IMDb > Eyewitness (1981) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Eyewitness
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Eyewitness More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 30 reviews in total 

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Two apparently independent plots.

Author: dbdumonteil
10 September 2003

There are few films which boast such a first-rate cast:Christopher Plummer,Morgan Freeman ,Sigourney Weaver,James Woods ..And like in Hitchcock's "family plot" (1975),there are two apparently independent plots:on one hand,a shady business man's murder and a Vietnam veteran who becomes a janitor in the same building;on the other hand, a network which helps the Jews immigrate into the US.A fine thread connects the two stories:Weaver is the daughter of Jews who belong to this network and the fiancée (?) of one of them;and she's also a TV reporter who covers the affair I mention above;and she is also the janitor's idol.and...

When,after after almost one hour,the two plots become one,they do not hang well together(in Hitchcock's "family plot" ,the connection was very smart:a simple movement of the camera followed Karen Black ).And in spite of two spectacular scenes ,the rabid dog,and the horses which give the movie a fantastic touch,the story is at once implausible and predictable .Also handicapped by pointless minor characters such as Woods' sister and Hurt's father.This film does not rank among Peter Yates 'best.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

The end justifies the means....right?

7/10
Author: helpless_dancer from Broken Bow, Oklahoma
4 November 2001

Slightly offbeat murder yarn dealing with a pair of misfits who become involved in a murder which had nothing to do with either of them. This causes one of them to be targeted by an assassin who is involved in a love triangle between a woman and his intended victim. Strange film with a taut ending.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

A Buried, Character-Driven, Well-Cast Gem

8/10
Author: jzappa from Cincinnati, OH, United States
15 March 2009

This 1981 murder thriller, from a big studio with big stars of the time, with corny vintage taglines and advertisements, is good entertainment squarely because it pays more application to its people than its story. It's indubitably set in America, from the innards of a Manhattan boiler room to the newsroom of a TV station, even though it's about such real, involved, curious, and occasionally hilarious people that it have got to at the least be transatlantic.

This underrated neo-noir stars William Hurt as a janitor who happens upon proof that could lead to the conclusion of a murder investigation. But he doesn't go to the police with it because he's too reticent, too reflective, too doubtful of what he's seen and, mainly, he's too much in love from a distance with Sigourney Weaver's TV news reporter. Perhaps he can gain her regard by giving her the inside story.

There are other dilemmas. Sigourney Weaver's fiancée is an Israeli agent played by Christopher Plummer, who is embroiled in cloak-and-dagger overseas interventions to smuggle Jews out of the Soviet Union. His plan concerns secret fees to a corrupt Vietnamese agent who has now moved to Manhattan. The other characters include James Woods, as Hurt's impetuous and short-fused best friend and recently fired colleague, and Steven Hill and Morgan Freeman as a couple of stoic cops who ponderously trace leads in the case. One of their memorably stoic quips: "When Aldo was a little boy, he must have wanted to be a suspect when he grew up."

The advancement and resolution of the murder mystery are handled rather conventionally by director Peter Yates, who made some great thrillers like The Hot Rock and Bullitt, and his screenwriter, Steve Tesich. A climactic showdown in a midtown riding stable and its barely existent denouement has a touch of every thriller from the 1980s. But what makes this movie so enjoyable is the way Yates and Tesich and their characters play against our assumptions. It shows that there really is no excuse for a lack of cutting edge or creative spirit in genre films, because this one achieves a very poised harmony of the familiar and the original, predictability and unpredictability. Genres rely upon the audience's savvy and familiarity, on the seasoning they've stengthened from seeing movies and the frame of comparable encounters from they can evoke.

Weaver is not only a TV newswoman, but also a determined pianist on the side and the dejected daughter of her oppressive parents. Hurt is not only a janitor but also an emotional introvert, an animal lover who can rhapsodize his way into Weaver's heart. Woods is not only an unhinged janitor but also the forceful advocate of a marriage between his sister and Hurt. Hurt and the sister continue the engagement because they are both too nice to tell the other one they're not in love. And as a mystery thriller, it gives us multiple conceivable suspects and resolutions to the murder it sets up as a way of misleading us until the proper time to reveal the killer.

I've seen so many thrillers that, honestly, I don't always care that much how they resolve lest they're particularly well-crafted. What I like about this buried gem is that, where it has regard for how it turns out, it has even more regard for the essence of its scenes. There's not a scene in this movie that just constitutes plot information. Every scene defines characters. And they're developed in such uncommon integrity to the way people do act that we get all the more consumed in the mystery, merely considering that we comparatively trust it could actually be real. Actually, I'm going to buckle and say that there is one tagline for this movie that is pretty good: "You're never more vulnerable than when you've seen too much."

