To call this film "cheesy" or imply that it is "worse than Ed Wood" is absurd. The Beast With A Million Eyes may indeed have a pathetic space ship that looks like a coffee percolator, but the film itself is an understated and serious attempt to deal with issues as diverse as individualism, loneliness, guilt, and spirituality. The film doesn't rely on stock footage, giant bugs, prescient scientists, granite jawed generals, or any of the other cliches of 50s sci fi. Shot in the deserts of California on a meagre budget, it manages to convey the depression and decay that have overcome the small, but nuclear, farm family headed by the excellent Paul Birch. Birch went on to play a similar role in the 1956 ARC production, The Day the World Ended--another film that is remembered primarily for its goofy monsters instead of its interesting story. This film scared me to death when I was 10 years old, and seeing it now reminded me of the primal fears of betrayal and disloyalty that were the obvious triggers of my pre-pubescent psyche. By no means a 'classic': simply an outstanding example of low low budget independent filmmaking and intelligent screenwriting.
50 Reviews
Nothing brings the family together like random farm animal attacks.
capkronos1 September 2014
Historically-speaking, this is quite an important production as far as horror and sci-fi flicks are concerned. For starters, it is one of the very earliest films involving normal animals suddenly turning on humans and attacking them. In fact, there are a enough surprising similarities between this and Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS (1963) to suggest this was a major inspiration to that classic film. Second, this is not only an early producing credit for the prolific Roger Corman, but also the very first genre film he stepped behind the camera to direct. Though it's credited to David Kramarsky, Corman had replaced him early on into the production, sans credit. Third, this was a key establishing film for the fledgling company American Releasing Corporation, run by a few fellas named Samuel Z. Arkoff and James H. Nicholson. ARC would become American International Pictures. Of course if you know anything about vintage horror, drive-in and exploitation films, you'll know just how important these names are.
BEAST (originally titled "The Unseen") was also a production beset with problems. Originally part of a multi-picture package arranged between Corman and Arkoff / Nicholson, the film's budget was initially slated to be way higher but had to be slashed down to just 29,000 dollars. Problems with the filmmaker's union led to the production being shut down after just a day a filming. It also resulted in the original director and cinematographer both having to be sacked and Corman having to complete the film along with new D.O.P. Floyd Crosby. Supposedly the two managed to knock out all of the interior shots (48 pages of the script!) in just two days on studio sets! The exteriors were filmed in Indio, California and, all things considered, the photography actually looks quite good.
Paul Birch - later to appear in Corman's DAY THE WORLD ENDED (1955) and NOT OF THIS EARTH (1957) - stars as Allan Kelley, a farmer who lives on a date ranch deep in the California desert along with his wife Carol (Lorna Thayer) and teenage daughter Sandy (Dona Cole). The family have seen better times, especially Carol, who's neurotic, miserable because of the constant isolation and bitter to the point where she starts resenting and hating her own daughter out of sheer jealousy. An alien spacecraft that makes a strange humming noises lands in a cave in the desert, all of the glassware in the home shatters and, soon after, all manner of animals start going crazy and attacking. Birds of all kinds begin swooping out of the sky, a cow tramples over a farmer, chickens flog Carol and the family dog turns vicious and must be chopped up with an axe!
Also living on the farm is a character that would later become a staple of these kinds of films: the pervy, creepy, half wit handyman. The one in this one is a lonely mute referred to as only "Him." He's not only a voyeur who constantly stares at the females through the window, but he also spies on the daughter character stripping down to her swimsuit and going for a swim and then tries to touch her. "Him" sleeps in a shack next to the house where the walls are plastered with pictures of bikini or lingerie clad girls and he lies in bed looking at girlie magazines while his eyes bug out. I've seen this character countless other times in other exploitation movies, portrayed almost exactly the same as it is here, but NEVER before 1955. This adds a rather sleazy touch to the proceedings, which is especially odd considering this is essentially a family drama whose core message is about how it's important for families to stick together and support one another.
Though interesting and boasting an intriguing and original premise, this really isn't a very good movie. It's slow, the dialogue is hokey, the acting is gratingly melodramatic and the animal attacks scenes are very poorly staged and edited and are mostly accomplished by filming the animals approaching the camera followed by a terrified reaction shot from the actor. People also rightfully snicker at the special effects, which include a tiny little spaceship that looks like something you'd serve coffee out of and an alien so bad they had to make the image all hazy and then superimpose a giant eyeball over top of it. Then again, the movie was originally filmed minus all that. Since Arkoff had pre- booked the film on the promise of a "beast" based on the title, he insisted a "beast" be in the film. Special effects man Paul Blaisdell was then given just 200 dollars to create both the ship and the alien creature on short notice. The fact he was able to come up with anything at all is actually quite impressive in itself.
A young Dick Sargent (going by "Richard" here and years before finding fame as Darren in "Bewitched") plays a small supporting role as a deputy and Sandy's love interest. Production manager "Jack Haze" would become Jonathan Haze and later became immortalized for playing Seymour in Corman's LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960).
BEAST (originally titled "The Unseen") was also a production beset with problems. Originally part of a multi-picture package arranged between Corman and Arkoff / Nicholson, the film's budget was initially slated to be way higher but had to be slashed down to just 29,000 dollars. Problems with the filmmaker's union led to the production being shut down after just a day a filming. It also resulted in the original director and cinematographer both having to be sacked and Corman having to complete the film along with new D.O.P. Floyd Crosby. Supposedly the two managed to knock out all of the interior shots (48 pages of the script!) in just two days on studio sets! The exteriors were filmed in Indio, California and, all things considered, the photography actually looks quite good.
