Eye of the Beholder (1999) User Reviews

Well I enjoyed it

[s-andra-1957 · 6/10 · 28 October 2020]

Ewan MacGregor and Ashley Judd where so interesting in this film. I felt like I was the eye trying to understand it! Ewan becomes obsessed with Ashley after watching her killing people and crying about her dad. Having lost his wife and child somehow, not explained, he begins to relate to Ashley as his lost daughter or love not sure. If this review is confusing you that's how the movie makes you feel. I liked the look and feel of the show and all the very different looks Ashley pulled off beautifully but yes I'm left with having to say it's just passably good over all. Ewan quits his job but acts like he didn't and KD Lang's role was equally strange was she in love with Ewan, just a friend? I didn't think she tied everything together like her role required. Still I enjoyed it.

Ok movie but......

[kaz-62 · 5/10 · 7 November 2020]

Completely spoiled by the really quiet dialogue, so you turn up the volume so you can hear it only to have to turn it back down again when the music or action happens, so if you watch this at home keep your finger on the volume button

Okay

[grantss · 6/10 · 17 January 2021]

I am surprised that this has got such bad ratings. Admittedly, it's not great, but it's not that bad either.

Started off really well and had heaps of potential. However, after a point it loses focus and starts to drift. Still, a decent and intriguing story.

Good performances from Ewen McGregor and Ashley Judd.

quality is in the eye of the beholder

[mercury-26 · 2/10 · 6 July 2000]

This thing must have looked good on paper--the only reason I can think of that Ewan MacGregor and Ashley Judd would associate themselves with it. Funny thing is, I think there might be a good movie in here somewhere. I mean, was it good at some point until some outside force--a producer or a test audience, for instance-started messing with it? The plot is incomprehensible, something producers in screening rooms tend to not like. "But we have to put SOMETHING out there for god's sake! It's got two big stars in it!" My question is, did their tinkering make the film more or less confusing?

We may never know. Having paid close attention to the film (the interesting direction and photography held my attention), however, I have been able to surmise the following: a spy code-named ‘Eye,' (the miscast Ewan MacGregor) who's afraid of his own shadow, not to mention losing his mind since his wife left him (this same subject was covered in the far superior Zero Effect), falls in love with a beautiful killer (Ashley Judd). He's supposed to be getting her arrested but, as he keeps following her, becoming more and more obsessed, he starts protecting her. Judd's "Joanna" is a parasite. She targets well-to-do men, feeds off of them for a while, then kills them. Eye also tries to protect her victims from her, but usually fails--until she becomes a victim herself at the hands of the scary, creepy Jason Priestley (yes, THAT Jason Priestley). He saves her, only to lose her, then finds her again. This time he has the nerve to actually talk to her. But will he finally do his job and turn her in or will he become her next victim?

Before I start sounding too much like the back of a video box, let me just say that there is a lot here for those willing to pay close attention to it. Too often, though, it seems like it's trying too hard to be interesting, doing so at the expense of storytelling. It also seems self-important--as if they don't want the audience to understand. Some parts of it are just plain bad (like every one of k.d. lang's scenes).

Like I said, watch closely and you may get something out of it. Then again, no one should have to work that hard at watching a movie.

Grade: D

Don't waste your money.

[bamatommy · 1/10 · 7 December 2000]

Ashley Judd has turned in excellent performances in movies like "Double Jeopardy". But this movie is pathetic. The character played by Ewan McGregor seemed to be on drugs. This movie was weird,dumb,and boring.

Boring and hard to follow.

[jcushin · 1/10 · 19 October 2000]

Another rental that I feel I have wasted $4 on and about two hours of my life. The plot didn't make sense and was hard to follow. The pace was also painstakingly slow. This is a story that probably needs the format of a book to be able to understand. I didn't like the main character. He was a stalker and they made that out to be like it was okay. I would recommend a pass on this movie.

The DVD alternate ending makes a BIG difference

[Buff2001 · 7/10 · 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.

Huh?

