Eye of God

I love independent cinema, and Eye of God is a great example of what a good independent movie should be. The real-life situations depicted are as twisted as real life is, and the acting is at points absolutely adorable (Plimpton) and absolutely chilling (Stahl). I thought that the cinematography was profound, and that the way the way the plot weaved the story through was brilliant. Maybe it's because I'm easily impressed (by Martha Plimpton; by stories of Twin Peaks-like small-town dramatic horror; by the lengths some writers, directors, and producers go to to create meaningful cinema; or all three, and then some more), but this movie left me feeling like something had happened To Me, and I was shattered and felt uneasy for a good two hours afterward, which I think really is the sign of a good film. Also, as an addendum, whereas some independent cinema seems contrived and at the same time pretentious, this movie was neither. And by the way, I loved it, and you might, too!

I watched this film late last night with the intention of just seeing the first half then and saving the rest for later. It didn't work out this way due to the fact that "Eye of God" is so utterly fascinating and potent a movie; you just can't take your eyes off the screen!

Martha Plimpton is truly unforgettable as Ainslee. She explores the nuances of her interesting character realistically and intelligently, adding her own unique charm and talents to the role with spellbinding effects. She really deserved a lot of praise and awards for this part!

Actually, all of the performances in this film are excellent, from Hal Holbrook's brilliantly understated sheriff to Kevin Anderson's chilling, masterful performance.

The plot couldn't be better constructed or in a more original way. The technique may be off-putting to some, which made me love this film even more; it will probably always be a film that is revered by a small few because it never takes a Hollywood approach to the material, nothing about this film is derivative of something else, so it will seem unfamiliar, alienating, and disconcerting to many.

It's a film with many moments that are nothing short of gems, a film that stays with you and feeds your mind.

If you haven't seen it and have even a passing interest in cinema, it's imperative that you track this film down on VHS or DVD; true masterpieces like this should be better known and sought for.

My rating: 10/10

This is one of very few movies that I can actually say changed my life. There has never been any other film or work of art that has had such an emotional effect on me. Martha Plimpton and Nick Stahl are extraordinary; never have I cared so much for two fictional characters. And writer/director Tim Blake Nelson could not have possibly done better for his film debut. This is a movie you will never forget.

I thought it was quite good. It gave me a feeling I haven't felt since I saw Sleepers. I loved the way the director overlapped scenes, and used flashbacks to tell the story. This is success where Pulp Fiction failed. All the characters were believable, and all the performances were good. In particular, I was impressed with the depth of emotion Nick Stahl portrayed without saying a word for the whole first half of the movie. Sometimes the ending you don't want makes the movie that much better.

I rented this one just as a Nick Stahl fan but was really amazed by how good it was. The disturbing tone and plot line stuck with me for days after viewing it. Stahl was wonderful as a traumatized boy who is just barely surviving his pain. Stahl's work in this film just hints at the depths of talent we may yet see from him. I don't think that Martha Plimpton has EVER been better in her role as a young woman searching for love and redemption. Hal Holbrook, his face a mixture of world-weariness, sadness and kindness, is the real center of the film and he does an amazing job.

One of the most moving things about this film was the idea that deep tragedy can strike at the most seemingly mundane of moments. Coupled with this is the concept that one can never really know what is in another's heart or mind. Because of the narrative form, one knows tragedy will strike, but the director purposefully seems to suggest that tragedy could enter into any setting, at any moment, with no warning. The bookend examination of the story of Abraham and Isaac is ultimately successful because Isaac (like the characters and viewer) was asked to have faith without any proof that seemingly negative events may have a positive reason. The director doesn't offer any pat answers to this dilemma, but he does show that tragedy can overwhelm a person.