Deadly Eyes (1983)

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Blistering performances.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Thanks to Paperbacks from Hell, I've learned all about James Herbert, the British horror author whose four The Rats novels pretty much defined the evil rats against man genre. Imagine my surprise in finding this Canadian horror film that pretty much takes Herbert's story and runs away with it (or gets away with it).Paul Harris is a divorced high school teacher and basketball coach who is dealing with rats the sizes of small dogs that have been found living in buildings containing steroid-rich grain (ripped from today's headlines!) that the health department orders burned. Now that the rats are homeless, they're looking for a new home and new eats, too.First, they surround a baby in a high chair and make him a snack. Then, they get a senior citizen. Soon, they're chasing down Scatman Crothers and eating him, too! Oh no, Scatman!Even spraying the rats with gas does nothing. Nope, instead they attack a bowling alley and a movie theater showing a Bruce Lee movie (director Robert Clouse also directed Lee's Enter the Dragon and Game of Death). None will be spared as the rats feed. Not Trudy (Lisa Langlois, Happy Birthday to Me), the cheerleader in love with Paul. Not her best friend Martha (Lesleh Donaldson, Curtains, Funeral Home, Happy Birthday to Me). And certainly not the mayor who acts like he's in the Canadian version of Jaws and then has a party on a subway train that gets infested by rats. Finally, Paul, his love interest Kelly and his son make it through the rats' nest only to get on the same train as the mayor's dead body.So how did they get the rats for this movie? By putting dachshunds in fur suits, a The Killer Shrews plan if I ever heard one. Sadly, one of the dogs died during shooting as it was suffocated by its suit.Herbert referred to this film as "absolute rubbish." Sadly, we've yet to see the definite adaption of his work. We'll have to make due with this, I guess. Where I disconnect with the film is that I could see it happening in New York, but Toronto? That's the cleanest city I've ever been in. I bet the rats could do much better elsewhere.

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.

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.

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