In the Eyes of a Stranger

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 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 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?

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.

IN THE EYES OF A STRANGER starts off with a bang. There's an exhilarating chase through a subway train and a bloody suicide. Then, things sort of bog down. Lynn (Justine Bateman) is suspected of knowing the whereabouts of some stolen money, and is being hunted by a group of criminals.

Enter Jack (Richard Dean Anderson), a cop assigned to protect Lynn. Not-so shockingly, romance blooms between them, causing the drama to fade for the next 40 minutes or so.

Thankfully, things pick up a bit, and a few unexpected turns lead to a smattering of suspense. Then, just as the story gets more interesting... more romance breaks out. At least there's a shootout to keep these two lovebirds busy!

The final twist -almost- makes up for the hit-and-miss quality of the rest of the production. While it's not bad for a made-for-TV movie, it's not altogether memorable either...