Benutzerrezensionen

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.

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.

There is a murder without an apparent motive, so the viewer is in the dark for over half the film. When someone is killed without the audience being involved with the "why", interest quickly wains. Such is the case with "Eyewitness". Despite totally acceptable acting from a terrific cast, the film seems slow and constantly bogging down in blind alley subplots. When the motive for the murder is finally revealed, it almost seems like it comes out of a different movie, having little to do with what precedes it. William Hurt is very good as the mild mannered janitor with a crush on television news reporter Sigourney Weaver. Christopher Plummer is very effective in bad guy roles such as here, or in films like "The Silent Partner". James Woods plays James Woods, which is always interesting. Overall though, things never come together, due mainly to the muddled script. - MERK

A movie like "Eyewitness" would probably not get made today, at least by a major Hollywood studio. It's more of a character study than a straight thriller, and its pacing is decidedly leisurely. Actually, at first I thought that the slow pacing was a refreshing change from what is often the norm today in Hollywood thrillers. And it was interesting to see these particular characters with various motivations. However, eventually I admit I started to get a little impatient with the movie. It is simply too drawn out, and with some characters that have little to no impact to the main narrative. Also, there are some glaring unanswered questions, like why the Sigourney Weaver character does not contact the police when there is an attempted kidnapping of her. And who the killer turns out to be is a big coincidence in several regards.

The movie does have some pleasures here and there. It's fun to see a pre-fame Morgan Freeman, and there are some nice scenes here and there, my favorite being when the William Hurt character talks to his girlfriend at the sweatshop. But in the end, the movie doesn't quite make it. It isn't a terrible movie, but more likely than not you'll feel some significant dissatisfaction when the end credits start rolling.

Vietnam war hero and Manhattan janitor Daryll Deever (William Hurt) is obsessed with hard-nosed TV reporter Tony Sokolow (Sigourney Weaver). A shady Vietnamese businessman is murdered in his office building. He was complaining about Daryll's racist fellow vet coworker Aldo (James Woods). Aldo has an alibi in Daryll's girlfriend and Aldo's sister Linda (Pamela Reed). It's a lie and he's come into a lot of money. Tony investigates the story and concentrates on Daryll who secretly found the body and pretends to know something to stay close to her. Her Jewish activist boyfriend Joseph (Christopher Plummer) is hiding a secret. Police detectives Lt. Jacobs (Steven Hill) and Lt. Black (Morgan Freeman) are investigating. Mysterious Vietnamese men are watching.

There are some great actors in this. I checked this out despite never heard of it. It has lots of interesting bits. This would work better with a creepier Hurt. He's very capable and his obsession starts that way. I think Linda gets into the way and she's not a necessary character. There are little disjointed and oddly superfluous moments like his dog attacking. Then the movie takes a really outlandish turn. It's too bad because this could have been a solid simple thriller. The turn ties together two parts of the story that really has no connection to each other. It becomes flat at that point.

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.

This movie is great fun to see William Hurt, James Woods and Sigourney Weaver at the beginnings of their careers and when they were experiencing a good deal of success. The rest of the cast is top-notch. The story is very interesting and effective, though I found the film a bit uneven and slow.

William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver are lovely to look at in their early acting days, but this convoluted plot from usually-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 Hurt--harboring a crush on the plucky gal--is just playing footsie, that is until the killers find out about him. The opening 20mns of "Eyewitness" are fine, if not thrilling; the production is glossy and the leads are well-matched, but Tesich's script just isn't offbeat enough (and Peter Yates' workmanlike direction is no help). The film gets bogged down in contrivances and overwritten characters, such as Weaver's parents and Christopher Plummer's sinister Israeli. Where is Yates' energy? It peters out fast, leading to an assembly-line finale. *1/2 from ****

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."

The actors are the interesting part of this film. The story is secondary. If you like Hurt and Weaver, you will enjoy watching. The story is a bit over-contrived. (I know, all movies are contrived). Their problems are not easily consumed by 'ordinary' folk. But then these characters are unusual people in peculiar circumstance. Their acting is quite good though. Well worth viewing just for that.

"Eyewitness" has one really good scene. NYPD detective Morgan Freeman plops down next to his partner and says, "Julie and I are giving up. We're going to try adoption". It's a throwaway line and the scene has absolutely no bearing on the plot, but it's the only genuine character moment in the film.

