Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

MartinHafer 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.

garyb04 I've only seen the MST3K version,but never by itself.This is a remake of INVASION OF THE SAUCER MEN,which is a lot better and even stars a young Frank Gorshin.If you notice that towards the end that some of the eye creatures don't have all of their costume on.Just the headpiece and that's it.Guess they didn't have the budget to make more,but for goodness sake,you can see it plain as day or night,if you're referring to this movie.I don't think the director has ever made a good movie and I've seen a couple more he did,but that's it.John Ashley looks embarrassed being in this movie and I don't blame him.He probably did it for the money,if it was that much anyway.See it for the mistakes or just watch the MST3K version instead.Either way,you're in for a treat! Bad movie? You bet!

preppy-3 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.

lemon_magic 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.