MovieChat Forums > Five Across the Eyes Discussion > Eatmybrains.com review (5 out of 5)

Eatmybrains.com review (5 out of 5)


http://eatmybrains.com/showreview.php?id=366

Five Across The Eyes (2006)
21st Apr 08

Rating: 5 out of 5

Plot
Five teenage girls find themselves hopelessly lost after taking a detour on their night-time drive back from a high school football game. They see salvation in the form of a still-open store where they get the directions they were after and a lot more besides.

After accidentally bumping into an unattended SUV, the girls speed off into the night rather than report what they have done and face any consequences. But those consequences are coming their way anyway courtesy of the unhinged female driver of said vehicle who gives chase and over the course of the next hour or so, changes the girls’ lives forever.

Review
Five across the Eyes, slang for a slap in the face, starts playing out like your standard teens-lost-in-the-middle-of-nowhere shocker. As the five girls stop and ask for directions at the first public building they see, the genre fan in you starts automatically ticking down that mental check-list of where the plot is going to go next. You say to yourself that chances are that one of the girls will want to use the toilet and yep, one of them does as others go and ask for directions.

Normally we would get to see the girl that needs the toilet finding the worst basin in the world to sit upon with there being more poop out of the toilet than in it. This would be followed by a shot of someone’s feet shuffling visible along the bottom of the cubicle door or that same someone trying the door causing the girl to scream.

In fact the action rarely moves from the vehicle so fortunately said girl comes back from the toilet with nothing spooky to report. Nor are the girls who go asking for directions presented with backward folk akin to Deliverance popping out to spook things up. So right from the start Five Across the Eyes makes for a refreshingly different take on an otherwise well-worn thread that reaches a climax that is both unexpected and satisfying.

Based on a script written by co-director Greg Swinson’s high school friend Marshall Hicks, at the time aptly called Chased, the material was knocked into a shape that would be workable for a movie costing just $4,000. With a cast of non-actors, Swinson and co-director Ryan Thiessen, armed with just a couple of cameras, shot the movie over nine long days in June 2005 in Morristown, Tennessee, the same town that The Evil Dead was shot back in 1981.

Once the nutty woman makes an appearance I found myself delving back into that conditioned thinking that comes with watching so many films of this ilk, and reasoned that each of the girls will now meet with a sticky end till there is just one left. Think again! This isn’t that movie. Five Across the Eyes is something else, something fresh, and something that demands to be seen.

With the camera pretty much right in the faces of the five girls, the viewer takes on a sixth-person perspective feeling like they are sat right there with them in the van, up close and personal. This means that when the violence does occur, the viewer is right there with them, feeling every physical brutality that is dished out to them.

Five Across the Eyes remains fresh throughout with the girls remaining spunky, real and resourceful even if one of them manages to walk rather too well considering where a screwdriver had been placed about her person and I’m not referring to in her clothing.

The acting from the non-professional cast is better than expected with only the odd moment betraying their lack of experience – for example notice how when crying a couple of them sound like they are laughing. With a role limited in scope, Veronica Garcia never fails to make you squirm as the nutty driver pursuing and violating the girls.

Normally teenagers in films don’t look or act like teenagers in films. That is not the case here. The girls look like teenagers and react to the situations they are faced the same, displaying that mixture of still needing to scream and cower but having that burgeoning resourceful adult way of thinking that snaps through every now and again.

What is unexpected is how funny the movie is and by that I mean intentionally funny. Even during the prolonged chase there are character-based moments that bring a smile to the face ensuring that the relentless pace and onslaught of violence has a balance.

Five Across the Eyes makes one Hell of an impression. Sure, there are noticeable goofs such as a girl, whose mouth is messed up by a spot of indecent dentistry, revealing perfect teeth later but this rating is about the impressive set-up, the whole bag.

Directors Swinson and Thiessen are a much needed new voice in horror and it is one that is shouting loud. It’s exciting to watch a movie that plays with your expectations and continually confounds them but still deliver the goods ending in a climax that leaves the viewer completely satisfied.

Extras – There’s some behind the scenes and some deleted scenes to ogle, the latter just crying out for the directors to talk us through them. There is some amusement to be had from seeing cops interrupting the shot as they are not sure what’s going on.

-S Cockwell

reply

[deleted]

Genuinely decent review. I enjoyed the film much much more than I thought I would do, but the acting and dialogue was above expectations, and finding out that the film was done on only $4000 actually leaves me more impressed still. Consider me a fan!

reply

After watching the complete movie last night, I must say it was what it was...a VERY LOW budget film. (I refuse to call it a "movie", since it was more of a video than a "movie").

The most annoying part was the constant SHRIEKING/SCREAMING/WAILING by the girls. ENOUGH ALREADY!! I realize it was to set the "mood", but for 90 straight MINUTES?!?!?!


Also, they weren't the brightest lightbulbs in the box. When psycho lady had one of the girls out of the van, why didn't the other 4 girls jump her, but NOOO they had to stay inside the van and SHRIEK AND SCREAM some more.

