n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

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

This is a rather unpleasant and needlessly protracted suspenser wherein is to be found emphasis only upon sex instead of suspense. An attempt is made by director William Fruet to give a light tone to the film, but a surfeit of coarsened humour operates against the plot line from its inception. Stockbroker Harry Ross (Kenneth Gilman), following completion of his customary evening jogging session in Toronto, is seized by a voyeuristic urge to peek into an open window of a residence, at which time he observes a type of fetishistic sexual activity that may best be described as drab, but apparently of more than adequate interest for Ross to prod him into additional viewing during the following evening. On display for him during this follow-up observation is a probable murder although such an event is bereft of any details for Ross's excitable narration to his newly-established confidante, an attractive female psychiatrist, Alixe Barnes (Dayle Haddon). Meanwhile, a zealous crew of police detectives is searching after a suspect for the now confirmed killing, and their efforts give Ross no end of displeasure, since he was, after all, involved solely as a peeping tom. As the forces of law and order are floundering, they spend a great deal of time trailing the frightened Ross. Alixe tries to hypnotise Harry to determine the extent of his involvement, since she supports him as an innocent and believes that through hypnosis he can overcome the drawback of not having a credible reason for peering through the concerned window. A poorly constructed script infects a cast led by an ungainly Gilman whose acting range here is not devolved beyond an ever-present deer in headlamps appearance. Director Fruet has done much better work than this piece, in particular as a scenarist, but there is very little imaginative feeling to this film that can be recommended only if one has absolutely nothing else to view. Oddly, the work developed a following that eventually led to a sequel which, in any case, was not able to provide much of a successor plot or a form that could improve upon this silly movie.

This is one of those movies I taped off late-night HBO back in the day. I dunno, it was really adult and sexy when I was in junior high.Let's see, there was a cigarette butt in the shrubbery, fingerprints on a window, right? Set in Ontario it was, with a woman in red taking her panties off in a restaurant so her guy could give her a foot job under the table? And that guy was a jogger who threw out his sneakers after stepping in dog crap? Was that this movie? One of those with the blonde/brunette dichotomy? Would love to see it again sometime.Don't you hate? When people talk in an up inflection? Like they're asking a question? Like this? Don'tcha hate that?Anyway, this one lingers in my memory for some reason. It wasn't direct to video, since I definitely remember playing a nearby theater in '86, '87...or '88? This one theater (Budco/AMC Millside 3/4 in Delran, NJ) would often play random movie no other place would (THE DRIFTER, DOLLS and DEMONS cameoed there too, but not ANGUISH or BARFLY - they went to the AMC Marlton). No point, just filling up the 10-line minimum...

This film appears to be an after dark type of cable movie but has more to offer. It's a good rental if you want to escape to a world that exist in your town maybe even in your neighborhood that you would never be a part of. Unless you are up all night looking out the window at your neighbors.

Don't be fooled by the title, for this isn't another piece of direct-to-video sleaze. What you will find instead is a fun, fast-moving film that is admittedly silly, but so what? It's no classic to be sure, and certainly there are few (if any) surprises, but it's a fun movie that tries for laughs instead of thrills, and works as a result. Open your mind, and give "Bedroom Eyes" a look.