Voyeur

I know people have already explained things from every viewpoint, but I still want to give my own opinion (fancy that).

I loved this film.

Granted, I wouldn't want to watch it endlessly for weeks on end, but I thought it to be a very original work of entertainment (yes, I meant entertainment). I'm so damn bored of all these pointless, predictable movies that seem to be overflowing the film industry. There's no real...art to them. Eye of the Beholder, while tedious and slow-paced in parts, was not like that. Some of that was due to the acting.

I've been a fan of Ewan McGregor for awhile now. I'll admit he was the reason I rented this movie in the first place. But after I saw it, I appreciated the whole aspect of it- not just him. Hell, I even went and got a copy of the bloody book.

I'm not saying you must, should or will even enjoy the movie. (Though, looking at the majority of the lot, most didn't). What I AM saying is that you should at least watch the movie and decide for yourself.



BloodyHell

(By the by- does anybody happen to know what sort of camera (model) the 'Eye' used? (The long silver one) I've been looking for one just like it...)

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!

Looking at the plot summary and the advertising for this movie, I was led to believe that this movie would be some kind of action packed serial killer movie. What I got was something completely different.

McGregor plays The Eye, some kind of surveillance agent, whose wife has left him and taken his baby daughter with her. That doesn't stop him from seeing his daughter in hallucination form. During a routine surveillance assignment, The Eye watches Judd kill his target, and he instantly falls in love (or something like love). He becomes so obsessed with Judd that he quits his job, and begins stalking her, and comes to find out that she's a virtual chameleon, changing identities on a whim.

What I thought would be an action movie turned out to be a very existential art film. It very much had the feel of a foreign film. The direction is very good; there are some things in this movie that I've never seen before (the bathroom scene is a good example). Both leads are good (although McGregor's part needed to be played by someone much older, not younger, that Judd). The daughter hallucination is annoying at times, but it's an effective plot device. The movie does just kind of go freeform after the first half hour, and logic goes out the window at times, but those are hallmarks of foreign films, which this feels very much like. A lot of people are going to see this movie and hate it (much the way that people who were expecting to see an I Know What You Did...-type movie hated Blair Witch Project). Not what I expected, but I was still satisfied.

It seems that there are a lot of people slagging this film off. I can see why they are, but I disagree.

If you are looking for a big money, same as all the rest thriller then ignore this film.

If you want something a little different and interesting, give it a try. Good performances and an strangley intriguing plot keeps you watching.

Give it a try, at least it's not Titanic.

Despite over 300 comments, some people are still posting saying that it was beyond them and what do the rest of us see in it. Those naysayers should actually read the posted comments.

I watched the film twice, read Marc Behm's book and then watched it again. I would like to see the original film version, 'Mortelle randonnée'(1983) (it has a really good soundtrack album by Carla Bley), but so far have not found a video-rental shop that has a copy. Like the director, Stephan Elliott's major film, 'Priscilla, Queen of the Desert', 'Eye of the Beholder' is a road movie about eccentrics, one of whom is into wigs and changing her appearance. Like Marc Behm's script for 'Charade'(1963) it is about a spook who is looking after a young woman who doesn't really know what is going on. I can't think of any parallels with Marc Behm's Beatles film 'Help!'(1965). Actually Behm has 13 IMDB credits, and most of them are difficult to find. As are his other novels.

The major improvement over the book is the addition of the hi-tech snooping equipment. The book's Eye is an old-fashioned gumshoe who simply looks though bedroom windows and the like. Also the making the lost daughter's ghost more solid is an interesting effect. We don't have to know that the girl is dead to think of the image of her as a ghost. I didn't notice that she is played by two actors. The problem is that Ewan McGregor is too young for the role. At the end of the book he dies of old age. I think that the book captures his slipping into obsession better, and part of the picture is that Joanna Eris is about the age that his daughter would have been. A side-effect of his computer tools etc, is that it becomes more unlikely that he would not be able to find his ex-wife and daughter. But as the film makes him a Brit in the States, they would be back in Britain.

Obviously the script had to drop a lot of the incidents in the book. In the film it is extremely implausible that he is able to get a room next to Joanna in the New York hotel. In the book he tails her for several months through a few murders, which would give him a chance to take a sublet in the building.

The rich blind man is called 'Forbes' in the book. Given the real-life family of that name, it was probably best to change it.

In the book the scene where Joanne is identified in the restaurant where she is working, takes place in New Jersey. In the film it is said to be Alaska, although we know that it is somewhere in Quebec. Why didn't the film say that it was Quebec. Then the crew would not have to work so hard hiding all the French signs. I presume that in 'Mortelle randonnée' all the places were changed to places in France (where apparently Marc Behm lives).

An ironic detail. The book has several cross-dressing incidents: the Eye does nanny-drag to continue his surveillance; Joanna and a woman friend not in the book do male drag to rob banks and filling-stations, and the Jason Priestley character, Gary, is a cross-dressing fetishist. I suppose that the director of Priscilla feels that he has done the topic.

I would have liked the film to have kept the incidents where Joanna almost recognizes the Eye, including the time when she hires a detective to capture him.

The film has a lot more in it than most thrillers. It avoids the cliches, challenges the viewer, but doesn't really gel. There are too many nagging questions afterwards.