IMDb > Eye of the Beholder (1999) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Eye of the Beholder
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Eye of the Beholder More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 42:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 418 reviews in total 

70 out of 86 people found the following review useful:

The DVD alternate ending makes a BIG difference

Author: Buff2001 from Florida
10 January 2004

I had not seen this movie when originally released because of bad reviews. I did however recently pick up the DVD in the $5.99 rack at Target mainly because I really like Ewan McGregor and Ashley Judd. They did do their usual fine job of acting but I must admit that the plot was convoluted and illogical and the first time through watching it normally, I was disappointed in the lingering confusion.

I then watched the one deleted scene and the alternate ending and it changed my whole perspective. Sometimes alternate endings do not really change much but this was the most dramatically different alternate ending I have ever seen. It wrapped up everything for me and made the whole thing crystal clear and satisfying.

I can not imagine why they left out this long segment that does not so much result in an alternate ending per se, but rather fills in a lot of the holes that I had in my head. It is worth your time to rent the DVD and see this alternate ending. It may change your mind about the movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 84 people found the following review useful:

What a Brilliantly Surreal Film

Author: nauselbaum from Montreal, Canada
3 February 2000

It's the films that get hardly no, or very little exposure in commercial advertising that usually strike you the most when you're sitting in a theatre of people, not knowing what to expect. This is much the case with this movie. It's a sort of David Cronenberg meets Roman Polanski type of film, mixed in with a bit of Stanley Kubrick. Needless to say, the movie is a surreal one, that incorporates a brilliant cast with an incredible script and wonderful artistic direction.

It's hard to say what the film is about, other than to suggest it's about obsession. That's the way I see it at least. The acting really brings out the reality of the film, and all I can say is Ewan McGregor and Ashley Judd are just magical together in this film! K.D. Lang, well, I didn't really like her in the film at all; I felt her character didn't do much for the film.

If your kind of film is a dynamic, unpredictable, original and surrealistic film, then this one would be a good addition to your list of seen films. If not, and you prefer action-based films, then this movie could definitely hit it off. It has elements of almost all film genres, so everyone should go out and see it!

Was the above review useful to you?

39 out of 54 people found the following review useful:

My interpretation

Author: tony-clifton from Edmonton, Canada
24 April 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First, I'd like to say that I am sick and tired of reading reviews from people who don't apply their brains to interpret a movie, who watch a movie expecting a cliched Hollywood plot that has been rehashed over and over. Is it so hard to appreciate a movie that is different? Does every movie have to have a huge exploding climax and a fairy-tale ending? Don't you suppose some things in life don't work out that way? I appreciate this movie for telling a story that is different - it's so sad that people are so narrow-minded. *rant over*


Okay, here is my interpretation of the film, since legions of people have reviewed this film not understanding it. It is my interpretation, and since I have not read the book on which this story is based - it is therefore not necessarily accurate.

The Eye is hired to watch Joanna, and he is supposed to catch her in something. During which, the Eye sees a physical likeness of her to his daughter whom he lost when his wife left him. While he tails Joanna, he learns her sad story of how she lost her father and this triggers some sort of psychological connection with her - since he lost her daughter.

Joanna meets a blind rich man named Leonard, and because he can't see her and therefore she feels that he can't see her phoniness and is not attracted to the phony image she portrays when others fall in lust with her, she trusts him inherently and eventually falls in love with him. She proposes to him, and he accepts.

At this point, one is not sure whether the Eye is in love with Joanna since his hallucination of his daughter asks if he is jealous to which he affirms. Nevertheless, the Eye tries to stop them from getting married and inadvertently causes them to have a car accident and Leonard dies.

Joanna goes on the run again, and checks into a hotel. A detective who has been following her enters her hotel room, and she shoots him and runs off hurriedly. The Eye manages to extract a pubic hair from the bathtub and finds out her real name. The Eye then goes to a correction facility where Joanna used to go as a young girl and meets Dr Jeanne who explains her past, and that she taught Joanna some of her survival skills.

Joanna's car breaks down and she gets picked up by Gary and they stay over at a motel. Gary tries to get her on drugs but she refuses and Gary gets violent on her, kicking her and killing Leonard's child which was growing inside her. The Eye comes into save her, but as he gets rid of Gary, he goes back to the motel and finds Joanna has run off again.

With the help of Hilary, the Eye tracks Joanna down at a hospital and learns that Joanna lost her baby. While she is sleeping, he puts on his wife's wedding ring on her finger - which of course implies that he sees his wife's likeness in Joanna.

Joanna learns that someone was tracking her and helping her, and almost catches the Eye as he was tailing her. She gets surrounded by police who have tracked her down - and the Eye risks his life to let her get away. Joanna flees to Alaska and finally the Eye meets Joanna face to face although Joanna doesn't know yet that the Eye is her "guardian angel". The police use Dr Jeanne to try and identify Joanna when they track her down to the diner where Joanna works - but Dr Jeanne refuses to divulge Joanna. The Eye once again rescues her, by asking her to flee in his car.

