Eye for an Eye (1996)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Instant Favorite.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

The Director has Made Some High Intensity Films like Midnight Cowboy (1969) and Marathon Man (1976). This One is a Trashy, Gut-Turning Movie that is So Over Emotional and Underwritten it Wavers Between Cathartic and Crass Exploitation.A Very Good Cast Highlighted by Sally Field and Kiefer Sutherland, All of the Other A-Listers are Wasted, the Most Obvious is Ed Harris. This is Essentially a Standard and Heavy Handed Revenge Movie that Does Not Completely Satisfy.The Underground Vigilante Group Seems to Be There Only to Justify the Mother's Motivations and the Support Group, as Irritating as it is, is Just More Insufferable Clichés. The Strength of the Movie is Sutherland's Creepy Killer (delivering some really edgy lines) and Field's Determined Detachment, but as a Whole the Movie is Nothing More than Average Social Commentary.Worth a Watch with Low Expectations and a Tolerance for Over the Top Tropes in a Genre that More Often Than Not Leans Toward Trash and This One is No Exception.Note...However, it is better than every Death Wish Sequel.

Karen (Sally Field) and Mack McCann (Ed Harris) are happily married with two daughters. While on a phone call with her daughter Julie, Karen hears Julie being raped and murdered. Det. Sgt. Denillo (Joe Mantegna) investigates. Karen and Mack go to a support group. Robert Doob (Kiefer Sutherland) is arrested but the supposed dead bang case is dismissed because of a promise from the previous prosecutor to provide a sample of the DNA evidence. Karen starts following delivery boy Doobs. He pays a visit to her younger daughter Megan. She finds a group of vigilantes from the support group. However one of the support group member turns out to be an FBI agent investigating vigilante killings.Everything in this movie is heightened to get on the audience's nerves. It jumps quickly into the rape and murder. It's a very effective scene especially with Sally Field acting for all her worth. However every scene is pushed hard by director John Schlesinger. Kiefer is all greased up. This is not a subtle movie but it could do with some. It's unnerving but in a bad way. It takes itself very seriously which makes all the manipulations all the much harder to take.

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.

Sometimes it's more interesting to review the reviews than review the movie. There's nothing technically wrong with this movie. Production values are fine. The acting is fine. Anyone rating this a 1 is an incompetent reviewer. 1-star reviews so far rant that Ed Harris ruined the movie and at the same time wonder why Super Ed was saddled with such a horrible supporting cast. Maybe reviewers should be allowed to vote 4-6 until they prove competency.Back to the movie. So far, I have yet to see a movie with Sally Field where she doesn't shine. While her movies may not be perfect, she's a superb actress. Like Tom Hanks, she generally picks winners to be in (funny they starred in at least 2 movies together). I'm also developing a liking for Joe Montegna. I see him in a lot of films and he brings a nice competency to supporting roles. Same for Ed Harris. I like Kiefer Sutherland in his various movies and he does a fine job (even if slightly over the top here) of being creepy.So let's talk film content. Revenge films are intriguing in many ways. To an extent, that concept is an easy way to develop conflict for the viewer. However, it's much harder to come up with a reason for the vengeance. "The Sting" took revenge to high art. "Eye for an Eye" is not high art, so no 10 from me for the film. A 7 will have to do. Others have compared this to the better known "Death Wish," but I think this was better produced and had better flow. Aspects of the movie are predictable, but I've seen many a good movie that was predictable.Summary: if you're scanning Netflix or Blockbuster for an unseen movie with decent action and dialog that moves at a good pace, "Eye for an Eye" isn't revenge on the level of "M," "The Sting," or "Gran Torino" but it's a decent watch... especially if you like the acting talents of Field, Sutherland, Harris and Montegna. If you like action/revenge films, pop some popcorn, curl up with someone special and enjoy.