Eyes of War

This movie is basically about how even a photojournalist(Colin Farrell) who is a vet at taking pictures of war and death can be traumatized. The story starts off with a very ambitious journalist and photographer that sees the horrors of war with his partner and best friend. The thing is at first I just didn't think the stuff he went through in the beginning section of the movie would be enough to traumatize a person like the photojournalist in the movie. But there is enough flashbacks later on to show the reason why. I personally thought it should have put more emphasis on the horrors of war and the part about the photojournalist's wife figuring out the change in her husband seemed to drag. Also some of the situation just isn't all that believable, and believability is a key factor for a movie like this. And most of the story revolve around digging into the photojournalist's mind because of his change in character and the change in his character isn't anything all that terrible. It starts to pick up and get a bit interesting when Christopher Lee who is basically a psychologist in this is put into the equation. And the digging of the mind got interesting and this movie has some good parts. But the direction and everything else isn't all that well made in a professional manner and just seemed like a work done by a novice. Now not all movies should look professional in order for it to be better, but this is the type of film that would have been better if it went that direction.

5.5/10

If you like this movie, you should go out and buy/rent "No man's land" from the same director. I haven't seen "L'Enfer" yet, but I'm sure that one is good too. At first I was amazed by the actors at hand here, but the script proves to have been a big part in their involvement. The dialogue and the delivery is just spot on.

And when you watch Christopher Lee going one-on-one with Colin Farrell, you just wish there could have been more scenes, with those two together. There is a great chemistry surrounding them and when they grace the screen together it's almost like magic. There is this constant pushing and delivering, that makes those scenes special.

But of course, the rest of the movie is not lacking in tension and/or good performances. Quite the contrary. Especially the doctor and the others involved all have there scenes. The editing does the rest and makes this more than above average.

Firstly, let me just say that the TIFF audience did seem to like it and they responded well to it. There were quite a few moments of light humour that were enjoyed and the Q&A session revealed that a lot of people truly were touched by the movie.

Next, let me say that the story was quite powerful. The character played by Farrel was developed and real. It would be hard not to be emotionally effected by this film, and it would be hard not to leave with something to think about.

Unfortunately, a great story and a great character don't make for a great movie. While many of the scenes were spectacular and a lot of the dialogue worked quite well, on a whole the film didn't do its story justice. It actually felt, much of the time, as if I were watching the subplot of another film. In fact, if you've watched enough war films you'll probably find that this movie WAS the subplot to many of those films. That alone doesn't equal a bad film, but it does make it more challenging for the film to hold its own. That didn't happen. Farrel's character--due to his acting as well as the writer/director's desire to explore that type of character--was fine through and through, but the characters around him all tended to speak their lines solely for the purposes of advancing Farrel's character, or to push out a philosophy of war. To illustrate this, just pay attention to the scene in which we're introduced to the grandfather, Christopher Lee's character. That scene introduces a whole back story and turbulent relationship that has nothing to do with anything... it was just pinned on the story awkwardly so as to justify a powerful speech in which he defended his questionable actions in a long-ago war. Well, that's pretty much what the rest of the story felt like. And the payoff wasn't great. It ended mostly how you expect it will end, and gives a message we've heard from a thousand other films.

So, again, if I had the option, I'd give this story a 9/10. The execution of the story remains a 6.

Definitely a worth wile movie to watch, regardless of its overthrowing qualities and contrived passions. A traumatized war photo-journalist, returns home from kurdistan, taking the pictures more that he can hoard. But not just the pictures, he is consulted by the psychiatrist and the movie unfolds. The movie hits rock bottom when his psychiatrist tells him "We can't take the pain away, we have to live with it forever...this is called life" when the protagonist is lying on his bed. Collin Ferrell acting is great like always (Cassandra's dream, In bruges). Overall he does justice to the movie. To be honest this movie seems as it is well behind its time, in moments i felt like it was 80's film. What i actually mean is the movie would have nominated for awards if it was 80's, 2010 was a wrong time. The overall acting is good,I like the score too, the worst part is the movie itself. The movie doesn't lead us anywhere, nonetheless this movie is different than other in the respect that, it doesn't attenuates like other movie. It only gets denser after every minute of it. Last but no the least great story this movie had potential and i myself was expecting much from it but overall the movie is mediocre. 6/10

This film deserved better than a straight-to-DVD release.

The story begins in Iraqi Kurdistan, shortly before Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds to quell a rebellion. Colin Farrell and Jamie Sives portray two photojournalists who ride along with the rebels. Because the Kurds have no real army or government, medical care given to the wounded is...frugal. Farrell's character, Mark, converses with a doctor who believes in relieving people's suffering. Mark initially finds it hard to understand the doctor's point of view. Sives' character, David, decides to quit rather than take one more chance and starts a long walk back from the front lines. The next thing we see is a wounded Mark (Colin Farrell) and we don't know what happened to David.

The rest of the film takes place in Ireland, sort of. It moves back and forth from scenes of Mark's life as the traumatized husband of a beautiful woman who feels locked out by his shell-shocked remoteness, and Mark's various wartime memories, as he describes them to his wife's grandfather, a therapist who once treated war criminals. The therapist starts to figure out from the threads of Mark's different stories what might have happened to David. What is fascinating is Mark's unconscious selection of images from his mind that inadvertently reveal the truth to the therapist. As a therapist myself, this was the most interesting part of the movie for me.

Farrell convincingly portrays a man wracked by grief and guilt. Christopher Lee is excellent as a somewhat egomaniacal healer whose political views differ from those of his daughter. The rest of the cast is also good and Paz and Farrell seem to have sexual chemistry.