This is pretty scattered as plotting goes and nothing works in terms of creating tension or characters (an injustice to its array of talent) but calling it boring is too simple. It's shocking how the opening credits give way to something that just . . . happens, then plods along for a while and finishes. All to a non-existent score. It's a thriller with no suspense, personality or feeling. In that respect, it's something unlike anything I've ever seen.

4/10

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.

William Hurt plays a janitor who knows more than he's telling about a murder. Sigourney Weaver is the TV reporter he's long had a crush on, when she shows up at the murder scene for the story, he sees his knowledge as an opportunity to meet her.

William Hurt in the '80s was like John Cusack in the '90s (and to a lesser extent, today) -- not every movie he's in is good, but his very presence seems to add crackle and interest to the dialogue. He is particularly impressive in his scenes declaring his feelings for the reporter. Really impressive, actually, and the movie is totally worth watching for those scenes.

The sad thing about Eyewitness is that it sets up some very interesting musings on honesty, people using each other, and principals vs. feelings, and gives us some fairly interesting characters to play with those musings, and then trades in the whole package for a conventional, if well done, romance/mystery. Ah, well. 7/10

When you get a cast like this, Hurt, Weaver, Plummer, Woods and Freeman you expect a lot. This was quite early in all their careers, apart from Christopher Plummer.

Whilst not exceptional it has a lot going for it, especially the strange characters involved. Daryll (William Hurt) witnesses a murder and meets Tony (Sigourney Weaver), a journalist he secretly admires. There's a second plot in the film about Jews and the Second World War. It's kind of messy, as is James Woods character Aldo. Woods is always great in this kinda movie, like a firecracker about to burst.

In the end the police catch the killer, but that's not the point in this movie.

Given the talent in this film, 'Eyewitness' should be far better than it is. It starts off interesting but devolves into far fetched and contrived nonsense pretty quickly. Hurt and Weaver are the best they can be given the material they have to work with. Look for the amazing Irene Worth, Chris Plummer and Morgan Freeman whose talents, unfortunately, are largely wasted here. The film wins no awards from us animal lovers either.

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.

The writer and director of 'Breaking Away' were reunited to make this laconic romantic thriller shot in New York at the old Astoria Studios. (A scene with a motorbike reminds you it's by the guy who directed 'Bullitt')

A square-jawed Sigourney Weaver adds yet another string to her bow as a Jewish TV personality who attracts the attention of William Hurt; not obvious casting as a bespectacled janitor who has issues with his father and by his own admission good with animals and kids but as he himself ruefully admits not "the rest of the world'.

James Woods plays his usual psycho, distinguished stage actress Irene Worth plays Weaver's mother, and a remarkably young Morgan Freeman plays a cop with the easily remembered name "Lt. Black".

Despite the fact that it is already more than 20 years old, I admit that I had never heard of this movie before. That's quite difficult to understand, since there are a lot of famous actors to be seen in it. But apparently I'm not the only one. So far there are only about 700 people who have given this movie a rating.

Daryll Deever is a janitor in an office building in Manhattan who has one great passion: he is completely in love with Tony Sokolow, a TV reporter who he only knows from TV (he even tapes her commentary on a daily basis so he can watch it after work). When a wealthy Vietnamese man is murdered in the building where Daryll works, Tony shows up to cover the story. This is of course an excellent opportunity for Daryll to introduce himself to her and that's why he pretends to know more about the case. Of course she is interested and it doesn't take long before a romantic cat and mouse game between the two develops. But the killers think that Darryl and Tony really do know something and that's why they decide to go after them...

The best reason to watch this movie is the cast. It is always nice to see people like William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Morgan Freeman,... play an (important) role in a movie. But that's also about the only good reason that I can come up with when you want to know why you should watch this movie. The story isn't exactly world-shocking and the use of two - apparently independent - plots will not help you to forget that. OK, there are a couple of very nice scenes in this movie, but overall it isn't enough to save the sometimes implausible and predictable story line. But in the end I also have to admit that I've seen thrillers that are a lot worse than this one. That's why I give this movie a 6.5/10. It is far from perfect, but it's watchable.

William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver both have their share of good moments in this otherwise quite run-of-the-mill thriller. It is effectively photographed at times, and it is also helped out by dark, moody lighting choices, however the film lessens in quality as it progresses, with the inclusion of events that lack in credibility, ridiculous action scenes and supporting characters that seem to serve little purpose. There are two basic threads of story, and when they finally intertwine, it seems just utterly contrived. The style here is good, and the leading roles are well cast, but there is little else worthy of note in this film.