Eye for an Eye (1996)

Good movie but grossly overrated

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

The premise of the film - a victim's family-member takes revenge - has been done and done better: think Charles Bronson. What makes this film different is that we have a woman in the Bronson role. Not merely a woman but the pixie-like Sally Field. She goers from pixie to prize-fighter in no time, from never having held a gun to scoring high in her test-shoot in no time as well. Ed Harris truly did phone in his role as her husband. Keifer Sutherland, however, is quite good as the perpetrator / rapist / killer; there is something all too real in the way his lip curls into a snarl. The last 15 minutes of the film are positively awful; as though its intent was to fool the viewer. A waste.

If acting is all about convincing us to believe the characters being portrayed, then this film is a great example. This film is not for the queasy. The rape scenes are harsh and brutal and, sometimes, you have to wonder why Sutherland would take such an awful role. However, as an audience member watching the film, I could not pick out a better actor I would rather hate than Keifer Sutherland. And the hatred is strong for him in this film. Although "Eye For An Eye" is not mysterious in any way and has hardly any made-you-jump thrills, it's a thriller just the same. Most of this is brought about masterfully by the remarkable acting, especially that of Field and Sutherland.The casting in this film in spectacular. The pacing is excellent. The direction is masterful. What more could you ask for in a dramatic thriller? Everyone in this movie is excellent, even Beverly D'Angelo who plays Dolly Green, Karen's friend at her job, is great. The emotional tension brought to the screen kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time through. Another special trait about 'Eye For An Eye' is that it never gets old. The tension is always there. No matter how many times you've watched it. Overall, this thriller is the very definition of what a top-notch thriller is about. The acting really brought it to life, and that's what's so enjoyable! Overall rating: 8 out of 10.

Eye for an Eye (1996): Dir: John Schlesinger / Cast: Sally Field, Kiefer Sutherland, Ed Harris, Joe Mantegna, Beverly D'Angelo: An ugly portrayal of retaliation that manipulates viewers with its justifications. Sally Field overhears the murder of her daughter via cell phone. Kiefer Sutherland is arrested but found innocent due to malpractice with evidence. Angered, Field purchases a gun and spies on him. Predictable and pathetic justified revenge cover up. A laughable excess in hate by director John Schlesinger. What a sad decline for a director who once made interesting films such as Marathon Man and Midnight Cowboy. Field is a good actress in laughable material that her playing a death wish mother. Sutherland's blandness make him a prop for viewers to blame. The character is certainly bad but created more or less as a target for revenge as oppose to a compelling derange personality type. Ed Harris plays Field's husband who cannot reason with her. He will predictably lose hope and suspect her of things that she will not admit to. Joe Mantegna plays her lawyer who stands by her to the very end even when given a pitiful comment from her. Beverly D'Angelo also appears but just like the rest of this talented cast she can do nothing to prevent it from becoming pathetic. In films like Death Wish and Ms. 45 revenge was the subject and not the product. This stupid revenge flick is worthy of target practice. Score: 0 / 10

This movie had quite a big premise: a brutally raped and murdered daughter, a despicable criminal, a fallible justice system and a mother who decides to take matters into her own hands. It should not come as a big surprise that after reading its brief description, I was expecting a very emotionally-charged movie dealing with a particularly difficult subject.Now, I understand that the creators of the movie wanted to ensure that transformation of Karen McCann (Sally Field) from grief-stricken mother who relies on the justice system to well, exert justice (ergo keep evildoers behind bars), to a strong female lead who decides to protect others and her daughter's memory by making sure that said evildoer (Kiefer Sutherland) will never harm anyone else. This transformation is the main storyline, and a rather compelling one at that.I was still missing something very important within that dramatic transformation. I wish the script would have allowed the viewers to see behind the McCann family's dynamics after this horrible crime was committed. I wanted to see how the McCanns go through all stages of grief individually and as a family. The cut from Karen being an "ear witness" via the phone to her daughters rape and murder and then sitting at the police station and sobbing was a tad too quick. Next thing I knew, the funeral was over. As a viewer, I would have wanted to feel for Karen, see her go from shell shocked to the 5 stages of grief (Kübler-Ross). I wanted to see her husband, Mack (Ed Harris), play a more crucial role in the entire storyline. His character seemed only to serve the stereotypical male role of "just keep on keepin' on" and "trying to keep the family together". Why couldn't we see Mack McCann's grieving process? That being said, it is true that there is no set way to grieve and everyone deals with loss in their own way. However, what happened to Julie (Olivia Burnette) was so horrid that I was expecting to get a glimpse into a genuine family tragedy and see how such an atrocious act can upset the family dynamics. Another thing that made it difficult to fully indulge in the movie's premise was the character of Robert Doob (Kiefer Sutherland). He was portrayed as the absolute villain: despicable, arrogant, cruel to humans and animals alike, filled with rage and just waiting for the next opportunity to rape and kill another unsuspecting victim. Again, I understand why he was portrayed in such a manner: The movie makers wanted the audience to dislike him from the get-go, feeling the outrage and anger that Karen felt when this predator was set free with not so much as a slap on the wrist. Given the nature of his crimes, it really wouldn't have taken much vilifying to dislike such a character. I personally get more affected by exposed criminals when it comes to light that he was just the "guy next door" or had some element that allowed him to seemingly blend in with society. Well, our evildoer is bad to the bone and the movie does nothing to show him other than The Bad Guy. We do not get a glimpse into his psyche, his background, his real motives, or the full extent of his character.The movie does deliver some fine acting from Sally Field and Kiefer Sutherland, both of whom are unfortunately restricted by the script to portraying somewhat flat characters. It does make a good 100 minutes of entertainment and the movie does a great job at holding the audience's attention. Verdict: 6/10. Exciting premise, great actors, but with a script that chose to follow generic Hollywood formulas instead of showing the audience the real abyss of grief.