Paul Birch - later to appear in Corman's DAY THE WORLD ENDED (1955) and NOT OF THIS EARTH (1957) - stars as Allan Kelley, a farmer who lives on a date ranch deep in the California desert along with his wife Carol (Lorna Thayer) and teenage daughter Sandy (Dona Cole). The family have seen better times, especially Carol, who's neurotic, miserable because of the constant isolation and bitter to the point where she starts resenting and hating her own daughter out of sheer jealousy. An alien spacecraft that makes a strange humming noises lands in a cave in the desert, all of the glassware in the home shatters and, soon after, all manner of animals start going crazy and attacking. Birds of all kinds begin swooping out of the sky, a cow tramples over a farmer, chickens flog Carol and the family dog turns vicious and must be chopped up with an axe!
Also living on the farm is a character that would later become a staple of these kinds of films: the pervy, creepy, half wit handyman. The one in this one is a lonely mute referred to as only "Him." He's not only a voyeur who constantly stares at the females through the window, but he also spies on the daughter character stripping down to her swimsuit and going for a swim and then tries to touch her. "Him" sleeps in a shack next to the house where the walls are plastered with pictures of bikini or lingerie clad girls and he lies in bed looking at girlie magazines while his eyes bug out. I've seen this character countless other times in other exploitation movies, portrayed almost exactly the same as it is here, but NEVER before 1955. This adds a rather sleazy touch to the proceedings, which is especially odd considering this is essentially a family drama whose core message is about how it's important for families to stick together and support one another.
Though interesting and boasting an intriguing and original premise, this really isn't a very good movie. It's slow, the dialogue is hokey, the acting is gratingly melodramatic and the animal attacks scenes are very poorly staged and edited and are mostly accomplished by filming the animals approaching the camera followed by a terrified reaction shot from the actor. People also rightfully snicker at the special effects, which include a tiny little spaceship that looks like something you'd serve coffee out of and an alien so bad they had to make the image all hazy and then superimpose a giant eyeball over top of it. Then again, the movie was originally filmed minus all that. Since Arkoff had pre- booked the film on the promise of a "beast" based on the title, he insisted a "beast" be in the film. Special effects man Paul Blaisdell was then given just 200 dollars to create both the ship and the alien creature on short notice. The fact he was able to come up with anything at all is actually quite impressive in itself.
A young Dick Sargent (going by "Richard" here and years before finding fame as Darren in "Bewitched") plays a small supporting role as a deputy and Sandy's love interest. Production manager "Jack Haze" would become Jonathan Haze and later became immortalized for playing Seymour in Corman's LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960).
The first 75% of the film was very good, the last 25% undid the entire film
planktonrules14 April 2007
The movie is set in an oasis in the desert--somewhere in the California/Nevada area. The story involves a family plus their hired hand--a mute who seems to be a bit touched. Into their boring little world, what seems to be a plane nearly hits their house and soon all the animals on the farm start behaving in a hostile fashion towards the people. Most of the violence comes from the birds and the film is highly reminiscent of the Hitchcock film, THE BIRDS--though this film at least tries to explain why the animals are going berserk. It seems that the plane was actually a UFO and it deposited some weird machine that can make animals and weak-minded people do its evil bidding!!! Despite this great threat, everything just kind of fizzled and everyone was miraculously fine when the film ended--and I felt pretty confused and irritated by the slap-dash ending.
One of the first things you'll notice about this film is that it was shot on a shoestring budget--much like an Ed Wood film. The actors were obviously not professionals and the setting was amazingly minimalistic. Yet despite this, the film had some very interesting story elements and I found myself actually enjoying this film--that is until the movie degenerated into a cheesy and stupid mess towards the end. And, when it's all said and done, that's what you are left with as the final credits roll--a terrible mess that just didn't pay off and could have with a re-write to the last 10 minutes.
One of the first things you'll notice about this film is that it was shot on a shoestring budget--much like an Ed Wood film. The actors were obviously not professionals and the setting was amazingly minimalistic. Yet despite this, the film had some very interesting story elements and I found myself actually enjoying this film--that is until the movie degenerated into a cheesy and stupid mess towards the end. And, when it's all said and done, that's what you are left with as the final credits roll--a terrible mess that just didn't pay off and could have with a re-write to the last 10 minutes.
Hokey, but with Compensations
dougdoepke27 August 2014
A teapot monster from outer space seeks human form from a farm family in a secluded part of a desert.
I know I'm in a minority, but there are commendable aspects to this drive-in special. Too bad snooty Hollywood never gave Oscars to horror movie productions. Because I would sure give one to Lorna Thayer for her calibrated portrayal of volatile Carol Kelley, farm wife and mother. In my book, she delivers a gamut-of-emotions equal to the industry's more celebrated actresses. After all, as wife and mother, she's been going slowly nutzoid on that god-forsaken farm. Now she has to traverse emotional stages to adjust to the new realities. And she does it in finely nuanced fashion. As the father, Paul Birch too, is much better than expected for one of these 50-dollar Corman specials, while unknown Leonard Tarver may have no lines, still he's got just the right kind of confused, intimidating presence. Too bad he was in only two films. Finally, Dona Core as daughter Sandy is pretty wobbly, but sure looks the winsome part.
To me, the movie could be a sleeper, if filmmakers had figured out something more imaginative than a tea pot monster. The spinning kitchenware is about as scary as collecting stamps. The desert and farmhouse scenes along with the superior acting really deserve something less hokey. But then producer Corman astutely figured his drive-in fans wanted something they could laugh at. We fans sure got it here, even if the monster wasn't in a rubber suit. I just wonder if Hitchcock caught this flick, what with the marauding birds that attack people. Then too, I wonder if Dan Mainwaring, screenwriter of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), didn't also catch the 80-minutes since there is a thematic resemblance.
Anyhow, the movie's well directed and photographed. No effort at prettying up anything—the shack the family lives in, for instance. In fact, a number of the desert visuals are striking. So, this 50-dollar special does have some redeeming features. And a salute to you Lorna Thayer for refusing to walk through a role that could have been just another easy payday.
