Yeah. This was actually a very effective movie. The killer's ordinariness ups the credibility. The use of color and lighting in it is actually very artful and well thought-out. Tension is very high and there are some good nods to Hitchcock. I like it.
There are a few obvious nods to "Rear Window", such as when Lauren Tewes breaks into the killer's apartment looking for clues just like Grace Kelly. The actor who played the killer -- with his tall heavyset frame, dark glasses and ominous glare -- even looked a bit like Raymond Burr.
@Bad Lieutenant "King Frat" was a shameless "Animal House" exploitation rip-off that must surely be one of the worst movies ever made. Three of the same actors from "Eyes of a Stranger" were in "King Frat", including Di Santi, who was the Belushi stand-in. Bob Small, the crazy weatherman in "Eyes", played one of the fraternity bros in "Frat"; and the actor who played the bartender at the beginning of "Eyes" was also the dean of the college in "King Frat".
Both of these fruits were lame academic types that had refined tastes for movies. This means they were just snobby old ladies and their sweet sensibilities were very easily offended. I always hated these two.
She might've gotten sick of always playing bubbly, saccharine characters like the one she played in "Loveboat" and wanted a change. The contrast in characters made this one all the more effective.
@@Maniac1607 That basically reminds me of how Jamie Lee Curtis wanted to go a different direction, on how in the first few years of her career, she has been in a few classic horror films, and Trading Spaces, was her first film in which she didn't have to play a "Scream Queen" role. There were times afterwards, in which she still had her "Laurie Strode" days, but she still maintained a positive mindset to stay within her characters for the sake of her films.
Many early test screenings for movies for both audiences and critics to see always had extra and longer scenes and had uncut deaths. It’s possible they say the uncut version on a early test screening
LOL. This movie was more psychological than brutal. I miss the use of the phone for creepiness in the pre cellphone days. These two would have been having conniption fits over what was to come with things like Human Centipede or Hostel.
They are right about the extreme violence and gore, it is unnecessary for a film that already has a great suspenseful story. It doesn't add anything , and therefore is strictly gratuitous . However the movie is still well made and watchable.
The movie was actually not intended to be a slasher film, Warner Bros. green-lit it as more of a straight-up thriller and a battle of wits between the killer and the newswoman, but they got worried that it would get buried by the armada of 1981 gorefests and upped the violence and graphic elements during production.
I agree that the suspense and production values are excellent, and Lauren Tewes' performance is particularly memorable. However, I found it puzzling that they attempted to incorporate parts of a crime thriller into a slasher film. The decapitation scene really confused me.
I too bought a copy off amazon and watched it tonight. I thought it was quite good overall. And, how do you like these two complaining about the violence being ugly and disturbing? Like, how dare the director portray violence accurately, as opposed to these old cowboys and indians movies where people get shot and don't even bleed, and just fall over and die pretty much instantly? Is that what they would prefer? Sometimes art is supposed to be shocking and painful, and you would think that 2 professional film critics would understand this, especially ones who gave Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer such high praise.
God they were such snobs. No consideration at all for the film's obvious self-awareness and the comment it's making on the very audience that would have been clapping.
I remember renting & watching this hideously brutal thriller on VHS a long time ago and I also don't recommend anyone to see this movie. P.S. this movie could have worked better as a short film.
Anyone complaining about modern day pearl clutchers needs to watch these old reviews and read stuff from this period to remind themselves that social critics have ALWAYS existed.
Wow! Thanks for posting this. This is 1 of my Favorite Films. I own the Uncut DVD since 2007. As well as on Amazon Prime VIdeo. This is 1 of the most Creepiest Horror FIlms. Great Film. And while I could never stand these 2 Douche Bags "Siskel & Ebert". I'm surprised at their review. Positive comments, but still give it a "NO". I thought they were going to just Trash it like Friday The 13th, etc.
@@crystalshaw8744 Yea my comment here wasn’t very good, I actually thought the movie was decent, good production values and the mystery angle of it, I just thought the movie was trying way too hard to shock its audience near the end.
That’s not an excuse, horror or thriller films can still be terrible regardless of their subject matter. Your comment is really ill informed. I’m sorry
You are right. i still think they are way to critical of this movie. Yes it is not a Academy Award movie but it does do the job of what a movie is supposed to do and that is entertain.
These two middle-aged fruits were always such incredible dorks. If they liked a movie, you knew it stunk. If they hated one, you were only then compelled to see it.
The boys were hypocrites... they bashed slashers and gore in films like this yet praised Scorsese and all his whops with guns films. How do you tell a story about a brutal killer without showing brutal things? They were very old women in their responses to this stuff.
Because Scorsese uses the violence as a purpose to the damn story, they never hated films just for subject matter. It depends on the film either exploiting it for shock value or using it to tell a decent narrative. It’s different taste I don’t agree with them sometimes, neither do you have to as well.