When they are in the Eye's trailer, it dawns on her that the Eye is her guardian angel, and she is so scared she shoots the Eye with the gun that the Eye already set up for her to use (containing blanks). She drives off in his car, and he chases her on a motorbike. She crashes and he pulls her out of the car, and finally Joanna comes to accept her guardian's true identity - having remembered all the times where she saw his face briefly.

At this point, it is implied that they get together - but it is all left to your imagination. The Eye feels that he has redeemed himself, by watching over Joanna, chasing her and finally getting her to accept him (redeeming him from his feeling of failure over losing his wife and daughter, and his inability to track them down) - and Joanna meets her guardian angel - a protective fatherly figure who accepts her for who she is.

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 62 people found the following review useful:

Something different

Author: Screamager45 from Norwich, UK
7 September 2003

It seems that there are a lot of people slagging this film off. I can see why they are, but I disagree.

If you are looking for a big money, same as all the rest thriller then ignore this film.

If you want something a little different and interesting, give it a try. Good performances and an strangley intriguing plot keeps you watching.

Give it a try, at least it's not Titanic.

Was the above review useful to you?

40 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

Flawed But Visually-Audibly Entertaining

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from United States
22 October 2005

Here's an extremely stylish, different film panned by almost all the professional critics which means here's another example of why they should be ignored. You are better off reading the reviews of people here,

Being one who appreciates stylish film-making, I thoroughly enjoyed the images and the sound on this movie. I found it absolutely fascinating. Being a male, it doesn't hurt that Ashley Judd stars in it, either.

To be fair, I can see where the story would turn off a number of people.The co- lead, Ewan McGregory's character, is odd and not very credible. k.d. lang's character is unlikable, there is some stupid numerology as part of the story and the ending is unsatisfying .

Yet, despite the above, the story is very involving and the visuals and sound (5.1 surround) are just so good that they outweigh the negatives. The movie flat-out entertains, which is the name of the game.

Was the above review useful to you?

27 out of 40 people found the following review useful:

McGregor great as always

Author: hamsteroffury from Birmingham, England
26 January 2003

Interesting to look back on. So was Eye Of The Beholder a let down? Well the answer has to be a no! I went to this movie having seen a single trailer that looked more intruiging that 'mindblowing' and I think that's the whole basis of the film. It's not an epic or a groundbreaking Matrix-esque special effects extravaganza...It doesn't pretend to be. It's straight up and honest. It's not glamorous and sometimes you wonder why the characters are doing what they're doing. The ghost of McGregor's daughter is an interesting addition that shows his lonliness and complusion to the job and at the same time his yearning and feeling of loss towards her. I came out of the film feeling like I had witnessed something that not many people would watch - and that they'd be missing out! So yeah, you might prefer to go and watch epics at the cinema but why not rent this out for a lazy saturday evening. It won't blow you away but at least it has thought behind it!

Was the above review useful to you?

30 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

It's really good, but not in an ordinary way.

Author: uyvt from United States
8 April 2003

This movie is a "film noir". That makes it different from most popular films. Don't watch it if you want laughs, or tears, but only if you want to leave it rather haunted by it. It will make you think. It will make you feel. I really like that. And I really liked the acting, directing, and the look of the picture. But most of all I liked the way it made me think and feel. Try it when you can give it the attention it deserves.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

an interesting failure

Author: Dierdre99
21 January 2003

Despite over 300 comments, some people are still posting saying that it was beyond them and what do the rest of us see in it. Those naysayers should actually read the posted comments.

I watched the film twice, read Marc Behm's book and then watched it again. I would like to see the original film version, 'Mortelle randonnée'(1983) (it has a really good soundtrack album by Carla Bley), but so far have not found a video-rental shop that has a copy. Like the director, Stephan Elliott's major film, 'Priscilla, Queen of the Desert', 'Eye of the Beholder' is a road movie about eccentrics, one of whom is into wigs and changing her appearance. Like Marc Behm's script for 'Charade'(1963) it is about a spook who is looking after a young woman who doesn't really know what is going on. I can't think of any parallels with Marc Behm's Beatles film 'Help!'(1965). Actually Behm has 13 IMDB credits, and most of them are difficult to find. As are his other novels.

The major improvement over the book is the addition of the hi-tech snooping equipment. The book's Eye is an old-fashioned gumshoe who simply looks though bedroom windows and the like. Also the making the lost daughter's ghost more solid is an interesting effect. We don't have to know that the girl is dead to think of the image of her as a ghost. I didn't notice that she is played by two actors. The problem is that Ewan McGregor is too young for the role. At the end of the book he dies of old age. I think that the book captures his slipping into obsession better, and part of the picture is that Joanna Eris is about the age that his daughter would have been. A side-effect of his computer tools etc, is that it becomes more unlikely that he would not be able to find his ex-wife and daughter. But as the film makes him a Brit in the States, they would be back in Britain.

