Despite these positives, however, the most disturbing part about the scene wasn't only what happened, but the lingering shots that held on the action as it played out, especially the rape. This created a cheap, exploitative feel to the proceedings. Perhaps, additional cutaways of the parents reactions, or by holding on them while using sound to imply what was happening could have gotten the point across just as powerfully, maybe even more so. It seems filmmakers, especially those making horror pictures, forget that they are walking a fine line with their audience. As viewers, we trust you not to "hurt" us. That you'll take us to the edge without pushing us over. But if you do cross that thin line, which is easy to do, you've lost us. This used to be understood by filmmakers like Carpenter, Craven, Hooper, Romero, early Raimi and Jackson, et al. But somewhere along the way, filmmakers have forgotten or never learned this important lesson and often appear to be trying to damage their audience emotionally and psychically. Crossing the line has nothing to do with gore or how much grue you splash across the silver screen, but rather the spirit in which it's shown. (For an example of this difference, you could watch the endings of the Theatrical and Director's Cut of Requiem For A Dream, which shows this concept powerfully.)
The next morning, Gabriel guides Vivian to the backyard where Adam is holding Henry and a large, freshly dug hole awaits them. I was struck by how this move defied logic, and it helps illustrate the flaw in not defining the nature of this world. Why would you bury your victims in broad daylight in the backyard, especially since both are still alive? What if they make noise, drawing the attention of other neighbors? If I knew this was all in Gabriel's imagination, which I didn't at this point, I could have viewed it as "dream logic." You see, a character telling or imagining a story that turns out to be fabricated is nothing new. When it's done effectively, the character is portrayed sympathetically, as a victim of circumstances or society. Think Verbal Kent in The Usual Suspects or Edward Norton's character, The Narrator, in Fight Club. But the problem in "Eyes Beyond" isn't that Gabriel is lying to us or himself, it's that there's no consistent point-of-view character to help put everything into perspective. This perspective is essential, especially if you're going to have the main character engage in heinous acts one moment, and then expect your audience to feel sympathy for him the next. If you wanted this to be Gabriel's story, then we should have known from the outset he was imagining these things, and thus the victim of his own mind, or he should have been portrayed more sympathetically within the context of the imagined world.
Nevertheless, as the brothers prepare to dump Vivian in the hole with her husband, someone approaches the Morales' house and rings the doorbell. Seizing the opportunity, Vivian tries to get away, but Gabriel uses his shovel to stop her. The interloper, it turns out, is another neighbor (Deanna L. Palazzo). She's looking for her missing son, Jimmy (Talon D. Roach), who's been delivering newspapers in the area. She gives Gabriel a flyer with the missing boy's picture and he seems genuinely concerned. This heartfelt sympathy contradicts the sadist killer we witnessed moments earlier and we can only assume he's faking his empathy; otherwise, he'd be incapable of doing what he did to the Rogers family.
As Gabriel looks down at the flyer, there's a subtle, well-done transition. The picture of Jimmy dissolves to a close up of Jimmy himself as he runs his paper route. In what I assumed was a flashback, Jimmy approaches the Morales' house. Gabriel comes out the front door, talking to the boy. I wondered if the kid would end up another victim of the sadistic brothers, but then, "Eyes Beyond" takes an unexpected turn. Rather than getting taken in by Gabriel, who goes back inside, the boy is approached by Abigaile. She takes Jimmy back to her house, telling her parents she wants to give him some of Vivian's freshly baked cupcakes. A little while later, Gabriel is watching from his back porch, and witnesses the Rogers family carrying Jimmy's corpse into their backyard, working together to dispose of their victim. This sequence is told (mostly) from Gabriel's point-of-view. In fact, had the movie started with this scene, it would have established Gabriel as the main character and given some insight as to why he felt justified in killing the family. Also, it would have added immediacy and much needed dramatic tension to the scenes at the beginning of the film.
Regardless, it still wouldn't have made Gabriel and Adam's actions seem reasonable or in proportion, and committing these atrocities in the name of "justice" smacks of hypocrisy. Character motivation is key to any of this working for the audience, specifically as it relates to Gabriel's explanation as to why he and Adam "punished" the family. During the dinner scene, Gabriel vaguely claimed the Rogers were guilty of "something," but since he didn't elaborate I assumed he was lying. Also, the brothers enjoyed their little game far too much, making them seem like the truly evil ones. Once it's revealed that the family was being punished for killing Jimmy, I had to ask why Gabriel wouldn't have just called the police instead of torturing and killing them? I know, I know, he's just imagining it. But since the audience doesn't know that at this point, it becomes a distracting plot hole. Perhaps, if the brothers turned out to be career serial killers who justified taking out the Rogers clan as a way of staking their own claim on the neighborhood, it would have been easier to accept.
