutely nothing is done well. Cheesy monster, terrible "acting", stupid plot, inane dialogue. I would rank this amongst the holy trilogy of Plan 9, Manos, and Robot Monster. As a horror or sci fi film: its stinks. As a comedy: It rules. Is it me, or does Deep Throat from The X-Files have a small part in this film?
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Decorative Cocktail Coaster
ferbs5413 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Just recently, I wrote some comments on director Larry Buchanan's abysmal sci-fi outing "Zontar, The Thing From Venus" (1966), a made-for-TV product that was a scene-for-scene remake of Roger Corman's infinitely superior "It Conquered the World" (1956). But "Zontar" wasn't the first time that Buchanan had turned a beloved piece of sci-fi shlock into televised dreck. In 1965, he had taken the tacky but enjoyable 1957 film "Invasion of the Saucer Men" and transformed it, for AIP, into "The Eye Creatures," and the resultant picture is one that manages the near-impossible feat of being even lamer than "Zontar," and, concomitantly, even harder to sit through...while awake, that is. As was the case with "Zontar," this is a completely unnecessary remake that is an affront to a beloved original; one that is vastly inferior in all departments, as well. And like the 1966 film, "TEC" is virtually a scene-for-scene rehash of its original, with even lamer special FX, weaker acting and all-around inept filmmaking, as compared to its predecessor; the use of color film in both does absolutely nothing to improve on their B&W originals.

In "The Eye Creatures," the titular invaders from outer space land their flying saucer in the heartland of good ol' U.S.A. (No, wait a minute...strike that. It's impossible to say whether or not these alien beings are "invaders" or not, as all the poor things do is land their craft, get out and lumber around. Their only real crime is their alien physiognomy....) While the military blunders around trying to track the ship and later vainly attempts an entry, a pair of teens, Stan (John Ashley) and Susan (Cynthia Hull), actually smash into one of the aliens while driving on a nighttime country road. This leads to all sorts of problems with the local cops, a crusty old nearby hermit, and a pair of drifters in town, all culminating in a showdown between Stan and Susie, their fellow teens, and the doddering starmen, who, as in the original film, have an unfortunate Achilles' heel in the form of...automobile headlights! Even Jim Stark and his galpal Judy never encountered a situation like this!

As I've mentioned elsewhere, director Buchanan is now a very solid 4 for 4 with me; besides "TEC" and "Zontar," the other films that I've seen from this "auteur"--1966's "Curse of the Swamp Creature" and 1967's "Mars Needs Women"--have also been rock-bottom deplorable, practically comprising a loosely connected quartet of sci-fi crud. And sad to say, "The Eye Creatures" may very well be the worst of this sorry lot. But don't blame John Ashley; he is as likable as ever here, and the only real pro in this cast of amateurs. Ms. Hull isn't quite as bad as she might have been, but her character is a shrill, weak and unattractive mess; Stan could have done SO much better. (On a side note, the real-life Ashley apparently DID do a lot better, as this DVD features a lengthy interview with his former Mrs., who turns out to be both beautiful and well spoken.) All of the film's other actors are simply embarrassing; Tony Huston, who was so remarkably bad in "Zontar," appears here again to discomfit and appall the viewer. The film insists on regaling the audience with "comedy" segments of a very low order, all of which bomb completely. Thus, we see Houston and another Army imbecile use their infrared scanner not to look for the alien craft, but rather to peep on the teenagers necking in their cars on Lovers Lane, and are treated to the sight of a bald, goofy-looking general emerging from his bedroom wearing a leopard-skin bathrobe! The FX in the film, as mentioned, are also horrendous (you'll wonder just what the picture's reputed $40,000 budget was spent on!). Just observe the sight of that alien spaceship orbiting the Earth; it looks like a child's top set against a cardboard diorama; the kind of thing a 4th grader might come up with for a science project. (The exact same special effect, flabbergastingly, was used in "Zontar" to depict the "laser satellite" that that film's alien hitches a ride in!) And as for those eye creatures themselves, they are something of a sorry misnomer; white, bipedal and covered with innumerable lumps, not eyes, they fail to engender even the slightest shudder. (But I suppose a title such as "The Lumpy Creatures" might have smacked a little too much of "Leave it to Beaver"!) Paul Blaisdell's memorable monsters for "It Conquered" and "Saucer Men" are in another league entirely compared to those found in the two remakes, to put it mildly! As in the "Saucer Men" film, "TEC" gives a nod to the 1946 horror classic "The Beast With Five Fingers"--as well as to the 1963 shlocker "The Crawling Hand"--in the form of a detached alien, um, crawling hand, and poorly done as this special effect is here, it yet serves to generate the film's only moment of suspense, as we await Susie's inevitable, hysterical scream of terror when she discovers the darn thing on her. Surprisingly, the revered "Maltin Movie Guide" calls "The Eye Creatures," inept sci-fi dreck that it is, a "gory horror film," when in fact there is only a single scene with any blood whatsoever, and even that is hard to discern during one of the nighttime lensings. What's more surprising is the fact that "Maltin" gives the film 1 1/2 stars to begin with, rather than its lowest BOMB rating. Go figure!