I know I'm in a minority, but there are commendable aspects to this drive-in special. Too bad snooty Hollywood never gave Oscars to horror movie productions. Because I would sure give one to Lorna Thayer for her calibrated portrayal of volatile Carol Kelley, farm wife and mother. In my book, she delivers a gamut-of-emotions equal to the industry's more celebrated actresses. After all, as wife and mother, she's been going slowly nutzoid on that god-forsaken farm. Now she has to traverse emotional stages to adjust to the new realities. And she does it in finely nuanced fashion. As the father, Paul Birch too, is much better than expected for one of these 50-dollar Corman specials, while unknown Leonard Tarver may have no lines, still he's got just the right kind of confused, intimidating presence. Too bad he was in only two films. Finally, Dona Core as daughter Sandy is pretty wobbly, but sure looks the winsome part.
To me, the movie could be a sleeper, if filmmakers had figured out something more imaginative than a tea pot monster. The spinning kitchenware is about as scary as collecting stamps. The desert and farmhouse scenes along with the superior acting really deserve something less hokey. But then producer Corman astutely figured his drive-in fans wanted something they could laugh at. We fans sure got it here, even if the monster wasn't in a rubber suit. I just wonder if Hitchcock caught this flick, what with the marauding birds that attack people. Then too, I wonder if Dan Mainwaring, screenwriter of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), didn't also catch the 80-minutes since there is a thematic resemblance.
Anyhow, the movie's well directed and photographed. No effort at prettying up anything—the shack the family lives in, for instance. In fact, a number of the desert visuals are striking. So, this 50-dollar special does have some redeeming features. And a salute to you Lorna Thayer for refusing to walk through a role that could have been just another easy payday.
Can't Help But See Because the Night Has a Million Eyes
BaronBl00d23 March 2008
Now it is very easy to lambaste this film for so many things. The cheesy special effects(where reviewers have compared the alien spacecraft to a percolator or tea kettle)or how about the cloth birds thrown at Paul Birch's car. That is the extent of the special effect except of course for the "horrifying" finale where the mastermind is revealed. Somebody pinch me so I do not relive that horror another moment. Okay, let's get real. What about the animals - real, live animals - which are supposedly mad and dangerous. A dog wagging it tail in attack mode? The dog looked liked it was being trained in real time and was about as dangerous as the chances of any actors in this film winning an Oscar. A mad bull suppose to be a milking cow moving on in an attack like molasses. Paper and cloth birds and an innocuous crow sitting in a date palm. Scary stuff. The story basically has some alien mastermind introduced at the film's beginning saying he will take over earth for his dying alien race by first mastering the simple minds of the animals and plants and then moving on to the human beings. Whilst its execution is anything but pretty, The Beast with a Million Eyes is really one of the first nature goes awry films - films like The Day of the Animals, Prophecy, Grizzly, and so on owe the film a little bit - okay, a micro-little bit, but it is one of the first of its kind. What does it have going for it? Honestly not much. Paul Birch is mediocre but at least can act. I wish I could say that about the other thespians but would choke if I tried. Lorna Thayer plays his wife with reckless over-acting. She was an actress of some note and today is best known as the waitress from Five Easy Pieces with the notorious chicken salad sandwich scene. Dona Cole plays the daughter Sandy and she is just awful - no wonder her film career was quite limited. Dick Sargent(the second Darren from Bewitched) and Leonard Traver as the hulking, mute, ax-wielding "Him" are barely serviceable. One minor surprise was seeing great silent film comedian Chester Conklin in a brief but satisfying role. He even gets to do a little shtick for us before his udderly ridiculous departure. I have one big question. Why would an alien mastermind trying to take over the world start on a barely populated date farm in the middle of nowhere. Nothing much here in terms of animal/plant/or human life? You can tell the movie was made on a shoe-string budget and has obvious, for many, irrevocable flaws. But despite all of these imperfections, I found the movie to have some heart and think we should all get together and give it some love. Paul Birch's character would be so happy with that.
So bad it goes beyond "so bad it's good" and lands right back on so bad
woid8 April 2007
This ten cent production just ran on TCM. It's one of the worst movies they've ever shown... but like everything they program, it's worth at least a sidelong look. That doesn't mean sitting through it -- it's a *very* long 75 minutes. In fact, I can't imagine how anybody made it through this bomb in a theater or drive-in.
Essentially what happens is this: A teakettle with an antenna lands in the desert. Our star, a portly man with his belt riding high, and his family of wooden wife and daughter, are menaced by their farm animals. This consists of closeups of cows mooing or dogs barking, with reaction shots of the actors screaming and running away. The best special effect comes when the chickens turn on their masters, which involves somebody off-camera throwing chickens at one of the actors. There's also a mute weird guy, for some (no) reason. And most surprising, there's Chester Conklin, who started his career playing opposite Charlie Chaplin in his early silents, continuing through Modern Times in the 30s. He's the finest screen presence here, which is faint praise indeed.
The soundtrack is classical music needle drops that have nothing to do with what's happening on screen (the climax to a symphony while somebody walks through the desert), plus ultra-cheapo sound effects.
On second thought, it's a masterpiece... of what Frank Zappa called "Cheepnis." (http://www.cupandblade.com/ cheepnis/cheepnis.mp3)
Essentially what happens is this: A teakettle with an antenna lands in the desert. Our star, a portly man with his belt riding high, and his family of wooden wife and daughter, are menaced by their farm animals. This consists of closeups of cows mooing or dogs barking, with reaction shots of the actors screaming and running away. The best special effect comes when the chickens turn on their masters, which involves somebody off-camera throwing chickens at one of the actors. There's also a mute weird guy, for some (no) reason. And most surprising, there's Chester Conklin, who started his career playing opposite Charlie Chaplin in his early silents, continuing through Modern Times in the 30s. He's the finest screen presence here, which is faint praise indeed.
The soundtrack is classical music needle drops that have nothing to do with what's happening on screen (the climax to a symphony while somebody walks through the desert), plus ultra-cheapo sound effects.
