Leofwine_draca STARRY EYES is one of those 'mumblegore' films set in the soulless world of the modelling industry. Watching it, the only thing that interested me was how similar the story is in tone to the later NEON DEMON, although this one's more graphic and distasteful. The main character is a waitress who aspires to become a model, so when she visits a new agency, you can guess the kind of thing that happens.Truth be told, I'm no big fan of this genre and STARRY EYES reminds me why. This is drawn-out and cheap, with unpleasant characters throughout and a lead you can hardly get behind due to her self-destructive drive. The horror tries very hard to shock but although unpleasant I didn't find it disturbing, merely juvenile in approach. In fact, the whole experience was rather depressing for me. If this is the face of modern horror, I'd rather do without it.

mkd1290-174-44195 I was intrigued the entire movie because I didn't know where it was going to go. I've done some reading about the Hollywood/Illuminati/eyes wide shut conspiracy theories and was curious how this film would depict the occult in Hollywood. The film did a good job portraying the sinister side, however it was a snap shot of the creepy behind the scenes devil worshippers and more of a character study as we watch Sarah transform. It was interesting to see LA filmed this way, very unglamorous and almost always overcast. This set an ominous tone throughout. Ever her friends, aspiring actors and film makers, living out of vans or piled into small apartments constantly drinking and hanging out. It was a rosy vision of life in La La Land. Overall a Slow burn, worth the watch, and some solid gore as well!

redrobin62-321-207311 I checked this title out because, according to quite a few horror movie sites, this one is a must see. Wrong. It was an over-acted disappointment.The film plods along at a relatively snail's pace, and the payoff isn't all that rewarding. One of the problems I noticed was the old school method of having the actors over-play their emotions. That technique was done to extremes here, making the flick cheesy in places.My biggest gripe was that the movie went from Point A to Point B to Point C and those points had very little to do with each other. It's almost as if disparate scenes were tacked on to bring the movie out to its expected 90 minute length. Too many questions were raised and none of them were answered. I suspect the only folks who would like this kind of movie making would be students at film schools who are eager to learn the concepts of continuity, character development, and so on. For the rest of us, it's just a tragic reminder of how millennials today lack the depth of their script-writing ancestors. Too bad. Nice try, though.

weasl-729-310682 I can see why this one was nominated for and won its awards, and I think they were well-deserved. I respect the acting and the direction, and there are a couple of stabbing scenes that are the most intense and realistic since "Zodiac" 2007.My personal problem with it, and why I did not rate it even higher, as it probably deserves from an artistic perspective, is that it just carried me too far into the dark side, and did so in such a believable manner, that it hit my threshold for it. I am sure for some, this will be exactly what they are looking for in a horror flick. For the rest of us, if we dare to watch this excellent, but disturbing film, well, you had better brace yourselves.I can believe the piece under the Trivia section posted by another IMDb contributor about the moviegoer who passed out at the New York premiere after having watched this movie. I am still trying to settle my stomach.