For those who care, "The Eye Creatures" comes to us today via a RetroMedia Entertainment DVD. Residing on the flip side of this disc is the "Zontar" film itself, resulting in one truly deadly double feature. I have said elsewhere that these two awful films result in a disc only suitable for use as skeet, but perhaps I was being a bit unfair. This DVD disc can also serve as a decorative cocktail coaster, as well!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bad but fun, if you have a high tolerance for cheesy monster movies
mlraymond10 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The original Invasion of the Saucer Men was no masterpiece, but it's generally agreed that this remake is far worse.Most of the intentional humor is pretty lame, and there's an amateurish quality about the film-making that at least proves the original movie was competently done.

That being said, it must be admitted that this movie does manage to be kind of entertaining, if you have nothing better to do some evening.

The young couple make a cute pair.The familiar presence of AIP leading man John Ashley is like meeting up with an old friend, and the sweet young thing played by Cynthia Hull is really pretty and appealing.

It's fun to see how much of the music you can identify from other movies. In a couple of romantic scenes, there's an instrumental version playing of a song Annette Funicello sang in one of the Beach Party movies. When people are dancing at the bar, there's an instrumental from AIP's Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow. And I'm convinced a lot of the scary music is taken from Roger Corman's The Undead. Whether all this was intended as a sort of inside joke, or just making use of stock music, I don't know. I'm also pretty sure that there's at least some music from Hammer's Dracula, Prince of Darkness.