I even caught the psycho nutcase looking at the camera a couple of times and smiling/laughing. As if to say..."Hey, look, I'm on TV, it's ME." *giggles*

Also...one of the first lessons of Horror movie making 101, even if it's the cheesiest movie ever is...NUDITY...esp young females!! (And I don't consider a couple of bare backs, nudity!) It's as basic a prerequisite as BLOOD and GORE...which there was very little of that even. They didn't even show the girl being tortured (having her teeth broken), but instead they show yet another clip of one of the girls WAILING AND SCREAMING AND HOWLING yet again in the van.

The end of the movie was okay, even watchable, (Due mainly to the fact that they actually showed some actual blood/gore and a KILLING!!!) Yet they still left some unanswered questions...did the girl who was shot actually get to a hospital? Did the driver recover fully from whatever was in her eyes?

I actually thought that after they had doused the psycho bitch with gas, and lit her on fire, that after they had relaxed and started to drive off, that they would have seen flamo get up and start to chase them. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AWESOME!!

If it wasn't for all the constant ear piercing, annoying, fingernails on the chalkboard like SHRIEKING, it might have actually been a decent film. Esp if the filmmaker would have followed the recipe of making a horror film 101...BLOOD...GORE...PLENTY OF COOL KILLS...AN ACTUALLY "SCARY" KILLER and...YOUNG NUDE WOMEN!!

My final rating...2.5/10, maybe a 3/10.

reply

[deleted]

Well yeah, your prerequisites are also very much needed, but I think so are mine in most cases. (especially in such a LAME movie as this one). lol And I'm talking about your typical Friday the 13th, Sleepaway Camp, Halloween type horror movies.

To me, movies without Blood, Gore, Nudity, but that include Tension, Suspense, Thrills, a feeling of being scared (which BTW is a GREAT one!)are more parts of a good "thriller" or "Mystery/Suspense" film, ala Psycho, 13 ghosts, House on Haunted Hill, etc. But those I personally don't consider "HORROR" movies.

I also don't appreciate being called close minded.

reply

[deleted]


I actually thought that after they had doused the psycho bitch with gas, and lit her on fire, that after they had relaxed and started to drive off, that they would have seen flamo get up and start to chase them. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AWESOME!!

That would have been 100% not awesome, as it's done in almost every single slasher movie ever made. Credit for having the baddie get stabbed probably 30 or more times in the chest, stabbed in the nether-regions a few times, stabbed in the throat, lit on fire, and being dead. Good job!

...Dan

Movies, Captions, Hotties and more: http://www.captiongallery.com

reply

i agree...i think this film was a breath of fresh air. of course it is low-budget, but the flow was nice and the fear element was always present. the filming location was excellent, giving the film that "backwoods feel". all of you on here saying the film needs to follow some sort of formula(?) have no idea what originality is. if you want to see a cookie-cutter horror film, just shut up and go watch saw 5 or 6 or whatever commercial trash flooding the theaters these days...sheep you are---have to have your art spoon-fed to you because you lack the ability to think for yourselves....

reply

Why should people "think" when they paid money to see a good horror movie, not a local headliner at the local film festival theater. You elitists act like this is some sort of psychological thriller of epic proportions or something?

I'm on the fence with this movie. On one hand, I think its absolutely awful. The [over]acting is shockingly bad. The characters are sometimes cliche and oftentimes so annoyingly stupid and ditsy you just wish the Driver would do em all in and get it over with. The dialogue can get repetitive and is cheaper than a pint at happy-hour, and in that regard suspension of belief is your only sedative.

On the other hand, from about 40 minutes into the film I was pleasantly surprised. After excusing the crappy camera work, sloppy editing, sub-par effects and lame music with the obviously poor budget, the film slowly started to grow on me. The hysteric screaming that I first interpreted as bad overacting soon gave a tense, desperate feeling which was especially felt when the Driver made her limited appearances throughout the film. Combining this with the backdrop of the dark and dense and lonely forest, gave a good atmosphere which made up for the lack of wide-angle or long camera shots. Also, the 'real-time' technique is seemingly a good method to implement on a small budget horror film, which allows certain freedoms to be experimented with without pushing the financial constraints or (lack of) pacing too much.

I liked the "Caroline" character at several points in the film, and felt the direction of "Jamie's" character was clever in the whole 'petrol-syphon' scene, despite her being somewhat annoying for the most part with her insistent baby-like shrieks. The other characters weren't very memorable at all or were completely lame. I did chuckle a few times in the film, however I don't know if it was either the dialogue at the time was incredibly lame or bland humor was intended (for example, when "Stephanie" tastes the 'concrete').

Overall, I will probably never watch this movie again, and will never recommend this to anyone other than die-hard artsy film fans, but I'll probably pick this DVD up cheap if only for my festival collection, and also keep tabs on the Directors in case they actually get better budgets and talent to work with.

reply

Oustanding low budget film, bravo.

reply

I loved this film. A great achievement in low budget filmmaking.

reply