Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

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

GUENOT PHILIPPE As you already know, that's the second adaptation from the Marc Behm's novel. The first one was the Claude Miller's feature, starring Michel Serrault and Isabelle Adjani. I have not watched the French movie since a while now, but this one is very close to the novel, although, not as close as it should have been. I mean, many scenes from the book are unfortunately not shown here. Very important sequences. But I admit that this book's atmosphere was rather complex to film, and the director did a fine job in that field, better than the Miller's movie, as far as I remember. And many details provided by the novel were not put here, I understand why actually. But take for instance the short scenes in the book, when the lead female assassin meet two guys who throw her off. One talks to her about his dead child, and she decides to spare him, not to kill him as she did with the others. Very important moment, for me, at least. And the other sequence, where she is attracted by a dude in a bar and the guy suddenly stands up and tells her he will be back in a few seconds, because he walks away to talk to another woman. And the guy in question never came back to our lead. The author Marc Bahm, said that "SHE" realized that a page of her life was over. Very important link that that the film, at least this one - the French movie, I don't remember - did not show. So, I think that this outstanding story should have been supported by a three hours movie, or a mini series. Just to be faithful to the story.

PeachHamBeach CAUTION: POSSIBLE SPOILERSLongtime Ewan fan here, and this is one of the few movies of his that I actually did not like when I first saw it. It is EXTREMELY fast paced, and sometimes a bit far-fetched. How does the Eye remove his surveillance equipment so quickly once his subject is suddenly moving on to another life, another name, another identity???!!!In spite of what seem to be flaws, EYE OF THE BEHOLDER is an entrancing, haunting film about two people who don't know each other, but who are connected in ways that can't be imagined or understood until at least halfway thru the film.The Eye, a British surveillance specialist is sent by his boss to investigate the boss's son, who has been withdrawing a lot of cash from the bank. Boss wants to know what sonny is up to. The Eye is a professional, excellent with equipment, superb at watching without being noticed. It's clear he's been a spy for a very long time. That's why the former "farfetched" idea of him being able to pull microphones, knock down cameras, and slither from site to site without being found out turns out to be acceptable. His real name is Stephen Wilson, and his wife and daughter are gone, apparently because his work was more important to him than his family. After they left, The Eye realized what he lost, and when we meet him, he's been a lonely, isolated, damaged man for quite a while.The Eye locks on to the boss's son and discovers that the Embassy Brat has been giving money to a beautiful young woman. She meets the son of the boss at a museum in Washington D.C. and as she is captured by the Eye's camera, The Eye feels like he's seen a ghost. The story, and the obsession begin here. The Eye begins abandoning duty in favor of a sense of loyalty. Indeed it seems definite that The Eye has lost his sense of reason. His obsession with the murderous yet lovely woman grows as he follows her all around the country. Ashley Judd's many wigs and personalities are beautiful as they are astonishing. Do give this clever, suspenseful thriller a try. I think if you focus and follow the film, you will get it. It's a story of complete obsession and how obsession can really drive a person to do things they normally would not do, and how it can change them forever, for good or for bad.

G. This doesn't even deserve a star. Or even a zero. Or negative infinity. This is by far the worst film I have ever laid eyes on, and Ewan McGregor is one of my favourite actors. This was pedantic, pretentious, pontificating garbage void of a point. The direction is totally absent, the actors flail about on screen without purpose, and what the **** is k.d. lang doing in this???? What a stain on an otherwise brilliant career. If I were involved in the making of this film, I would be ashamed of myself. The only grace in knowing this exists is that one day the world will end and this film will be wiped from existence in the universe. It's THAT bad.

pistolaro_amigo I hate whenever people say the book is better than the movie, but how can you argue that when one of the screenwriter's is the author? And the other is a director of an Oscar-nominated film Priscilla: Queen of the Desert? For a better answer to that watch the documentary about this film called Killing Priscilla for a better understanding and see how the film slowly slipped through Elliot's grasp. But that is for another criticism and this is for this film... The problem is not entirely Ashley Judd's fault. Nor is it Ewan McGregor's. But more exactly it is the fault of having both of them in the same film and portraying a father and daughter. If one is to take the pro-Judd choice in this film, then she does a exceptional portrayal of a lecherous woman that is conflicted with what she wants, and what she is trying to recapture due to the absence of her father in her past. Plus she gets naked too!!! Instantaneous high-fiving. Con-Judd though is that her character is too underdeveloped as far as her father abandonment issues and how her manipulation as a youth has transformed her into a woman that knows no love, only materialism. But she still is naked in the film and that is solidified! Now onto McGregor... pro-McGregor is this guy can channel isolation into depression and obsession just by raising his brow. He does it so void of any human emotion that he is a shell and his search of this woman, that may-or-may not be his daughter, seems to give him his sole soul that he has lacked for some time. Con-McGregor is the age of his character. If he is chasing a version of what would be his adult daughter then he has not aged a day since he quit the junk in Trainspotting. And that makes it the polarizing effect on this film... this film should've been separated into a 2 hour film where 1 hour was dedicated to the Ashley Judd character's point-of-view, and the other hour should've been dedicated to McGregor's version. Having both of them together interacting is breaking a cardinal rule of time travel which is DO NOT INTERACT with the past for it might throw off the universal balance, and that is exactly what has happened with the casting decision in this film. And one final time... Ashley Judd gets naked!!!