Obviously the script had to drop a lot of the incidents in the book. In the film it is extremely implausible that he is able to get a room next to Joanna in the New York hotel. In the book he tails her for several months through a few murders, which would give him a chance to take a sublet in the building.

The rich blind man is called 'Forbes' in the book. Given the real-life family of that name, it was probably best to change it.

In the book the scene where Joanne is identified in the restaurant where she is working, takes place in New Jersey. In the film it is said to be Alaska, although we know that it is somewhere in Quebec. Why didn't the film say that it was Quebec. Then the crew would not have to work so hard hiding all the French signs. I presume that in 'Mortelle randonnée' all the places were changed to places in France (where apparently Marc Behm lives).

An ironic detail. The book has several cross-dressing incidents: the Eye does nanny-drag to continue his surveillance; Joanna and a woman friend not in the book do male drag to rob banks and filling-stations, and the Jason Priestley character, Gary, is a cross-dressing fetishist. I suppose that the director of Priscilla feels that he has done the topic.

I would have liked the film to have kept the incidents where Joanna almost recognizes the Eye, including the time when she hires a detective to capture him.

The film has a lot more in it than most thrillers. It avoids the cliches, challenges the viewer, but doesn't really gel. There are too many nagging questions afterwards.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

A real mess of an oddity.

Author: MidniteRambler from London
17 June 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


This is a bizarre little film about a British spy based in the US who is dispatched by his embassy to watch an official's son. The son is murdered by a mysterious girlfriend, played by Ashley Judd, and our spy starts to tail Judd from afar, using all the paraphernalia of his trade. He becomes more and more obsessed and soon progresses from spy to stalker to guardian angel as she disposes of lover after lover during her dashes across the States, winding up in Alaska, at "the end of the world". Not until the last act do the stalker and the killer exchange any meaningful dialogue, and, on the trudge to the final act, we learn very little about the two characters and even less about their motivations.

Like many movies, this one draws extremes of praise and rancour. It is not an enjoyable film, but some elements compel us to watch it and to watch it again, and we are left wondering why this should be the case. From one angle, this is easy: the two stars are good at their job and both are highly watchable. But what holds our interest after the closing credits is more significant and that is that this film could have been so much better, that some poor decisions were taken at the writing stage and that with these two headliners, Eye of the Beholder could have been a memorable offering. MacGregor's stalker is fleshed out almost entirely by the irritating presence in his imagination of his daughter, whom he lost when his wife left some time ago, and his imaginary conversations with this child provide some vestiges of character and motivation; other than that, we are on our own. A couple of minutes at the beginning with the character interacting with a real girlfriend or on some sort of assignment might have had us rooting for him much, much more. As it is, he is hardly more than a cipher. Similarly, Judd's killer is even more of a mystery and we never really understand why she is so murderous. Again, a few minutes of exposition in the early stages could have heightened the viewer's interest in and empathy for her character: as she is presented to us, our only interest in her is that she's being played by Ashley Judd. Neither Judd nor MacGregor could have done anymore with the material given to them, short of returning the screenplay with a polite "no, thank you".

I could not recommend this movie, nor could I call it a bad movie. For me, Ashley Judd could never be boring, and there are bucketloads of moviegoers who would sit back happily while Ewan MacGregor painted a wall white and watched it dry. But, aside from curiosity about the two stars, unless you are interested in how and why projects with good potential fail to deliver the goods so spectacularly, this is probably one to avoid. Which is something of a shame.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

Decide For Yourself

Author: bloodyhell ( from United States
7 November 2003

I know people have already explained things from every viewpoint, but I still want to give my own opinion (fancy that).

I loved this film.

Granted, I wouldn't want to watch it endlessly for weeks on end, but I thought it to be a very original work of entertainment (yes, I meant entertainment). I'm so damn bored of all these pointless, predictable movies that seem to be overflowing the film industry. There's no to them. Eye of the Beholder, while tedious and slow-paced in parts, was not like that. Some of that was due to the acting.

I've been a fan of Ewan McGregor for awhile now. I'll admit he was the reason I rented this movie in the first place. But after I saw it, I appreciated the whole aspect of it- not just him. Hell, I even went and got a copy of the bloody book.

I'm not saying you must, should or will even enjoy the movie. (Though, looking at the majority of the lot, most didn't). What I AM saying is that you should at least watch the movie and decide for yourself.


(By the by- does anybody happen to know what sort of camera (model) the 'Eye' used? (The long silver one) I've been looking for one just like it...)

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 42:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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