On second thought, it's a masterpiece... of what Frank Zappa called "Cheepnis." (http://www.cupandblade.com/ cheepnis/cheepnis.mp3)
Beast With A Million Eyes (1955) **
JoeKarlosi18 September 2007
THE BEAST WITH A MILLION EYES
Roger Corman produced this small but decent enough piece of '50s silliness about an alien ship and a little puppet inside which is able to control minds - first animals, and then progressing to humans. This seems like a precursor to films like THE BIRDS and DAY OF THE ANIMALS, as a modest rancher and his family living in the desert wilderness are attacked by birds, chickens, cows, and even their own dog. These attacks are not well staged and this is ultra-cheap, but it was still interesting enough.
** out of ****
Roger Corman produced this small but decent enough piece of '50s silliness about an alien ship and a little puppet inside which is able to control minds - first animals, and then progressing to humans. This seems like a precursor to films like THE BIRDS and DAY OF THE ANIMALS, as a modest rancher and his family living in the desert wilderness are attacked by birds, chickens, cows, and even their own dog. These attacks are not well staged and this is ultra-cheap, but it was still interesting enough.
** out of ****
Hmm...
Space_Mafune19 April 2003
A mysterious device arrives from the sky and begins adversely affecting all around it..first it turns ordinary farm animals, pets and birds into deadly and fierce predators and then it begins to affect the humans nearby. I find it interesting that this is one of the first films to depict birds attacking humans and does it surprisingly well despite a meager budget, much better than a certain sequel which will remain nameless.
Also this has an interesting plot device which was afterwards borrowed by many films and TV series (evil alien brains) which makes for a very entertaining climax even if its embracing of the nuclear family ideal, popular in the time, is a little dated for today's audience which will be shouting "cheese".
Also this has an interesting plot device which was afterwards borrowed by many films and TV series (evil alien brains) which makes for a very entertaining climax even if its embracing of the nuclear family ideal, popular in the time, is a little dated for today's audience which will be shouting "cheese".
Very dated 50's sci-fi
bill_golden5 May 2016
What an odd little movie. This is one of the earliest Roger Corman films, and I would recommend it only if you are a hardcore, dedicated Corman fan. It's very slow-going, although there was something about the unusual setting of the story that kept me watching for the entire 90 minutes or so. It takes place on an isolated date ranch in the southern California desert. (I'm not sure how many such ranches still exist in Calif. but that's another matter.)
Looking for dazzling special effects? Nope, not here. Looking for unexpected chills and thrills? Not here. Paul Birch plays the main character, who lives on the ranch with his wife and teenage daughter, along with a peculiar fellow who lives in a nearby shack, or guest house, if you will. Strange things start occurring, somehow related to a space craft which had landed nearby. Technically, aside from the scenery, this movie is amateurish with lame dialog and terrible editing.
Is it worth watching? Probably not. However, if you're in the mood for a very primitive 50's sci-fi story with Roger Corman's name attached to it, give it a look, like I did tonight on TCM when I had nothing better to do.
Looking for dazzling special effects? Nope, not here. Looking for unexpected chills and thrills? Not here. Paul Birch plays the main character, who lives on the ranch with his wife and teenage daughter, along with a peculiar fellow who lives in a nearby shack, or guest house, if you will. Strange things start occurring, somehow related to a space craft which had landed nearby. Technically, aside from the scenery, this movie is amateurish with lame dialog and terrible editing.
Is it worth watching? Probably not. However, if you're in the mood for a very primitive 50's sci-fi story with Roger Corman's name attached to it, give it a look, like I did tonight on TCM when I had nothing better to do.
Better than its reputation.
Hey_Sweden19 April 2020
Some viewers of 50s sci-fi may write this one off as being way too low-budget (admittedly, only about $23,000 back in '55) for its ambitions, but in truth the script (credited to Tom Filer) really isn't bad at all, touching upon such subjects as the human capacity for love, the effects of isolation, and the after effects of WWII. Yeah, the spaceship for the alien intelligence is bargain-basement stuff (it's a coffee percolator!), but the filmmakers do show some intelligence, and give the production an intimate feel by focusing on a limited number of characters.
The farming family led by Allan Kelley (Paul Birch, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance") is now being subjected to various animal attacks, including one from the pet dog of daughter Sandra (Dona Cole, in her only credited film role). It turns out that the alien invader can control an unlimited number of Earths' animal species. (A cow also turns against its owner, played by veteran actor Chester Conklin ("The Great Dictator").) Hence, the films' title. It doesn't actually possess one million orbs.
Said alien was created by monster-maker of the era Paul Blaisdell, in his first feature credit. We only see it briefly at the end, and don't get a *great* look at it, but it's pretty cool nevertheless. Incidentally, this was *started* by credited producer - director David Kramarsky, but uncredited executive producer Roger Corman was dissatisfied with what he was turning out, and proceeded to finish the picture himself. Overall, the picture is fairly well made, with Corman bringing the great cinematographer Floyd Crosby (of those Corman-directed Edgar Allan Poe pictures of the 60s) onto the project. The music is also good.
Granted, this flick *is* laughable at times, and certainly not always intentionally. And it can get melodramatic at times, with a florid performance by Lorna Thayer as the farm wife / mom. She later found some fame as the waitress subjected to Jack Nicholsons' "chicken salad sandwich" speech" in "Five Easy Pieces". Birch is a standout; also co-starring are a very young Dick Sargent of later 'Bewitched' fame as the amiable deputy, Bruce Whitmore, who provides the voice for the monster, and Leonard Tarver, who plays the hulking, mute hired hand known only as "Him".
While not particularly distinguished, "The Beast with a Million Eyes" does deserve more respect than it typically gets. It was one of the original productions for American Releasing Corporation, which soon became much more well-known as American International Pictures.
Five out of 10.
The farming family led by Allan Kelley (Paul Birch, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance") is now being subjected to various animal attacks, including one from the pet dog of daughter Sandra (Dona Cole, in her only credited film role). It turns out that the alien invader can control an unlimited number of Earths' animal species. (A cow also turns against its owner, played by veteran actor Chester Conklin ("The Great Dictator").) Hence, the films' title. It doesn't actually possess one million orbs.