The movie is kind of fun, if you don't have high expectations. Though made in the mid-Sixties, it has a sort of Fifties feel to it not too different from the original version.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Eyes Don't Have It!
BaronBl00d29 December 2005
This is Larry Buchanan's abysmal remake of a not very good film to begin with - Invasion of the Saucer Men by AIP. Pretty much the same story here: a bunch of teens are out at lover's lane on some crusty farmer's property while the military learns of an alien space craft having landed nearby. The military is out to conceal any knowledge of the aliens and their presence whilst a young guy and his doll are arrested and questioned for a hit and run of a dead guy(they thought they had hit an alien). John Ashley stars as Stan Kenyon - the "roughneck" who hit the alien with his car. You know you are in trouble when either John Ashley or Anthony Eisley are the stars in a film. Whatever it spells, it starts with a Z, a grade Z film to be sure. Buchanan takes the basic story from Invasion of the Saucer Men but leaves behind the few good points that film had and trades them in for inferior ideas. In the original film, the aliens looked kind of neat and impressive with their huge heads and needles coming out of their hands. Here the aliens look like mutated baby Michelen men - rubber included! They look just God awful and move so awfully slow. Buchanan defies movie making by NOT using special effects. Here we get flash bulb photography and car headlights as the most advanced special effects used. But put aside that, you have some of the worst acting and dialog to be seen and heard in a movie of this ilk. All of the actors playing the military men are just horrific. They speak with no conviction and look so ridiculous spouting whatever it is they are spouting. I am amazed that much of the basis for the script came from the older film and some of it worked in that film. None of it works here with this crew of non-talents. Aside from the female lead, Cynthia Hull, being attractive, I can say nothing positive about this film except that it is positively boring. All those that agree say "Eye!"
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
They just didn't care
NateW24 November 2000
All I can say is what J&TB stated in the MST3K treatment of this shlock: they didn't care. Day turns into night, and back into day. Creatures run around with half a costume on, and running shoes to boot. The characters are less than appealing, and that all doesn't account for lousy special effects, horrid acting and inane dialougue. When the title print is misspelled in the opening credits, you know not to expect much. Better skip this one.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Vintage Sci-Fi fun!
phage73925 February 2002
Too many people are over critical of low budget films. "The Eye Creatures" concerns the age old plot of a group of teenagers battling more aliens from space! The basic elements; a model spaceship, aliens (men in rubber bubble suits with eyes all over), government agents, angry drunk farmers, making out in Lovers Lane, teens in distress (who no one believes-of course), and a big showdown, make this cheap movie so entertaining! Sort of like Happy Days with monsters! It will never win an award, but it was never intended to anyway! This is Larry Buchanan's remake of "Invasion of The Saucermen." Also see Zontar Thing From Venus!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
NOT a ripoff of Corman films
cheapthrills26 October 2005
Unlike what a previous reviewer said about this film being a ripoff of Roger Corman's films, it is not. AIP, who owned all the films Corman did during the 50s, decided they were going to remake these films as cheaply as possible ($30,000) and sell the to television. So, AIP hired Texas filmmaker Larry Buchanan and had him film Zontar the Thing from Venus,Curse of the Swamp Creature, In the Year 2889 ,Creature of Destruction ,and The Eye Creatures. These were all remakes of 50's AIP films. Yes, these films are all hastily made messes, and yes they are bad, but in an entertaining way. I for one miss by-the-seat-of-your-pants film-making, as well as miss the master, Larry Buchanan.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Mildly amusing schlock for completists only
Bloodwank5 November 2010
There's a part of me that wants to rate The Eye Creatures a 1 or a 2 out of 10, the rational part of me I guess. And yet, I just can't do it, for all its daft plotting, ill conceived humour and crackpot performances there's a guileless charm to the whole affair that I can't help but love. Sold straight to television by American International Pictures along with various other Larry Buchanan pictures during the 60's, The Eye Creatures deals with a minor alien invasion and the intrepid teens who deal with it, whilst forces of authority either attempt to cover things up, watch people making out or simply get the wrong end of the stick and confuse matters. The film is thoroughly imbued with late 50's nascent teen rebellion themes, dusted with a silliness more of its time and all decked out in colourful fashions and cosy sets, it makes for an exceedingly dated yet oddly comforting experience, jokes constantly fall flat and the acting falls flatter but there's a simmering pleasantry underlying the whole experience that is hard to dismiss. Regrettably things are pretty slow and the silliness begins to grate, more regrettable is the underuse of the titular creatures. A sweet design, hulking off white humanoid horror beasts, decked out in obscene bulges, they have the right sort of goofy yet imposing presence and it's a real pity that they don't appear more and are so easily dispatched. Things are far too tame as well; with a bit of a darker edge the film would have gained a significant boost. Acting predictably is pretty dire, though John Ashley is relatively sound as the hero and Buchanan regular Tony Huston makes a welcome appearance. As the hero's girlfriend with whom he plans to elope, Cynthia Hull is pretty pleasant I guess, I nice looking gal with the right sort of demeanour. Little more to add really, OK Les Baxter (uncredited) score and editing was handled by SF Brownrigg, later to become a 70's horror notable with the likes of Don't Look In the Basement and Keep My Grave Open. The editing is nothing to write home about thoughÂ…Basically nobody outside of thoroughgoing trash addicts will get anything out of this one, but since I fall under that category I liked it well enough. Buchanan has done better, but this could have been a whole lot worse, I give it a 5/10.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed