|
Eye For An EyeRating:
Release Date: 19 August, 2003 Retail Price: $9.98 OUR Price: $9.98 You SAVE: $0.00! Cast: Complete Cast (13 total) |
Eye For An Eye Reviews
Only for Kiefer
This is a surprisingly poor movie. Although it has some well-known actors, and a notable director, the material was just presented badly and predictably - like a lousy late night TV-movie with profanity inserted to liven it up.
The movie makes a simplified joke of the legal system and its sterotypical failings (though legitimate in many cases). It also glosses over the grieving process of the family, ignores the normal safety warnings to the remaining child, overdoes Kiefer Sutherland's character flaws (which are considerable nevertheless), and generally oversimplifies everything into a neat package to which you already know the ending because of the spoiler title.
I don't know what I missed that the 4- and 5-star reviewers like so much. I only see wide-spread mediocrity.
I would only recommend this for fans of Keifer. "Ssssssorry", Sally, not your best role or movie. Ditto Ed Harris, whose other movies I generally like.
Poor man's truth serum: caffeine and sugar.
There is a pattern in Hollywood when it comes to drama/revenge films such as Eye for an Eye. It is an extremely simple pattern that is regenerated time and time again because audiences like to not be surprised. They are prepared for the bad guy to die at the end, whilst the victim or top-billed actor/actress comes out as the hero at the end. It is meant to give us a sense of security and comfort, but for this critic it is getting old. Eye for an Eye is a perfect example of film that falls deep within that tired genre of film. From the opening credits of this film, you could count the steps that each actor was going to make all the way to the very end. The pauses could be guessed, the lines could have been written the night before, and the acting was nothing short of mediocrity at its best. It was guaranteed that the actors would be overly dramatic, the violins would always shrill around Kiefer, and there would be horrendously underdeveloped plotlines that would lead nowhere. This is your typical revenge film with no excitement, no frills, nothing that would make it stand out from the rest. The late director John Schlesinger played it safe with one of his final films, which will promise to bore and completely not satisfy you to the bitter end.
Where did Eye for an Eye go wrong? I don't think I need to count all the ways for you, but some of the bigger issues that I had with this feature was the complete unknown of the characters. I have major issues with stories that escape realism to allow the main character to seem more dramatic. What was Sally Field's job? I know that is a small detail, but it better highlights my complaint that our central family (the McCanns) were not as developed as I would have liked to have seen. I had no clue her daughter had a stutter until two seconds before her death, yet it seemed to be a bigger key element as the film progressed. Ed Harris literally walked through his character, proving that Field's husband could have been played by a plastic bag and still seen the same level of emotion. The only character worth watching, and was developed briefly, was Kiefer. He was 100% evil in this film and it kept this film geek worth watching until the very end. Yet, we didn't even know that much about him either (which upset me). Schlesinger obviously knew the story that he was about to tell with Eye for an Eye very well, the actors I believe even knew the story and they probably didn't even need to read the script, and the story played it safe from the beginning, but it wasn't what I wanted to see. I expected film like this to come out during the 80s, not in 1996. It was pathetic to see name actors like Ed Harris, Sally Field, Phillip Baker Hall, Keith David, and Kiefer Sutherland walk through this film like it was a fly in the pan. Nothing stood out in this film, nothing made me want to rewatch the brutality of it, and nothing made me feel excited about these actors. This was a literal "nothing" film. It lent nothing to the cinematic world except (and I stress this a bit) another peg in a very tired genre known as the "Revenge Thriller".
After watching this film I said to my wife that I thought Sally Field was completely overdramatic throughout the course of it, overplaying the small parts and completely exploding the bigger elements, which made me think of a High School drama production. It was amateur at best, but she said that is why directors use Sally, because she is known for being overly dramatic. This is a pure example of a good thing gone badly. Sally saw success with it once, but as she continues it only creates bad cinema. There were times during Sally's bigger speeches that I found myself laughing. I couldn't help myself, but her focus on certain words and cliché reaction to others just seemed cardboard instead of lifelike. The same could be said for Ed Harris who obviously has discovered that he doesn't have to play the outlaying father any further in films. He was completely wasted in this film. Was there any emotion with him? I didn't see any. Then there was the pitiful contribution by Hall and David that begin with intrigue, but were dropped faster than a big ole sack of potatoes. Also, did Mantegna take a class on how to be a one-dimensional cliché? Urg, his portrayal of the police office was a disgrace to those that genuinely play one-dimensional police officers. Again, the only actor worth watching was Kiefer because he not only spoke with evil, but demonstrated that he was capable of anything vile. It was his sole performance that made this film decent to watch to the end.
If I have to talk about the story I think I am just going to go mad myself. Field over dramatized the entire film, thus creating uncertainty amongst the viewer. Did Kiefer get a bad image because he was bad or because Field wanted to see him as evil? That could have been a great avenue for this film to travel, but alas, ole safe Schlesinger didn't take us down that darker path. I needed more to develop what Hall and David were doing at the support groups, but it seemed like that story was dropped rather quickly as the ending needed to be wrapped up gently in a comfort blanket for viewers. This was yet another dark avenue that was not explored. I felt as if I saw these dark avenues with the director and the cast, yet we chose to stay on the lighted path. That, coupled with the poor acting, just created a film that didn't catch my attention and fully contributed nothing to the cinematic world.
Overall, in case it wasn't obvious, this wasn't a good movie at all. In fact, I could go through the rest of my life without thinking of this movie again. I thought only horror movies had the stated Scream rules and somehow could stick to the same tired pattern over and over again, but with Eye for an Eye it became obvious that it the "Revenge Thrill" fell into that same pattern. The only trouble is that horror films actually have fun with that repetitive structure, this film did not. Sally Field was horrible and should really consider a strong independent film to bring her back to the spotlight, while everyone else was forgettable. The only fun part was watching Jack Bauer play the epitome of evil. Watch this film for Kiefer, but nothing else. Skip it!
Grade: * out of *****
More Customer Reviews (20 total)
You like Eye For An Eye?
|
© 2004, 2005, 2006 DVD Booty | Don't Plunder Our Cache of Booty, Matey!
Hosting made possible by donations from Payday Loan Benefits, payday advance, and Compare Mortgages And Loans
