In the Eyes of a Stranger

I THINK this is the movie I recall seeing, but cannot be sure, since there is no summary to confirm it. However, since no other Title listed appears reasonably close to the subject, I will assume this is the film in which Justine Bateman earned my respect as a serious actress. I have watched this actress in various movies and TV shows since her days on Family Ties. As Columbus residents, we watched that series regularly. We enjoyed Justine's character, but I did not appreciate how much she had matured as a performer until seeing this film about a wife whose amnesia blocks her memory of a prior act of violence.I truly did not know she was capable of such a strong performance. It was a compelling story that maintained suspense to the end. I have no idea why it only won 4.5 stars, as it is far better than most TV movie fare.

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'.

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?

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???

We watched this movie on a borrowed videotape because we like Justine Bateman and remember her from TV. The box did not say "made for TV", but it sure played like one. The sound was certainly second-rate, the budget must have been low, the acting was just OK most of the time, and sometimes not that good. Character development was not always consistent.

The film starts with Bateman's character getting off work, and encountering a crazed man in the train. He frantically says something to her right before he is shot and killed, but with her Walkman playing loud through her headphones, she can't hear him. Or so she tells the cops. Turns out she can read lips, and she and new lover, disgruntled cop, search for the money.

There are some twists, some turns, some betrayals, but overall none of the characters manage to gain any sympathetic interest. This is just a sub-par film that you wonder why they made. I rate it a solid "3" of 10, and worth seeing only if you are a fan of Justine Bateman.