L'oeil du témoin

Slightly offbeat murder yarn dealing with a pair of misfits who become involved in a murder which had nothing to do with either of them. This causes one of them to be targeted by an assassin who is involved in a love triangle between a woman and his intended victim. Strange film with a taut ending.

A movie like "Eyewitness" would probably not get made today, at least by a major Hollywood studio. It's more of a character study than a straight thriller, and its pacing is decidedly leisurely. Actually, at first I thought that the slow pacing was a refreshing change from what is often the norm today in Hollywood thrillers. And it was interesting to see these particular characters with various motivations. However, eventually I admit I started to get a little impatient with the movie. It is simply too drawn out, and with some characters that have little to no impact to the main narrative. Also, there are some glaring unanswered questions, like why the Sigourney Weaver character does not contact the police when there is an attempted kidnapping of her. And who the killer turns out to be is a big coincidence in several regards.

The movie does have some pleasures here and there. It's fun to see a pre-fame Morgan Freeman, and there are some nice scenes here and there, my favorite being when the William Hurt character talks to his girlfriend at the sweatshop. But in the end, the movie doesn't quite make it. It isn't a terrible movie, but more likely than not you'll feel some significant dissatisfaction when the end credits start rolling.

There is a murder without an apparent motive, so the viewer is in the dark for over half the film. When someone is killed without the audience being involved with the "why", interest quickly wains. Such is the case with "Eyewitness". Despite totally acceptable acting from a terrific cast, the film seems slow and constantly bogging down in blind alley subplots. When the motive for the murder is finally revealed, it almost seems like it comes out of a different movie, having little to do with what precedes it. William Hurt is very good as the mild mannered janitor with a crush on television news reporter Sigourney Weaver. Christopher Plummer is very effective in bad guy roles such as here, or in films like "The Silent Partner". James Woods plays James Woods, which is always interesting. Overall though, things never come together, due mainly to the muddled script. - MERK

William Hurt plays a Manhattan Janitor named Daryl Deaver, who is obsessed with a local newswoman named Tony Sokolow(played by Sigourney Weaver). When a Vietnamese man with a shady past is murdered in Daryl's building, he takes full advantage of meeting his crush by insinuating that he knows more about the murder than he does. Tony goes along with him, flattered but unsure. When the true killers get wind of Daryl's story, they plan on eliminating him, and before they know it, their really is a conspiracy to report...

Good acting by its fine cast(which includes James Woods, Morgan Freeman, and Christopher Plummer) cannot save this contrived and unconvincing mystery, which just doesn't amount to much.

There are few films which boast such a first-rate cast:Christopher Plummer,Morgan Freeman ,Sigourney Weaver,James Woods ..And like in Hitchcock's "family plot" (1975),there are two apparently independent plots:on one hand,a shady business man's murder and a Vietnam veteran who becomes a janitor in the same building;on the other hand, a network which helps the Jews immigrate into the US.A fine thread connects the two stories:Weaver is the daughter of Jews who belong to this network and the fiancée (?) of one of them;and she's also a TV reporter who covers the affair I mention above;and she is also the janitor's idol.and...

When,after after almost one hour,the two plots become one,they do not hang well together(in Hitchcock's "family plot" ,the connection was very smart:a simple movement of the camera followed Karen Black ).And in spite of two spectacular scenes ,the rabid dog,and the horses which give the movie a fantastic touch,the story is at once implausible and predictable .Also handicapped by pointless minor characters such as Woods' sister and Hurt's father.This film does not rank among Peter Yates 'best.