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

Lack of good storyline.

Good start, but then it gets ruined

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

I remembered seeing this when I was a kid and it scared the crap out of me. I still remember somewhat vividly some of the scenes. Going back nearly 30 years later, I was thinking that it might be good to watch again for Halloween. I thought wrong. An outcast heretic/sinner preacher goes with his family and a few other random people to find somewhere where they can live in adultery. Instead they find hostile Indians, and take refuge in a valley where they Indians are afraid to go. Always a good idea. The "mystery" of death valley is given away before they even get there (you see, the blood of all innocent animals that are killed collects in some places, and forms into a blood hungry mindless demon which is obviously the collective will of all innocent animals.) They find a deserted settlement there which was obviously destroyed and the former residents turn out to be flesh eating ghosts. Several deaths are involved. A special needs/witch/Irish girl helps them escape. Then finally, they nail the kids in a coffin and shove it into a river to save them. Bad acting. Plot that stops making sense after the first 30 minutes. Bad special effects. This might have been good if it had been on on MST3K. You will find yourself rooting for the deaths of the settlers just to get the movie over with. Most of the reviewers of this only pretend to like it because they think it's cool to like obscure movies. This one is obscure because IT'S CRAP. I would have given this a -10, but the scale was from 1-10.

Watched 'Eyes of Fire' shortly after its release in 1983. Haunting, atmospheric and portraying nature spirits at their most potent. Something about it just captures your soul and stays with you - Leah the Irish faery.. and the faces of the spirits emerging from the trees... It felt as though you were really out there in the woods.Managed to get hold of a video about a month ago - WOW - even better than I had remembered it. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who would jump at the chance to experience this unique, enchanting film. After all, if 'The Company of Wolves' (1984) has just been re-released on DVD, why can't Eyes of Fire...

Frankly, I was expecting a much more engrossing film from the almost unanimously positive word-of-mouth I had read about this on the internet. For a truly original idea - an exploration of dark early American frontier mythology - this movie failed due to one overriding problem: a lack of story focus. It is a shame, because director Avery Crounse, whose work I was unfamiliar with before seeing this, displays a visual talent on par with such macabre masters as Roman Polansky and Alejandro Jodorowsky. This movie contains one striking, horrifying image after another. Unfortunately, these images don't add up to a strong film because most of them make no sense in connection to the storyline. The basic barebones that I picked up on the plot is that a preacher, aided by the mysterious witch-like powers of his teenage daughter, steals from a local town and heads off on the river with his mistress and some others to the "promised land" where he can form a new Christian society. However, once they arrive in an abandoned Indian encampment in the deserted woods, they fall prey to some forest witches or ghosts.It is at this point that the story completely confused me. There never is a good explanation for all of the bizarre supernatural events in the woods, and especially the connection they have with the preacher's daughter, who seems to only speak in some archaic tongue. The supernatural imagery is riveting, but it was not enough to keep me interested. Because I really could not care less about any of these numbskull Puritans, watching the movie became an additional chore. I'll be honest: I hated reading "The Scarlet Letter" in high school, and watching this movie, with its laughable Puritanical superstitions, reminded me of slogging through that book. I would watch this again if I thought I could gain from a repeat viewing, but unfortunately I strongly doubt that I would.

This is a story of Protestant pioneers, a single family that travels into the wilderness following the prophetic misguidance of a single man whose desires outweigh his prudence. At the height of the witch terrors, this historical horror is more accurate than many another film, and does not overstretch its portrayals to suit audience expectation.The horror is supernatural and draws primal reaction. Politically, it founders right wing and supports traditional viewpoints to gender role, and can be seen as excellent propaganda, subtle in its execution and manuevering through social issues, and disturbing in its opinion to folk like myself, who do not feel that sexual libertinism is wrong and immature in essence. The burly frontiersman wins against the effeminate, vegetarian minister who turns out to be apathetic, vainglorious, and egocentric. It's the common Hollywood message: do not trust male weaklings, especially if they say it's ok to have sex, and do not trust ugly women nor allow them any power, because they're all evil witches. Did I say this is a beautiful film? It just so happens to be aesthetically pleasing and marvellously crafted, despite its polemic distance from my own viewpoint. I recognize that Eyes of Fire is a wonderful film and continue to view it as well formed. That is all I have to say about that.This film makes lovely use of simple film processes that are common to horror of its period, but differs in its use of setting, its use of lighting, and makeup. The actors are never afraid to get dirty or wade through a real river til subsumed by water.Now, let us talk about the script: it is noteworthy that Avery Crounse scripts and directs his own work, always. When possible, he also produces and edits his own work too. The script is the best written in a recent horror film, and is executed magnificently by the actors. The entire concept is original: who else has managed a pre-20th century horror film with a completely straight handling? No tongue in cheek gimmics, no men waving shotguns around at knights. This is pretty tough and believable stuff, and has its roots in Lovecraft as well as Washington Irving and folklore.The complaints as to the flashback sequences hold some merit, but when this film was released, flashbacks were seen as necessary for the handling of the audience; they do not differ largely from flashback sequences in other eighties films, and in fact, there are no flashbacks within flashbacks in this entire film. The directing is excellent, and the characters act like pioneers, act tough and stupid, ignorant and noble, by turns.While I love the film, I despise its message.