Said alien was created by monster-maker of the era Paul Blaisdell, in his first feature credit. We only see it briefly at the end, and don't get a *great* look at it, but it's pretty cool nevertheless. Incidentally, this was *started* by credited producer - director David Kramarsky, but uncredited executive producer Roger Corman was dissatisfied with what he was turning out, and proceeded to finish the picture himself. Overall, the picture is fairly well made, with Corman bringing the great cinematographer Floyd Crosby (of those Corman-directed Edgar Allan Poe pictures of the 60s) onto the project. The music is also good.
Granted, this flick *is* laughable at times, and certainly not always intentionally. And it can get melodramatic at times, with a florid performance by Lorna Thayer as the farm wife / mom. She later found some fame as the waitress subjected to Jack Nicholsons' "chicken salad sandwich" speech" in "Five Easy Pieces". Birch is a standout; also co-starring are a very young Dick Sargent of later 'Bewitched' fame as the amiable deputy, Bruce Whitmore, who provides the voice for the monster, and Leonard Tarver, who plays the hulking, mute hired hand known only as "Him".
While not particularly distinguished, "The Beast with a Million Eyes" does deserve more respect than it typically gets. It was one of the original productions for American Releasing Corporation, which soon became much more well-known as American International Pictures.
Five out of 10.
The Shiny Spinning Coffee Pot in the Desert
bensonmum217 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Not a very hard plot to describe: an alien force lands in the desert and soon begins to use animals (and a few weaker-minded humans) to do its bidding. The terror begins when the animals go berserk and start attacking the humans. In the end, the creature is discovered and defeated by something it cannot understand – love (no, I'm not making that up).
The Beast with a Million Eyes was the third movie in a three picture deal Roger Corman had worked out with the cleverly named American Releasing Corporation (later AIP). Because this was the last movie in the deal, there wasn't much money left for a budget as is painfully obvious. Corman's plan to use a mostly invisible, unseen creature that attacked people through thought waves was genius in that it could be done cheaply with little to no special effects. Unfortunately, it makes for one very dull experience. Instead of a cool creature, the movie relies on acting. And as with the special effects, there's little to no real acting taking place in the movie. Most everyone involved is horrible. The only thing of interest to be found in the cast is a very young Dick Sargent of Bewitched fame in his first credited role. The script doesn't help. Actors are forced to say the silliest, most unnatural lines imaginable. The "Million Eyes" of the title are more metaphorical than anything else. The Beast uses the million of eyes of the animals and humans it dominated to see with. Get it? Clever, huh? In fact, the whole title – The Beast with a Million Eyes – is, to say the least, misleading. But I suppose it drew a bigger crowd than a more accurate title like The Shiny Spinning Coffee Pot in the Desert would have. Finally, there's that whole beyond hokey ending where (once again) love conquers all. Oh please! Can we be just a bit more cliché?
Obviously, The Beast with a Million Eyes is far from the best sci-fi movie or the best Roger Corman related movie out there. But it does get a bonus point or two for effort and trying something different. Who knows, with a real budget, real special effects, a real Beast, a real script, and real actors, things might have turned out differently.
The Beast with a Million Eyes was the third movie in a three picture deal Roger Corman had worked out with the cleverly named American Releasing Corporation (later AIP). Because this was the last movie in the deal, there wasn't much money left for a budget as is painfully obvious. Corman's plan to use a mostly invisible, unseen creature that attacked people through thought waves was genius in that it could be done cheaply with little to no special effects. Unfortunately, it makes for one very dull experience. Instead of a cool creature, the movie relies on acting. And as with the special effects, there's little to no real acting taking place in the movie. Most everyone involved is horrible. The only thing of interest to be found in the cast is a very young Dick Sargent of Bewitched fame in his first credited role. The script doesn't help. Actors are forced to say the silliest, most unnatural lines imaginable. The "Million Eyes" of the title are more metaphorical than anything else. The Beast uses the million of eyes of the animals and humans it dominated to see with. Get it? Clever, huh? In fact, the whole title – The Beast with a Million Eyes – is, to say the least, misleading. But I suppose it drew a bigger crowd than a more accurate title like The Shiny Spinning Coffee Pot in the Desert would have. Finally, there's that whole beyond hokey ending where (once again) love conquers all. Oh please! Can we be just a bit more cliché?
Obviously, The Beast with a Million Eyes is far from the best sci-fi movie or the best Roger Corman related movie out there. But it does get a bonus point or two for effort and trying something different. Who knows, with a real budget, real special effects, a real Beast, a real script, and real actors, things might have turned out differently.
A nicely spooky sci-fi/horror flick
Woodyanders28 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The Kelley Family find themselves in considerable jeopardy when an evil alien force with the power to control minds lands nearby their ranch and causes all the animals to go into a lethal rage. Director David Kramarsky relates the absorbing story at a steady pace and does a sound job of creating an eerie atmosphere. The solid acting from a sturdy cast rates as another definite plus: Paul Birch as rugged rancher Allan Kelley, Lorna Thayer as his snippy wife Carol, Dona Cole as their cute, spunky daughter Sandra, Dick Sargent as amiable Deputy Larry Brewster, Leonard Tarver as hulking, pathetic mute handyman Carl, and Chester Conklin as cranky old-timer Ben Webber. The shivery orchestral score and the stark black and white cinematography by Everett Baker and Floyd Crosby further enhance the creepy tone. Moreover, the desolate desert location projects an unnervingly palpable sense of isolation and vulnerability. Granted, the hilariously horrendous (much less than) special effects leave a lot to be desired, but overall this film sizes up as a pretty nifty and enjoyable low-budget shocker.
A fable for the 50s
Gary-Brownell6 October 2010
Most of the reviews of this movie have focused on acting, writing, and production values (or perhaps the lack thereof). This is what makes the film entertaining. In my view, the most interesting aspect of this film is its allegorical quality.