[TheCowSays · 9 June 2000]

This movie made absolutely no sense at all. NONE. 'What?' and 'Why?' were questions I was asking throughout the film. I didn't understand what was going on at all. It seemed that each scene had absolutely nothing to do with the next, and in a movie like this you just assume "well it will all come together at the end." But it doesn't. Nothing is explained. I never understood what Ashley Judd's character was trying to do, and I never understood what "the Eye" was trying to find out. It's completely incoherent. I didn't understand this at all. I always thought that it was coming together, but everything always fell apart. It's no wonder that it wasn't released for so long after they made it. It didn't make any sense. It was a complete waste of time. It's like they were just making it up as they filmed it. If it wasn't for Ashley Judd's sudden popularity, I doubt it would've been released at all. Don't bother. I'm upset because I just wasted an hour and a half of my life.

Exhaustively terrible.

[lnvicta · 2/10 · 30 January 2016]

What a stupid movie this is. I could go down the list of everything wrong with this crap, but there's no point. Simply put, nothing makes sense. It's a bunch of abstract, wannabe artsy scenes strung together with a dumb plot and abhorrent dialogue. For the entire movie I just felt bad for the actors - McGregor and Judd - for having to recite this verbal diarrhea. If I had to explain the story, it's basically that Judd's character is a sexy killer and McGregor's character gets a crush on her and starts stalking her. It's so dumb. There are subplots that are made out to be important in the beginning but get a half-assed resolution near the end. The ending itself is abrupt and horrendous. It's just so frustrating watching these characters do and say the dumbest things imaginable. I did get a few good laughs though.

I'm not even touching the fact that this is a tech-y investigation movie and how horrifically dated it looks now, but that could be forgiven if there was a good story to follow. As it is, the only defining characteristic of Eye of the Beholder is that it's the worst turd in Ewan McGregor's acting career and also happens to be the name of a Metallica song. Please don't watch this; don't make the same mistake I did.

My interpretation

[tony-clifton · 7/10 · 24 April 2003]

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*

*SPOILERS*

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.

Psychos-R-Us

[merrywood · 1/10 · 31 January 2000]

Essentially, this is a giant mound of malodorous garbage of a film made, apparently, before Ashley Judd's successful appearance in DOUBLE JEAPORDY, having languished in a film can for some years and finally sold to its distributor for a meager $4 million to take advantage of Judd's newly found fame.

This film was either made by someone whose bread is not quite fully baked or somehow terribly mangled in the post production and editing process to the point where nothing makes any sense. Dialog is often pointless and meaningless, action is not only unbelievable but often stupid. The film has no substantial story or structure. Its worse sin, it bores.

The film, as it was presented in national release, depicts senseless murder and in a fashion that attempts to trivialize murder. The murders themselves are done by characters with no understood or delineated provocation nor are the murderer's characters developed to the point where it is possible to understand this extremely negative and destructive human behavior.

This is not movie entertainment. It is incoherent, amateur waste of capital and will squander your time as well in the watching. We are not surprised by the release of the film since the bottom line of Hollywood, all too often, is greed. Each time an outrageous piece of dung like this is released it gives the industry and America a black eye. Spare yourself and stay away from this pile of rubbish.

Flawed But Visually-Audibly Entertaining

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 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.

A real mess of an oddity.

[MidniteRambler · 7/10 · 17 June 2004]

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.

I want the two hours they stole from me...

[jnunn-2 · 2/10 · 22 June 2000]

This was one of the worst feature films I have ever seen. I'm a big fan of McGregor and Ashley Judd is usually always great--but this movie was the biggest waste of time since Bob Dole ran for office. There are confusing elements introduced early that are never fully explained--and there seems to be an element of the story line that was left on the cutting-room floor, because there are exchanges between the two principals that are so ambiguous you feel like you've missed half of the movie.

McGregor great as always

[hamsteroffury · 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!

Should come with a warning label

[Spock-11 · 1/10 · 6 February 2000]

Movies like this should come with a warning label: "Caution! Do not operate heavy machinery after watching"

Unfortunately, I violated one of my own rules of movie-going: never---I repeat, NEVER---go to a movie that the "critics are raving about." The only reason ANYBODY would "rave" about this movie is they couldn't figure it out, so they figure it MUST have some deeper meaning. Anybody that doesn't like it must be one of the shallow, non-creative types that only likes predictable movies. There's ALWAYS a deeper meaning.

