theonejackdry Not sure why so many deem this movie "forgotten" as it's a classic. I say masterpiece from a visual point of view, all the actors, the script, the music, the photography. The scenes are poignant and the violence of the reactions is always justified. New York in 1978 is quite a sight and the photographs are the stars of the show. Faye Dunaway is just magical as always and Tommy Lee Jones truly amazing. It's NOT a horror movie, and NOT a slasher so if you're looking for that keep looking. And the pace is the pace of when movies were great: when each cut was not less than 1 1/2 seconds and the camera didn't shake for no reason. So if you want hectic sea-sickening "action" watch something like The Bourne Identity instead. And the list of co-creators is truly amazing: Irvin Kershner, John Carpenter, and the song Prisoner by Barbra Streisand is one of her great ones - if you liked the Guilty era this one is for you.

bombersflyup Eyes of Laura Mars is a mystery thriller, that I found rather predictable and unthrilling.While Laura was a fairly strong lead character, the others were quite unlikable. The whole idea of being able to see through the killer's eyes, while not explained at all in the film, is merely to set up the moment where she sees herself through the killer's eyes when she is with the one she loves. I already figured that was going to be the case, so when Tommy L Jones's character became close with her it was obvious he would be the killer, thus lacking any thrills. Though he did turn out to have multiple personalities, making it more reasonable. Outside of the main plot, there is nothing of any value and some of it a bit annoying.

ashild-blovvig I think Faye Dunaway is the best part of the movie. This is the second movie I see her in and she does a good job, but most of her character is about being afraid and have "visions".I do like the premise of the plot, it sounds sort of supernatural in an old fashioned way combined with crime thriller. However, the way it works on screen is not too interesting. We have Faye Dunaway being a controversial photographer, taking pictures of models we don't really get to know. The models are the targets for the murderer here, and we don't really care too much about the girls because we don't get to know them before they're disposed of like eggshells.Tommy Lee Jones is good, not great (he's young in this one, and we know he's become better), and he's one of the few people I've seen who looks somewhat good with a unibrow.I have really liked Raul Julia in his later role as Gomez in The Addams Family, but in this one he's stiff as a stick. I don't think he knows how he wants to act in this one, which is unfortunate.Of course this is a very typical crime romance, so we do get a romance plot, which does come out of nowhere, after the two lovers have met maybe four or five times, and nothing builds up to them suddenly being consumed by sudden lust and love. It's getting boring to watch these kind of plots.There is a "twist" here of course, when it comes to guessing who's the murderer. The "twist" is pretty much impossible to guess because the movie doesn't put out clues, it just keeps you guessing wildly until you only have one or two left to think about. And the nature of the "twist" is lazy, it throws in some little understood mental illness in there to make it more nuts but also more compassionate, but it has literally no build-up until you get a symbolic (and vaguely verbal) answer of what's going in inside the killer's head. I'll throw in, though, the shot "explaining" what's going on with the killer and has all along is a really cool one, when it stands alone.It's never explained what really happens to Laura Mars, with her visions and why. I don't think we necessarily need to get an explanation, but it's not really played with enough or talked about, it just happens that she sees from the killer's point of view. She explains it once to Tommy Lee Jones' character, but he doesn't really question it or talk about the subject at all (they just start goofing around with a camera that she used to illustrate her visions). It could at least be a little bit explained or played more with.This movie has many good things, but it doesn't explore enough. It has lots of pretty women that has basically no character and more used for eye-candy, the script itself is nothing really spectacular, some acting is off, some is pretty good, the suspense is there, but never really gets high enough.

WisdomsHammer I understand that this was filmed and set in the 70s in New York and I think it's meant to mirror some of the avant garde style of that time and locale, but I couldn't stand Faye's acting style in this film. Her character is supposed to be a strong, successful, visionary/controversial photographer. She seemed to start many scenes playing just that, but would then quickly fall to pieces and appear to not know where she was, what she was doing, or how to answer a simple question. This happens over and over. I felt like I was watching over- acting from the 40s.The rest of the cast saved it for me. Especially Brad Dourif and Tommy Lee Jones.I liked the general story and premise, but even at only 104 minutes, it felt drawn-out. A lot of people seem to think the ending was predictable. It caught me pleasantly by surprise!I doubt as many people will be as put off as I was by Faye's acting in this particular film, so I would recommend this with my own reservations. I love supernatural movies and whodunits, and this was an interesting combination of both. It is definitely dated, though. Good luck.