This movie was released in 1955, during the blacklist period and the McCarthy hearings. The title refers to the alien's ability to takeover the brains of the lesser animals (birds, dogs, cows, chickens) as well as the brains of weak-minded humans. Doing this provides him with the ability to see what the rest of us are up to. To me, that seems a lot like informing on our neighbors and co-workers. And what's the defense against this alien threat? We defeat it by staying united and sharing our strength.
Allegory or no, it's fun to watch the rampaging farm animals (perhaps a precursor to "Black Sheep") and the attacking blackbirds (props, I hope, tossed at a car window).
This movie was released in 1955, during the blacklist period and the McCarthy hearings. The title refers to the alien's ability to takeover the brains of the lesser animals (birds, dogs, cows, chickens) as well as the brains of weak-minded humans. Doing this provides him with the ability to see what the rest of us are up to. To me, that seems a lot like informing on our neighbors and co-workers. And what's the defense against this alien threat? We defeat it by staying united and sharing our strength.
Allegory or no, it's fun to watch the rampaging farm animals (perhaps a precursor to "Black Sheep") and the attacking blackbirds (props, I hope, tossed at a car window).
The family that runs from aliens together stays together!
mark.waltz10 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Poor old Caroline won't let anybody milk her. Black birds attack, and Tippi Hedren is nowhere in sight. Old Duke bares his fangs and scares mother into pet-o-side. A mute ranch hand gets tired of the naked pin-ups in his Jud Fry like guest room in the barn and heads out into the desert, beckoned by some high-pitched sound. And poor mother can't even make a cake, burning it twice. It's her daughter's birthday, and while this family is obviously estranged, she's going to try. Will she wrap up the dead dog in a huge box with a bow on it as her present? All these questions and more await you in the Donna Reed Show of science fiction movies.
Actually, this is more of a survival film than science fiction, that element totally understated. In one sense, that makes you want to like it more, because it's more psychological than supernatural. There are definite comical moments, particularly silent comic Chester Conklin's issues concerning trying to milk his beloved cow, but that unfortunately leads to tragedy. There are some very tense moments, but the final confrontation with the visitor from outer space is totally silly, with the vision of some kind of creature (a spider with one huge eye it looked like) inside the spaceship. Acting is OK with Lorna Thayer a bit emotionally over the top as the mother. Paul Birch tries to remain dignified throughout the proceedings. Dick Sargent has a small role as a local law enforcement officer. You won't totally hate it, but most likely, you'll just find it rather unsatisfying.
Actually, this is more of a survival film than science fiction, that element totally understated. In one sense, that makes you want to like it more, because it's more psychological than supernatural. There are definite comical moments, particularly silent comic Chester Conklin's issues concerning trying to milk his beloved cow, but that unfortunately leads to tragedy. There are some very tense moments, but the final confrontation with the visitor from outer space is totally silly, with the vision of some kind of creature (a spider with one huge eye it looked like) inside the spaceship. Acting is OK with Lorna Thayer a bit emotionally over the top as the mother. Paul Birch tries to remain dignified throughout the proceedings. Dick Sargent has a small role as a local law enforcement officer. You won't totally hate it, but most likely, you'll just find it rather unsatisfying.
a true classic for the "cheesy horror" buffs
nicholas-1426 January 1999
This film is truly enjoyable as one of the classic cheesy horror flicks of the 20th century. As plain country folk become terrorized by the animals on their farm who's minds are under the control of..."THE BEAST!"...who to my dismay only has two eyes...............Watch for Dick Sargeant as the tough, yet understanding officer.......Good, Clean , Horror!!!
Flatter Than A Flounder
lemon_magic22 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
As Bill Warren has remarked elsewhere, the thing that distinguishes Corman's products (I have a hard time calling them "movies") is a spark of intelligence and inventiveness in the initial conception of whatever the movie is supposed to be about. You can almost always tell a Corman flick from other cheaply made exploitation flicks because there is just enough strength and imagination somewhere in the screenplay, and one or two of the actors are just barely good enough, to keep you from burning the print and assaulting the person who showed it to you.
That's certainly the case here. The basic plot, about a disembodied alien life force beginning its takeover of Earth in an isolated, lonely desert community and taking over the minds of the lower beasts and birds to serve as the vessel of its wishes...well, it's an intriguing idea. However, the execution this time around is bad enough to make Larry Buchanan and Herschel Gordon feel good.
The hero is a good looking (if somewhat stout) fellow with a heavy, halting, lugubrious delivery of every...damn...line...of...dialog that wears out its welcome in the first 10 minutes. The wife and the daughter are even worse - neither of them can maintain a consistent screen persona for more than 30 seconds at a time. These short-comings could have been corrected by a competent director, or maybe one with a budget that allowed for a couple of retakes, but that didn't happen here, so it's like watching community theater actors in a town of 600 struggling with a script written by a 14 year old who saw an Pinter play once.
My fried Dave Sindelar, of sci-film.org fame, put it very well - it's as if they brought 70 minutes of film to the editors and asked them to create a 75 minute film. The animal attacks that might have made this interesting are unconvincing cuts between shots of animals posing and actors reacting in fright...it's painfully obvious that no one involved with this thing knew how to wrangle animals or stage a fight scene (the one between a young, unfortunate Dick Sergant and the mute farm hand wouldn't pass muster in a high school play). There are endless shots of actors running off into the distance. There are a couple of disconcerting sequences where the background music takes over in scenes where there should have been some dialog, and it's heavy symphonic stuff that doesn't really match the on screen action.
Mostly, it's just a bust. Having seen it once, I can see where "American Releasing Corporation" (soon to become AIP) developed its house style, so there might be a little historical value to it...but otherwise, don't expect much from "Beast".
That's certainly the case here. The basic plot, about a disembodied alien life force beginning its takeover of Earth in an isolated, lonely desert community and taking over the minds of the lower beasts and birds to serve as the vessel of its wishes...well, it's an intriguing idea. However, the execution this time around is bad enough to make Larry Buchanan and Herschel Gordon feel good.
