Eyes of Laura Mars (1978)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

One of my all time favorites.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

I think Faye Dunaway is the best part of the movie. This is the second movie I see her in and she does a good job, but most of her character is about being afraid and have "visions".I do like the premise of the plot, it sounds sort of supernatural in an old fashioned way combined with crime thriller. However, the way it works on screen is not too interesting. We have Faye Dunaway being a controversial photographer, taking pictures of models we don't really get to know. The models are the targets for the murderer here, and we don't really care too much about the girls because we don't get to know them before they're disposed of like eggshells.Tommy Lee Jones is good, not great (he's young in this one, and we know he's become better), and he's one of the few people I've seen who looks somewhat good with a unibrow.I have really liked Raul Julia in his later role as Gomez in The Addams Family, but in this one he's stiff as a stick. I don't think he knows how he wants to act in this one, which is unfortunate.Of course this is a very typical crime romance, so we do get a romance plot, which does come out of nowhere, after the two lovers have met maybe four or five times, and nothing builds up to them suddenly being consumed by sudden lust and love. It's getting boring to watch these kind of plots.There is a "twist" here of course, when it comes to guessing who's the murderer. The "twist" is pretty much impossible to guess because the movie doesn't put out clues, it just keeps you guessing wildly until you only have one or two left to think about. And the nature of the "twist" is lazy, it throws in some little understood mental illness in there to make it more nuts but also more compassionate, but it has literally no build-up until you get a symbolic (and vaguely verbal) answer of what's going in inside the killer's head. I'll throw in, though, the shot "explaining" what's going on with the killer and has all along is a really cool one, when it stands alone.It's never explained what really happens to Laura Mars, with her visions and why. I don't think we necessarily need to get an explanation, but it's not really played with enough or talked about, it just happens that she sees from the killer's point of view. She explains it once to Tommy Lee Jones' character, but he doesn't really question it or talk about the subject at all (they just start goofing around with a camera that she used to illustrate her visions). It could at least be a little bit explained or played more with.This movie has many good things, but it doesn't explore enough. It has lots of pretty women that has basically no character and more used for eye-candy, the script itself is nothing really spectacular, some acting is off, some is pretty good, the suspense is there, but never really gets high enough.

Suddenly Laura Mars (Faye Dunaway) can see through the eyes of a serial killer as he commits his crimes. She contacts the police and with the aid of a police detective (Tommy Lee Jones), tries to stop the killer. But first, they have to figure out who it is.When you think about the great John Carpenter films, this one never seems to make the list. And in some ways that is fair, because he apparently had little to do with the final product (his script was rewritten). But it is a Carpenter film just the same, and ought to be recognized as such.Others have noted that this is sort of an American version of the Italian giallo. I can see that, and it is this connection that really makes me wonder what was in Carpenter's script, and what was added or changed by others. Who introduced this element? The other writer was David Zelag Goodman. And Goodman is no slouch, having made "Straw Dogs" and "Logan's Run"... but was he the one influenced by the Italians? Doubtful.

Jon Peters''The eyes of Laura Mars' symbolizes the moods & sty-lings of the 1970-s -- as much as Michelangelo Antonioni's famous 'Blow Up' does for the 1960-s.Consequently Laura Mars' lasting visuals outshine its story by far. Bright and dashing, glittering all around, these visuals strongly remind us of what the 1970-s really were about: sexual freedom unhampered by AIDS (which emerged as late as the 1980-s).However, I spot a significant difference with 'Blow Up'. Antonioni has his 1960-s visuals brilliantly supported by a half hidden and intriguing story. Unfortunately 'The eyes of Laura Mars' lacks such a refined extra value. Although not bad, this film's story reminds us of a mediocre police series on your television. It may even degrade its visual brilliance.Apart from its new & newly tolerated sexual freedom, there is not much left to tell about the 1970-s. So maybe Laura Mars' quality-gap between visuals and story may function to symbolize this remarkable era after all.

The premise presents all sorts of creepy potential—viewing murders through the eyes of the serial killer committing them. In the movie, these visions can strike Laura Mars at the moment they happen regardless of what she happens to be doing. Moreover, the victims are all members of her modeling staff. It's a wonder then that she's not a nervous wreck, an understandable consequence the film too typically ignores.This psychic element makes a heckuva of a movie premise, but its effectiveness also depends on how the story around it is developed. And here I can only say the narrative results are little short of a mess. It's like the five or six screenwriters simply failed to communicate with one another, resulting in a near incoherent narrative— for example, what is the killer's motivation, what is causing Laura's psychic visions, what relevance does Raul Julia's dangling presence have to the plot, etc. None of these are answered, or unless I missed something, even hinted at. Instead the narrative stumbles along in fits and jerks without much relation to what's gone before. Then there's the totally unbelievable ending that by itself is enough to sink the film.No need to go on since other negative aspects are discussed effectively by other reviewers. Instead, let me suggest a direction in which the story could have gone. For example, establish early on some psychic connection between Laura and Neville before they ever meet. Perhaps, she sees his compelling gaze in a photograph and is strangely transfixed by it. Thus a connection is established. This opens also the possibility that the murders are fated to happen, and both characters act not as independent agents, but are in fate's malevolent grip. In such a manner, the psychic world would be expanded and not drowned in a clutter of confusion.Anyway, the premise certainly deserves better treatment than it got from a glut of writers. Too bad.