Trust me. There's no deeper meaning. There's only two hours of non-stop rambling trash that you'll no-doubt find in the cut-out bin of your nearest video store in the next three months. No plot. No character development. Nada. Nil. Fin.

Anything the so-called "critics" love is bound to be a worthless piece of #@!$.

Ummm...okay...?

[lizabeth84 · 1/10 · 7 July 2000]

I thought this movie was going to be interesting. Boy, could I have been ANY more wrong? Ashley Judd still gave a decent performance, even though the movie made absolutely no sense. All the characters seem to be wearing sort of old fashioned type clothes, yet the technology incorporated into the film is far too advanced for that. Also, if he is a British spy type guy, why is he following her all over the United States? The story line was horrible...all that happened was a few guys were murdered, Ewan MacGregor became obsessed with Ashley Judd, and he keeps seeing visions of his daughter who you assume was taken from him by his former wife, but she seems to appear as a ghost. (Who you even see blurs of in developed pictures...again, something that has nothing to do with what SHOULD be the initial plot.) The only effect this movie had on me was after it ended, I shrugged my shoulders and said "HUH?!" Don't waste your time on this one.

All travel, no story

[Dodger-9 · 1/10 · 12 June 2000]

It took six months for Eye of the Beholder to reach Britain and with next to no publicity, that meant it could either be an intriguing curio or a film so bad, no-one could bother endorsing it.

Alas, it falls into the latter camp and anyone paying to see this turkey will feel very short changed by the time the closing credits roll.

Australian writer/director Stephan Elliott made a big impact in the early Nineties with his smash hit Priscilla Queen of the Desert and the thought of him turning his hand from gay road movie to serial killer thriller was not an altogether horrific prospect.

The fact that it also starred Ewan McGregor and the far from hideous Ashley Judd was also a good sign.

However, Patrick Bergin hasn't made a decent film in years and his presence does set a few alarm bells ringing.

McGregor plays 'Eye', a British secret service agent who wears a knackered old anorak tied up with tape and grime.

While spying on the enigmatic Joanna (Judd), he is naturally shocked when she murders her lover and then takes off with him in hot pursuit.

Eye is a solitary figure haunted by the presence of his daughter who is off living with his estranged wife.

A nice idea which was also done in Edge of Darkness. But whereas that TV classic made the plot device work to its advantage, this merely acts as a sounding board for our slightly unhinged protagonist.

As soon as Eye starts chasing Joanna, the little girl vanishes. Is he cured? We don't really know. And it seems neither does the director.

With smatterings of Vertigo and Rear Window, this wannabe Hitchcock thriller features obvious references to those movies and for the first half hour, you forgive the homages.

However, it soon becomes apparent that there's no real story here. Just a series of varying US locations as Eye chases Judd from state to state, accruing a series of snow globes. A clever device for telling us where we are, just in case we don't recognise the New York skyline or the rollercoaster hills of San Francisco.

As with most Hollywood movies these days, the one commodity sorely lacking is suspense. The gadgets and cast may look good but without some form of gravity, the whole thing flies away like a kite in a strong breeze. Too much time is spent travelling from A to B without any real reason. There's not much point taking a journey if you're going nowhere, unless you like the scenery.

This is not a travelog. It's meant to be letting you in on precious bits of information as the mystery unfolds. What it does is merely irritate like a stone in your shoe as you walk down a good looking road.

The film also features one of the poorest endings of any movie in recent history.

I guarantee you will leave the cinema feeling disappointed as EOB doesn't so much reach a satisfying conclusion as reach no conclusion at all.

SEVERELY UNDERRATED...OFF-BEAT...MISUNDERSTOOD...SURREAL... PSYCHOLOGICAL THRILLER

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 19 August 2021]

This Against-the-Grain Thriller-Romance-Neo-Noir Stars Two of the Most Engaging and Likeable Actors Working at the Turn of the New-Millennium.

Ewan McGregor and Ashley Judd

They are Tasked, and Succeed, in Anchoring this Crazy Mash-Up of the Psychological, Disturbing, Twisted, Crime-Spy-"Romance", Movie that Throws Expectation and Tradition to the Wind.