The hero is a good looking (if somewhat stout) fellow with a heavy, halting, lugubrious delivery of every...damn...line...of...dialog that wears out its welcome in the first 10 minutes. The wife and the daughter are even worse - neither of them can maintain a consistent screen persona for more than 30 seconds at a time. These short-comings could have been corrected by a competent director, or maybe one with a budget that allowed for a couple of retakes, but that didn't happen here, so it's like watching community theater actors in a town of 600 struggling with a script written by a 14 year old who saw an Pinter play once.
My fried Dave Sindelar, of sci-film.org fame, put it very well - it's as if they brought 70 minutes of film to the editors and asked them to create a 75 minute film. The animal attacks that might have made this interesting are unconvincing cuts between shots of animals posing and actors reacting in fright...it's painfully obvious that no one involved with this thing knew how to wrangle animals or stage a fight scene (the one between a young, unfortunate Dick Sergant and the mute farm hand wouldn't pass muster in a high school play). There are endless shots of actors running off into the distance. There are a couple of disconcerting sequences where the background music takes over in scenes where there should have been some dialog, and it's heavy symphonic stuff that doesn't really match the on screen action.
Mostly, it's just a bust. Having seen it once, I can see where "American Releasing Corporation" (soon to become AIP) developed its house style, so there might be a little historical value to it...but otherwise, don't expect much from "Beast".
Private Eyes Are Watching You
bkoganbing19 July 2014
That The Beast With A Million Eyes had a shoe string budget is fairly obvious. Not even a budget for each eye the beast claimed it had.
We never do get to see exactly what the alien from the other world looks like. The space ship looked like a large Dalek, maybe the original producers of Dr. Who might have got the idea from this film. The beast inside looked something like the creature that was taking over people and who Jimmy Hunt was trying to warn us about in Invaders From Mars.
This thing is yet another alien looking for a fresh world to conquer. His kind can control the minds of lower animals and turns docile creatures like a cow, birds, and the family pet dog into beasts of pray against humans. The creature can see all through the eyes of these animals hence the title.
I have to say the film did have an interesting anti-big brother message but it was never quite delivered and the dialog within the family terrorized by the alien was trite and talkie. Paul Birch plays the farm father and Lorna Thayer and Dona Cole are his wife and daughter. Dick Sargent has a supporting role as a deputy sheriff.
Roger Corman was still looking for his muse with this one.
We never do get to see exactly what the alien from the other world looks like. The space ship looked like a large Dalek, maybe the original producers of Dr. Who might have got the idea from this film. The beast inside looked something like the creature that was taking over people and who Jimmy Hunt was trying to warn us about in Invaders From Mars.
This thing is yet another alien looking for a fresh world to conquer. His kind can control the minds of lower animals and turns docile creatures like a cow, birds, and the family pet dog into beasts of pray against humans. The creature can see all through the eyes of these animals hence the title.
I have to say the film did have an interesting anti-big brother message but it was never quite delivered and the dialog within the family terrorized by the alien was trite and talkie. Paul Birch plays the farm father and Lorna Thayer and Dona Cole are his wife and daughter. Dick Sargent has a supporting role as a deputy sheriff.
Roger Corman was still looking for his muse with this one.
Those Aliens Talk Big but Can't Deliver
Hitchcoc27 June 2015
The movie starts out with a pronouncement from some alien presence that he/it is going to take over the world, piece by piece, creature by creature. He manages to rein in a German shepherd and a cow, but the humans seem to be a lot more complicated. A family of three are living in a house in some desert area, growing something (not quite sure what). The guy's wife is fed up with their desperate condition and longs for her lost youth. Their daughter (no great prize as film stars go) wants to go to college but mom is filled with hatred for her unlimited potential. They also have a large man of limited mental capacity (and mute as well) helping them on the farm. He lies on his back in his room and looks at magazines. He also follows the girl to the swimming hole when she gets into her bathing suit. They have determined he is harmless and treat him much like the German shepherd. One day a high whiny sound is heard and the glassware and china is broken. Suddenly the animals become vociferous, attacking their owners. Apparently the problem is a Proctor-Silex percolator that is sending out signals. By influencing the animals and the slow guy, they will take over the house in the desert. Well, I suppose one needs to start small. This is every bit as bad as it sounds. The acting is horrible and there are really no special effects. Let this one drift off into space.
Interesting Plot
stephentec5 July 2010
While this is a very low budget film, a bit of editing would have helped, and there are several continuity mistakes it has a interesting plot line and some of the acting is good, I just watched it for the first time since I was a kid and I enjoyed seeing Paul Birch again. While not a great film it does bring out some of the feelings of the mid 50s about who we are and what makes us human. As noted in other reviews there are a lot of mistakes, for fun try to find them, the biggest problem was not making enough use of the different treats and showing way too much running back and forth. But with only 6 actors they had to fill with something.
Hitchcock and "The Birds"
bluesboy-110 May 2016
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Alfred Hitchcock got his idea for "The Birds" from this odd movie. With birds and chickens attacking people. The effects were cheap but did the trick. Check out the documentary on Roger Corman, he was an interesting guy.
Back in the fifties and sixties there were plenty of movies like this and we all watched them to pass the time. They were cheaply made but we all enjoyed watching. I'll bet Alfred and Corman became buddies. Roger Corman sure had some odd movies and I watched all the cheesiness when I was a kid. Here I am many years later wondering why. It's surprising Hitchcock didn't make a movie called "The Cows". Ha ha ha!
Back in the fifties and sixties there were plenty of movies like this and we all watched them to pass the time. They were cheaply made but we all enjoyed watching. I'll bet Alfred and Corman became buddies. Roger Corman sure had some odd movies and I watched all the cheesiness when I was a kid. Here I am many years later wondering why. It's surprising Hitchcock didn't make a movie called "The Cows". Ha ha ha!
No longer contented down on the farm.
michaelRokeefe14 March 2002
The humanity of it all...I jest. Ranks among the worst ever. The shoestring budget is the real horror. I have always thought that bad horror is fun to watch. The jury is still out on this yarn of an alien space ship landing in the desert causing nearby farm animals to run amok. The cast features:Paul Birch, Lorna Thayer and Dick Sargent.