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Uneven roller-coaster ride

9/10
Author: herbqedi from New York, NY
19 April 2003

Parts are slow, and parts are non-sequitirs that don't quite add up. But the dialogues is marvelous, the acting terrific, and the suspense constant. Great bits by James Woods, Christopher Plummer, Stephen Hill, and Morgan Freeman add to the irony and the enjoymnent. It's fun to watch William Hurt before he got so jaundiced.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

An unusual thriller

7/10
Author: Paul Arthur from London, England
23 May 1999

William Hurt stars as the brooding janitor in this sub-Hitchcockian thriller directed by Peter Yates (Bullitt). No-one in the film is quite what they seem, and Hurt plays the role of ambivalent hero/anti hero intelligently. Sigourney Weaver shows what a fine actress she really is whilst Christopher Plummer adds gravitas to the proceedings. Like Benton's Still Of The Night the film is well-crafted and often intriguing. Definitely well worth watching.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not offbeat enough...promising cast and plot distressingly end up on the assembly line

4/10
Author: moonspinner55 from las vegas, nv
15 May 2011

William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver are lovely to look at in their early acting days, but this convoluted plot from sometimes-talented screenwriter Steve Tesich takes both stars down a dead-end road. News-reporter Weaver believes janitor Hurt may have seen something the night a businessman was killed in an office building, but he--harboring a crush on her--is just playing footsie, that is until the killers find out about him. Opening 20 minutes are fine, if not thrilling; the production is glossy and the leads are well-matched. However, the picture gets bogged down in contrivances and overwitten characters, such as Weaver's parents and Christopher Plummer as a sinister Israeli. Director Peter Yates' energy peters out fast; his finale, in particular, is dreadful. *1/2 from ****

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

structure

Author: burtonfan17 from Los Angeles, Ca
11 July 2001

For weeks I have been looking for the perfect structure of a screenplay. This film had me in the first ten minutes because of what it set itself up to be. The structure had the camera following one principle lead, going off to meet the other principle lead, who would subsequently go off to meet the character from which the major plot developed. "Eyewitness" is a great film which showed me what I have been missing throughout my entire movie-watching career. After you meet the principle characters through following them, some kind of sub-plot, or major plot, or principle theme, will develop, and it will truly free up the entire movie. This is basically the structure of almost every independent film I have seen. Not to be missed.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Low point for Weaver & Hurt

4/10
Author: Alien3_fan from florida
29 May 2005

I'm a collector of films starring Ms. Weaver, so I bought this only because of her being in it. I find it really odd that her early career is filled with so many awful movies. She started with incredible promise in Alien but then had a slew of bombs. These bombs include this movie, Deal of the Century, One Woman or Two, and Half Moon Street. She also appeared in The Year Of Living Dangerously, which was not a bomb, but her performance was less than notable. In the time between Alien and it's 1986 sequel, Aliens, the only movie she did that was worth anything was Ghostbusters. before the release of Aliens, I'm sure everyone thought this woman was on her way out. Luckily she wasn't.

Back to Eyewitness though, the film is boring. It doesn't create any suspense. William Hurt seems like a cardboard stand in, and the atmosphere is just to dry. Sigourney is decent but nothing worth remembering.

Watch this movie if you must but don't go in with any expectations of a decent movie. Watch better movies with these two stars like Accidental Tourist and Working Girl.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Not Much To See.

5/10
Author: AaronCapenBanner from North America
27 September 2013

William Hurt plays a Manhattan Janitor named Daryl Deaver, who is obsessed with a local newswoman named Tony Sokolow(played by Sigourney Weaver). When a Vietnamese man with a shady past is murdered in Daryl's building, he takes full advantage of meeting his crush by insinuating that he knows more about the murder than he does. Tony goes along with him, flattered but unsure. When the true killers get wind of Daryl's story, they plan on eliminating him, and before they know it, their really is a conspiracy to report...

Good acting by its fine cast(which includes James Woods, Morgan Freeman, and Christopher Plummer) cannot save this contrived and unconvincing mystery, which just doesn't amount to much.

Was the above review useful to you?

A decent story with a sterling group of actors.

7/10
Author: Scott LeBrun (Hey_Sweden) from Canada
10 July 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Screenwriter Steve Tesich and film director Peter Yates, who first collaborated on "Breaking Away", reunite for this character driven, reasonably involving thriller. William Hurt stars as Daryll Deever, a night janitor with a fixation on TV news personality Toni Sokolow (Sigourney Weaver). So when a murder takes place in his building, he pretends to know more about it than he does in order to get close to her. She's initially just interested in him as a means to get a story, but does come to like him, while the person responsible for the killing decides to leave nothing to chance and to eliminate Daryll.

There are some bits in here that don't have too much to do with the main plot, but they do allow this well chosen cast some time to leave fairly big impressions. Kenneth McMillan has a touching scene, playing Darylls' father, and Hurt and Pamela Reed do well in another scene where their characters are completely honest about their relationship. James Woods is fun in a typically off kilter role as Darylls' friend who has suspect written all over him. Irene Worth and Albert Paulsen play Toni's parents, Christopher Plummer her impassioned boyfriend. And Steven Hill and Morgan Freeman have some good moments together as the detectives working the case.

There is an autobiographical quality to the script to a degree, as Tesich himself had had a thing for a Washington, D.C., anchorwoman, and would record her broadcasts and keep pictures of her as Daryll does regarding Toni in the film. It's well shot (by Matthew Leonetti) on various NYC locations and sets and slickly done, and all in all the movie does tell a pretty entertaining story with some standout sequences. One with a crazed dog, the opening with the camera prowling around a basement, a bit of action with Daryll and Toni fighting off some Vietnamese goons, and the finale in the stables come to mind. But it's really the actors who make this an okay viewing. It's worth noting that Weaver looks particularly beautiful here.

Seven out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history