It's a Surreal Tale that Takes-Place in an Alternate Universe of High-Tech-High-Finance Surveillance/Investigations that are Familiar to Movie Audiences.

It Presents its Tale with an Insane Ambience where Characters, Not in Control of Their Diminishing and Destructive Faculties and Act-Out in Unexpected Methods Befitting Their Insanity.

This Makes for a Bumpy-Ride for Audiences Wanting a Smooth, Easy to Comprehend Unfolding where Motivations are Clear and Characters are Predetermined.

The Film Dodges Formulaic Behavior and Weaves a Disturbing Experience that can be as Intriguing as it is Unsettling.

The Two Characters, Ewan a Paid Surveillance Expert with a Troubling Disintegration of the Estrangement of His Beloved Child-Daughter...

"She was taken from me by her mother...She just came home from school one day and no longer had a father."

Ashley's Past is too of Abandonment and Isolation on an even Deeper Destructive Force that Turned Her into the Dementia Base Woman that is a Juggernaut.

An Art-House Take on the Prolific Genres Main-Stream Audiences Lap-Up and Patronize like so many Pavlovian Patrons.

This is Obviously Not for Everyone.

On the Surface it Looks Like Any Other Offering, Including A-List Stars in a Story that is Inviting to the Non-Discriminatory.

This is Gloriously"One-Step Beyond" All That. Yea!

Could of been good

[john-678 · 1/10 · 31 May 2000]

This movie had the makens of being great, but for the lack of directing. The worst thing about the movie is you never find out what was happening and why. Without spoiling the ending, lets say the never make it clear what happen , good or bad. I left the movie the same way I enter not knowing anything about the movie itself.

The last time I blinked I lost you.

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 18 July 2007]

Call me a sucker, but I really like Ashley Judd, and, even thought there wasn't much acting in her role here. it was worth watching, and not just for the brief glimpse in the tub.

I wasn't always sure where director Stephan Elliott was going, but I was willing to tag along for the ride. It was definitely for Hitchcock fans with Ewan McGregor (Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, Moulin Rouge!). It was really his film, doing all the real acting.

This was a film about loss, and obsession, and guilt. It is one of those films that affects people differently as they bring themselves into it. It is deep and dark, and worth a look.

Of course, I have always thought Geneviève Bujold to be very attractive, and almost cried at how she looked here. The film also features Jason Priestley and k.d. lang.

So bad I was angry that it got made.

[isaacrobin · 1/10 · 6 December 2020]

So many questions left unanswered from this film. Who thought this was a good idea? How did this script get produced? How did this script attract good actors? What did the producers or director have on the actors that they would perform in this abortion of a film? Why did I keep watching and why did I hope the ending would be any better than the rest of the film?

Trash. Prime Video, you should be paying me to watch this film, not the other way around.

What a Brilliantly Surreal Film

[nauselbaum · 10/10 · 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!

A rarity--a so-bad-it's-good movie!

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 23 August 2001]

A high-tech private eye (Ewan McGregor) inexplicably falls in love with a very deranged woman he's watching (Ashley Judd). k d lang pops up every once in a while as sort of a Greek chorus. This movie is hilariously bad--the dialogue is mind-numbing and the plot jumps around with little rhyme or reason. Some of the acting helps. Judd is excellent as the femme fatale and lang is lots of fun whenever she pops up. Also Genevieve Bujold puts in a strong cameo. But McGregor is seriously miscast. He's a very good actor but this role is totally beyond him. He tries but it's no go.

Still, I love the movie. It never stops moving, it looks gorgeous and director Elliott is constantly shooting sequences in every way possible--I was never bored. Also a very strange music score helps.

So, is it a good movie? Definetely not. Is it fun to watch? Hell yeah! The laugh-out-loud dialogue, the showy direction, Judd looking great, McGregor trying to get a grip on his character--go for it!

Do not see this movie!

[jrobinson03 · 1/10 · 6 February 2000]

I kept waiting and waiting for some clue as to what in the world was going on, who was related to whom, and what was this all about? And I'm usually a very perceptive movie-goer. A very unsatisfying waste of two hours. Really felt violated by the film-makers after this one.