In the Eyes of a Stranger

not the best rda has done but worth a watch and very enjoyable. lots of good twists and action! i would recommend it to anyone who enjoys action or romance movies! i myself liked it just because it had richard dean anderson in it but nevermind!

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.

I only bought this and watched it because I'm a Richard Dean Anderson fan, so I'm used to seeing him in TV series shows. Hey he's never won an Oscar, but I enjoy watching him because he's nice looking and always seems to be a likable character in any show or movie he's in (the majority of them). He and Justin Bateman don't disappoint in the movie. And it's nice to see Gordon Pinsent in it too. He's always entertaining. It's a very clear movie to follow with unexpected twists and turns to keep one interested. What more could a person get. One of your favorite TV actors in a romance, with a little police action, the question of will he do it or not, and an ending you don't know is coming until you get there. Plus the ending leaves you wondering what will happy to Justin's roommate in the movie. I've watched it several times because it's in my library of dvds, and I enjoy Richard Dean Anderson.

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 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'.