Mike LeMar Since the first is what kicked the movie off so that everything happened from there, I had to mark this one down drastically. It's definitely sub- par. As Sally Field's racing through the traffic jam for help, she would realistically get some, especially when HER stopped car is toward the front of the jam, helping it to STAY jammed. People wouldn't keep shutting her out like she's just some lunatic as she keeps going from car to car, obviously frantic, out of her mind. She's on the phone, so it's evident that she has an extreme situation going on. It's not until she's on the sidewalk and trips and falls on her face when she's finally spoken to. This is very unrealistic. And when she's finally spoken to, she's idiotically asked if she's OK... Does it SEEM LIKE SHE'S OK??? It wasn't out of concern about her fall, it was out of curiosity about her sanity. At the END of the movie, Kiefer Sutherland's fall from the stairs to on top of Sally Field is obviously fake/discontinued. When he actually lands on her, it's a pretty soft landing for where he started his fall. I know they couldn't literally have him fall on her from several steps up or it would've seriously injured Sally, but still. It doesn't look real and continuous at all.

artemis84-1 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.

cppguy 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.

Gordon-11 This film is about a mother who goes to seek justice for the brutal murder of her teenage daughter."Eye for an Eye" is an intense drama that tells a family's grief in losing a teenage girl in the family. They all react in different ways; the father seems casual and detached on the surface, but actually has intense anger inside. The younger daughter blames herself, while the mother becomes obsessed with getting justice. The plot is good, it is engaging and well told. However, I think the title gives the whole film away, so things will happen in a certain way in order for the film to be called "Eye for an Eye".