Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

The greatest movie ever!

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

If you have ever had a big, painful wound covered by a big, sticky bandaid and had to pull it off really slowly because if you pulled it fast you may re-open the wound, which makes you suffer excruciatingly through every millimeter of skin and hair, then stretch that sensation out for approximately 4 hours, you have ALMOST come to know the pain of "Eye of the Beholder". (You would know it exactly if someone promised you that everything you were going through would be awesome, and that there would be a great big prize at the end, only it ISN'T awesome, and there IS no prize!!! (Except maybe getting to leave the theater.))Worse than Manos: The Hand of Fate.Worse than Santa Claus Conquers the Men from Mars.Worse than Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.I understood this movie perfectly well, and I want my hours back. I want the cells of my brain containing and surrounding the memory of the time I spent watching this giant snooze-fest to be bleached into oblivion. The ONLY film that can make a scantily clad Ashley Judd seem like a hellish nightmare of tedium to "behold".If you can imagine a movie based upon a single-cell organism as watched through the lens of a microscope, blundering around aimlessly eating other single-celled organisms for no apparent reason, and the person looking through the scope having pointless personal problems grafted ham-handedly on top of it, then go into space, find the nearest black hole, and just watch it as time expands and stretches your suffering into the infinite... THAT would be better than "Eye of the Beholder".My wife and I were two of the FIVE people who entered the theater to watch this film, and we were the only ONES there when it was finally, FINALLY over. The theater attendant greeted us as we left with an apology and complimentary tickets for a different film.What they SHOULD have done was ignored dreaded causality loops and given us a time machine so we could warn our past selves not to see this film at ALL COSTS!If you hate yourself, you'll love to torture yourself with this film. Enjoy.Even now, years later, having suffered through Star Wars: The Force Awakens, I stand by this review.

I just caught the last half hour or so of this film so these impressions aren't worth much, particularly with regard to the story. I gather from other comments that it's kind of confusing. And English (or, rather, Scottish) investigator begins to follow around a serial killer, Ashley Judd, and gradually becomes her protector. Is that about it? The few minutes I saw were, I thought, pretty well done. The director, Stephan Elliott, wrote the screenplay too and it seems he blended mystery, suspense, and action skillfully. I'd also guess it was a personal effort for him, certainly not a strictly commercial product. I saw violence, but not pornographic violence in which people have their heads wrenched off while the grinning killer makes wisecracks.Ewan MacGregor is an admirable actor. He's professional, and he's not spectacularly handsome except in a boyish and candid way. You wouldn't notice him on the subway. He's given the line that, I guess, explains his strange attraction to her: "So you're a girl who lost her Daddy, and I'm a Daddy who lost his little girl." Ashley Judd has a strange kind of beauty that, in this movie, is rendered kind of plainly. She's not gussied up. She looks like the waitress she is, although I believe I might notice her on the subway. And she has no interest whatever in MacGregor except to the extent that she doesn't shoot and kill him, although the editing is confusing enough to convince us that she has. I didn't get that confrontation at all. The last scene is convincing enough though.I heard two songs, nearly complete. One did nothing for the movie, a plaintive folksy tune with lyrics by Leonard Cohen's cousin or something. It reminded me of Reba MacIntyre singing about lost dogs. The second, under the end credits, was a pretty and nicely executed popular standard. The overscore is apt and effective.It's not a cheap film. The production values are good, and the locations range from Death Valley to Quebec, and they're perfectly chosen too. Those isolated desert gas stations with a few shabby rooms in the back yard motel are rapidly being swallowed up by urban sprawl.This serial killer business is threadbare by now but I suppose every tale needs some sort of structural armature. I mean, it has to be about SOMETHING. In any case, this production looked good enough that I'd enjoy taking a crack at seeing the whole thing.

what a different premise for a movie,, a tortured young woman going around the world killing random men for no particular reason. Fine acting performances turned in by Ashley Judd, Ewan Mcgregor, and Genieve Bujold. our main character the "eye" has to follow our assassin all the way around the world as she knocks off men one by one. the story goes much deeper, something happened to her when she was very little and now has scarred her for the rest of her life. our "hero" character eye seems to be transfixed with her and seems to me that he starts to empathize with her,, because of his own daughter. but maybe that's just me,, overall I thought that this was a thought provoking thriller, and it's always a treat to watch Ashley Judd.

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!!!