A los ojos de un extraño

I watched this film in error. I thought that the film was going to be 'Eyes of a Stranger' but instead it was 'In the Eyes of a Stranger'. The opening is quite action filled cinema. I assumed that this was setting the stage for the whole film. I was very wrong. The main two actors were wooden in their movements but perhaps were hampered by the writing. It quickly became a trite and dull film.

I recognised many of the actors as Canadian but was soon shocked at the sight of striped flags, police cars with PCT painted on the sides and people calling the police lieutenant 'lootenint'. Also, I was quite put off when Gordon Pinsent ended his sentences with 'huh'.

If a young woman was terrorised on a subway train, as the star of this film was, and had somebody shot right in front of her that caused his blood to splatter all over her clothes, I don't think she'd be calm within the hour. Within the first five minutes this fatal flaw was evident. The film did not get any better.

I started thinking in a different way. Perhaps this was a comedy. No that didn't always fit even though some very strange (funny) things happened I think that it was not meant to be a comedy.

There were the normal number of jump cuts but nothing too obvious. I guess the main problem was the two main actors couldn't do it. They couldn't act. The scripting was also bad so what does that leave?

A word of caution if you see something advertised. Be sure that you are setting yourself up for 'Eyes of a Stranger' and not 'In the Eyes of a Stranger'.

IN THE EYES OF A STRANGER starts off with a bang. There's an exhilarating chase through a subway train and a bloody suicide. Then, things sort of bog down. Lynn (Justine Bateman) is suspected of knowing the whereabouts of some stolen money, and is being hunted by a group of criminals.

Enter Jack (Richard Dean Anderson), a cop assigned to protect Lynn. Not-so shockingly, romance blooms between them, causing the drama to fade for the next 40 minutes or so.

Thankfully, things pick up a bit, and a few unexpected turns lead to a smattering of suspense. Then, just as the story gets more interesting... more romance breaks out. At least there's a shootout to keep these two lovebirds busy!

The final twist -almost- makes up for the hit-and-miss quality of the rest of the production. While it's not bad for a made-for-TV movie, it's not altogether memorable either...

Sometimes, a chef puts together a twist on a classic gourmet dish. Then the chef's employer comes in and removes what makes the dish special and adds on a heavy sauce that ruins the fresh, sharp flavor.

That's what happened to "In The Eyes of a Stranger." The screenwriter is a cousin of mine. He began this script as a college project which subsequently won him a hefty academic grant. The script was marketed to several companies and was supposed to go into production with Elizabeth Shue in the lead. Unfortunately, that company tanked before the movie could be made. It was not, at that time, the story you now see. The story was much darker, the heroine much more lethal and the hero a great deal less lucky than in this production. Because it wound up as an ABC production, the writer ultimately had to change the ending to make it happy. He was NOT happy with this turn of events, but when you are supporting a wife and kids, you do what you have to, right???

I didn't sit down to watch this movie two hours ago anticipating Oscar- or Emmy-winning performances. Nor did I expect to see "Mallory Keaton" (Justine Batemen, J.B.) bugging her TV brother "Alex" (Michael J. Fox), or "MacGyuver" (Richard Dean Anderson, R.D.A.) saving the day with yet another explosive made out of a piece of foil from a gum wrapper, a shoestring, and a little mold. The movie was exactly what I thought it would be--something that would appeal to a 30-something-year-old heterosexual woman with a free afternoon who also happens to like the way R.D.A. looks. Okay? It had action, violence, sex, and a few twists and turns. The story was interesting and the cast were believable. Another title would have been better than "In the Eyes of a Stranger." R.D.A.'s lieutenant frequently asking if J.B. was, "...that good?" brought a little bit of sleazy feeling to the film. I kept expecting the lieutenant to ask J.B., "How much for a date?".

On the scale for the greater good of mankind, and all that other stuff...I give it a 2/10. It provided several informative examples of how evil can tempt one's soul. On my personal entertainment scale, I give it a 7/10. I'd rent it for $3.00, but wouldn't pay $8.50 to see it in a theatre. (It loses a point for J.B.'s hair getting in the way of seeing R.D.A.'s face.) But, on the the toe-curling, park your boots under my bed scale, I give it a 10/10. There was some excellent tongue action and groping by R.D.A., and when he told J.B. she was, "a bad girl...," oh mama. The afternoon couldn't have gotten better if I had an open pint of Baskin & Robbin's "Chocolate Peanut Butter Chunk" ice cream in one hand and a spoon in the other! Soooooo--if your expectatiions are similar to what mine were or you're on a date looking for a movie to put you in the mood, you'll enjoy the movie. If not, pass it up.

I was surprised at the strong negative comments toward this film in the "comments" section. It certainly doesn't deserve the skewering. When I first saw this movie, I thought it should have been a feature film. I was interested to read in one of the comments that that's exactly what it was, in a much darker version.

"In the Eyes of a Stranger" has some excellent elements, including the plot. The problem, of course, is just as one of the posters wrote, it was watered down for television and cast as such. The main character should be compelling, complicated and seductive. Justine Bateman has none of these adjectives in her repertoire.

But remembering that despite its potential, it is a TV movie after all, it comes off very well. I don't agree that the Bateman character would have been less calm in the first hour after the subway incident - look at her history, also look at what information she received.

I think one of the problems with the previous posts is that people got this film at their local video store instead of seeing it on Lifetime. As a video rental I don't think I'd have been too thrilled either. But why did you rent a movie starring Justine Bateman?