Deux Yeux maléfiques

This teaming of DAWN OF THE DEAD collaborators George Romero and Dario Argento and horror maestro Edgar Allan Poe is one of the most underrated horror movies in recent memory.

TWO EVIL EYES received minimal theatrical distribution in the USA (where most people wouldn't know a good horror movie if they tripped over it), and went practically straight to video, where it didn't do too impressively either. This was undoubtedly due to some scathing reviews that labelled this movie as abysmal, boring and pointless.

I, on the other hand, think TWO EVIL EYES is a great movie. True Romero fans will see the director's brilliance at work in "The Facts in the Case of Mr. Valdemar". Romero steers clear of blood and guts (which is why most "fans" were disappointed by it) and instead creates a macabre atmosphere, and gives the piece the look and feel of an EC or Warren horror comic, complete with campy dialogue and over-the-top performances. Pick up a copy of TALES FROM THE CRYPT or CREEPY and compare it to Romero's segment.

You'll see how perfectly Romero captures the flavor of a bygone era in illustrated horror. When the mesmerized Valdemar wails "Jessica", you can almost see the wavy dialogue bubble appear next to his head. It's as worthy a tribute to such publications as the Romero-Stephen King masterpiece, CREEPSHOW. Romero takes liberties with Poe's story, but keeps the feeling of irony and sardonic wit that makes Poe's work so rich. It's a great little movie from one of the true masters of the genre, though, unfortunately, it's his best work to date since DAY OF THE DEAD.

I may be one of the only defenders of this movie who likes Romero's part better than Argento's. This is because Romero keeps Poe's spirit alive throughout his segment. Argento simply takes one basic story ("The Black Cat"), adding elements from a few other Poe stories (including "Berenice" and "Pit and the Pendulum") and uses them as a clothesline for his own twisted and bizarre nightmare fantasies. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think he fails to capture the feel of Poe, which I thought was the point of the movie (which was his idea). At any rate, it's very good Argento. His camera constantly swoops and creeps along the corridors of the house in which the story takes place, and he creates some genuinely disturbing imagery. He also gets an excellent performance from Harvey Keitel, who brings a cruelty and maliciousness to his character most actors would not dare attempt.

Overall, TWO EVIL EYES is an entertaining movie for horror fans who enjoy more than just blood and guts, and are patient enough to let a story take its time developing. Give it another chance.

George Romero and Dario Argento, two great horror directors, tackling two short stories by Edgar Allan Poe. Sounds like a surefire hit. So why isn't it? Romero writes and directs his story, "The Facts in the Case of Mr. Valdemar." It's about a woman (Adrienne Barbeau) whose rich husband, Ernest Valdemar, is on his deathbed. A doctor (Ramy Zada) she's been having an affair with hypnotizes Valdemar into signing over all of his money to his wife. But Valdemar dies while hypnotized so he's stuck in between life & death and is surprisingly unhappy about it.

The biggest problem with Romero's story is that it feels like it was made for television. The annoyingly cheap and ceaseless music score doesn't help. Barbeau is the best part. She makes a paper-thin character work. She's also some very nice eye candy. E.G. Marshall plays Valdemar's attorney, who knows something is up but can't do much about it. Tom Atkins plays a homicide detective who conveniently answers 911 calls about screaming neighbors. The climax sees Romero turning Poe's story into something that belonged in Creepshow, which Romero directed and Barbeau, Atkins, and Marshall also appeared in. If this story was the entire movie, I might rate it a little higher. It's not great and there are big problems (that music!) but it's a passable time-killer. However, the other story drags the score down.

The Argento story is more stylishly directed, as you might expect. It's also more poorly written, as you might also expect. It's got lots of Poe references to establish Argento is clearly a fan but there's nothing of Poe's talent in this one. The story is "The Black Cat" and it's about a crime scene photographer (Harvey Keitel) who kills his girlfriend's cat. Then he goes crazy and it's a whole thing. Honestly, even with Keitel's bizarre performance and Argento's visuals, this one was a snoozer for me.

I think if you look at some of the other reviews here, particularly from those who love the movie, you'll see I'm in the minority on this. Most people seem to prefer Argento's story and hate Romero's. In a way, I get that. Argento has more style and a devoted cult following. I have enjoyed several of his horror films, though not enough to call myself a big fan of his. So take that into consideration. If you're someone who generally prefers a Dario Argento type of horror film, you are likely to prefer the second story to the first. Either way I'll be surprised if you love either of them, as they are both pretty mediocre.

Two mad tales by Edgar Allen Poe as envisioned by two of the most respected horror directors in the world. In The Facts in the Case of Mr. Aldemar we are shown the evils of greed when the wife of a dying man is manipulated through hypnosis to steal his fortune before his death. But when the doorway between our world and the next is inexplicably held open we are introduced to the others. In The Black Cat we are introduced to Usher a crime scene photographer with a dark side and the eye for the macabre. When a proposed photography book falls through he uses his girlfriends cat to add more evil to his already twisted book. But this cat has more than nine lives and an evilness all its' own.A solid outing by two of my all time favorite directors. Barbeau and Keitel steal their respective episodes but look for cameos by Christine Romero and the FX guru Tom Savini. The production design is solid and the make-up effects (by Savini's crew) are awesome. Both tales are briskly paced and fans of the directors' should be pleased. 7/10

Horror meinsters George Romero and Dario Argento each direct an hour long(or so) segment based on stories by Edgar Allan Poe. Romero's is first and is based on a lesser Poe story "The Strange Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar." A wealthy man is dying and hypnotized by a doctor who is aiding the rich man's beautiful wife for money and other fringe benefits. This segment is fairly well-conceived by Romero(who also wrote the script). The horror is more subtle than what you might expect and not very gory. Adrienne Barbeau, still quite a dish, does a good job as the ruthless wife and Ramy Zada does a mediocre job as her accomplice. E. G. Marshall has a bit part that he devours with gusto. The second segment by Argento naturally is the more bizarre and bloody. It is based on the oft-filmed story "The Black Cat." Argento creates a story about a photographer, played by Harvey Keitel, specializing in crime scene photos that also enjoys killing cats. Eventually his instincts lead to much higher organisms. This is also a decent piece as a whole. It has a load of famous actors: John Amos, Martin Balsam, and Kim Hunter. Argento puts a weird dream sequence that is nicely shot but has little relevance to the plot at all. This segment has a big payoff scene at the end that was very original if nothing else. Although certainly more suspenseful then Romero's piece, I liked the first one a bit more. It seemed to have greater continuity. Neither piece has any real life to it, and I think the film suffers a bit from the two story format. It is entertaining though and does provide a few honest chills.

This film is an average entry from both directors. If you're a huge horror fan, it's interesting from the perspective that you can compare and contrast both Argento and Romero's styles as they both tackle material from Poe. Just from what I briefly read it seems like this film had some production troubles, so I can't really fault the movie for what it was. It was an experiment that worked in some places, and didn't work in others; it's pretty middling overall.