Misleading Title is the Least of the Film's Problems
Mike-76424 November 2005
A strange UFO crashes in a remote desert and starts controlling the minds of small animals which start wreaking havoc on the remote townspeople (who are really in the middle of nowhere), including the Kelley family, who are going through a family crisis especially mother and daughter. After taking control of the animals, the spacecraft controls the mind of simpleton Carl, who terrorizes young Sandra Kelley. Can dad, mom, and police deputy Larry Brewster stop the alien menace before its too late. The film's title sounds like it would be corny 50's sci-fi monster fun, but this film really disappoints. A really, really minuscule budget, weak acting, plot, and worst of all directing make this 75 minutes seem like an eternity at times. At points of the film, it joins other 50's monster and sci-fi by becoming philosophical, but the incompetence of the cast and crew leave the meaning flat. I love it when the UFO controls the family dog's mind to become mad, and he walks around looking as normal as he did before, but they play the sinister music. Ooooooooooooooooh! Rating, 1.
Existential sci-fi
Maciste_Brother1 June 2008
THE BEAST WITH A MILLION EYES is a small brilliant no budget film. It's probably the first existential science fiction film ever made. That's all I need to say about it to explain why I like it.
This film was made before the now familiar plot-line of animals attacking humans, like THE BIRDS. In fact, this film reminds me a lot of THE BIRDS, which I think is brilliant but kudos to whoever wrote this evocative no budget wonder. The similarities between the two is really striking. Hitchcock most likely saw this film and was "inspired" by it. Even the low key near minimalistic tone is identical. The existential tone is also unique for that time and was made before TV shows like TWILIGHT ZONE or sci-fi flicks in the late 1960s or 1970s (like Russian sci-fi flicks) made these bleak sci-fi/horror/fantasy themes popular with the general public. Today, these kind of stories are common in movies or TV programs.
The B&W cinematography is at times stunning, more than this type of film usually has. Moody and very atmospheric. The sensational title makes sense because the alien uses all the animals to see and control the environment around humans, hence the million eyes. The original title was supposed to be The Unseen and it didn't have the alien part of the end and one can see what they tried to do. But the current ending doesn't destroy the film.
Just because the film has no budget, no stars, that it's basically bare-bones, doesn't mean it should be dismissed for the things it tried to do. Yes, the film is far from perfect but I admire it for what it tried to do, certainly in an era that relied too easily on cheesy stuff. It's (intentional or unintentional) low key brilliance.
This film was made before the now familiar plot-line of animals attacking humans, like THE BIRDS. In fact, this film reminds me a lot of THE BIRDS, which I think is brilliant but kudos to whoever wrote this evocative no budget wonder. The similarities between the two is really striking. Hitchcock most likely saw this film and was "inspired" by it. Even the low key near minimalistic tone is identical. The existential tone is also unique for that time and was made before TV shows like TWILIGHT ZONE or sci-fi flicks in the late 1960s or 1970s (like Russian sci-fi flicks) made these bleak sci-fi/horror/fantasy themes popular with the general public. Today, these kind of stories are common in movies or TV programs.
The B&W cinematography is at times stunning, more than this type of film usually has. Moody and very atmospheric. The sensational title makes sense because the alien uses all the animals to see and control the environment around humans, hence the million eyes. The original title was supposed to be The Unseen and it didn't have the alien part of the end and one can see what they tried to do. But the current ending doesn't destroy the film.
Just because the film has no budget, no stars, that it's basically bare-bones, doesn't mean it should be dismissed for the things it tried to do. Yes, the film is far from perfect but I admire it for what it tried to do, certainly in an era that relied too easily on cheesy stuff. It's (intentional or unintentional) low key brilliance.
Burn the print!
mershumpip8 April 2007
Poor lighting has already been mentioned as one of this film's shortcomings. The continuity is poor as well. Near the end when the father arms himself, you will notice that he is likely to have a different weapon seconds later. Also notice when Richard (Dick) Sargent and the father recover his daughter that they had two rifles but arrive at the ranch with just one. Oh yeah, when the two left to go find her, the father left the house with a lever action but when they found the girl the father had a bolt action rifle. It was difficult to tell for certain, but it looked like Sargent had a shotgun, not a lever action. It was bad. Maybe I'll try to find Plan 9 to see if it is worse than "The Beast with a Million Eyes." At least I saw it on TCM and didn't have to suffer commercials as a previous reviewer was forced to do.
a cheapo dog-and-pony show minus the dog and pony
march9hare27 March 2005
"The Beast with a Million Eyes" was made with whatever money was leftover from the original budget fronted to Roger Corman by American-International for 4 separate films, and, brother, it looks it. Okay, we realize that many actors will take nearly anything that comes their way - after all, they hafta eat, too - and some, like a very young Dick Sargent, must pay their dues, but really. . .! This film is so
cheaply done, so execrably written, that it actually becomes an effort just to sit through it. The word is that even Sam Arkoff, co-head at AIP, winced at the final product, and that's saying something. While it is true that Roger Corman was known for being able to grind out movies very quickly on very small budgets, this film is just plain terrible, rivaling "Plan 9" as being perhaps the worst sci-fi film ever made. Even "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" had a better-looking spaceship! If miles of stock footage of barnyard animals, or just animals in general, is your thing, have at it; otherwise, forget this awful loser. Truly, a burdock of Biblical proportions.
cheaply done, so execrably written, that it actually becomes an effort just to sit through it. The word is that even Sam Arkoff, co-head at AIP, winced at the final product, and that's saying something. While it is true that Roger Corman was known for being able to grind out movies very quickly on very small budgets, this film is just plain terrible, rivaling "Plan 9" as being perhaps the worst sci-fi film ever made. Even "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" had a better-looking spaceship! If miles of stock footage of barnyard animals, or just animals in general, is your thing, have at it; otherwise, forget this awful loser. Truly, a burdock of Biblical proportions.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
