Watch Through the Eyes of a Killer For Free

Sadly Over-hyped

Boring

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Laurie finds out her boyfriend has cheated on her and moves out. She finds a rundown apartment, and hires a builder Ray to renovate the whole interior. Soon they're embedded in a steamy sexual affair, but her continuous troubles with men eventually comes back to hurt her. But Ray is one not to let go so easy.Whoa… now I can rip on Richard Dean Anderson's mullet, but for a made-for-TV presentation it's professionally directed, grippingly written and resourcefully acted. That's what counts. Now onto the mullet… only kidding. The story's outline is basic, if no-frills (yep melodramatic lifetime feel), but it's the twisty developments that helps it cruise along. When you think you got it penned out, if offers another surprise and it can be rather over-the-top (just waiting for the climax!). One thing though, it could've gone without trying to hand-feed us the possibilities and concentrating on them when we've already figured it out. There are some vague plot devices evident, and the open-ended conclusion is sort of creepy. Anyhow it's evocatively penned (even with some implausible occurrences), and can be a tense psychological exercise. Commendably directed by Peter Markle who models it with lavished touches, free flowing camera work and an arrestingly enticing (Hitchcock-like) music score. He constructs an eerie vibe with some quite suspenseful spurts and images. That glass carved eye pyramid in the window is something that's hard to forget, and especially how it's used it the dying minutes of the film. The sexual current is passionately intense, but obviously being a TV movie it's kept under wrapped. Marg Helgenberger is believably good and Richard Dean Anderson's sullen performance is terrifically projected. He's serious about his work, and it shows! David Marshall Grant, Melinda Culea, and Joe Pantoliano offer solid support.

This movie was a creepy but excellent thriller. I came across this film yesterday when I was desperate for something to watch and it looked interesting. I'm really glad I watched it. Marg Helgenberger, is excellent as Laurie Fisher, a young designer who falls in love with her contractor.When Laurie Fisher decides to buy a totally trashed apartment (you should see the bathtub), and renovate it she hires Ray Bellano. Not long after she hires him they fall in love. But she then realizes that he isn't what she thought he was.As time goes on she realizes that he is a vicious violet rapist, sociopathic liar, and nasty person. Then weird and terrifyingly horrible things happen, she is being stalked and almost gets killed and her friends get killed. Then she discovers the truth about him and the house she lives in.

This is about average for TV fare and belongs on Lifetime Movies for Women. The performances are the best part of the work, probably. Marg Helgenberger is a delight to look at with her wide blue eyes and model's bone structure and her cute belly and saucy rump. Her talent as an actress is modest but that's good enough. The guy who plays Roy more successfully inhabits his character though. Unlike Helgenberger he seems not to be playing himself but rather a role. The role itself isn't too original: fantasy number three, sub a, in which a classy woman acquires a gardener or, in this case, an unlicensed architect, who unexpectedly makes rather rough love to her and she loves it. (I thought that was supposed to be offensive to women.) A friend asks her for the details of their sex life and Helgenberger displays, unseen by the viewer, the inside of her thigh and says, "Does this give you any indication?" I'm still wondering about that. I can't quite remember the character's name. Mellors? No, not that. This particular gardener, I mean unlicensed architect, is an untidy person with rough hands and an artistic soul, but he makes the mistake of wanting Helgenberger to love him as much as he loves her, whereas she's perfectly satisfied with nothing more than a physical relationship. As it is, he turns out to be an unreliable lover. He rapes her best friend, finishes redoing her apartment, and disappears. So far so good. But then the narrative gets kind of twisted. Joe Pantoliano has been hanging around in the background, mooning over his now defunct relationship with Helgenberger. He's quite good, as always, but his part is minuscule. The raped best friend disappears. The unlicensed architect disappears. Pantoliano disappears. But SOMEBODY is hanging around, because weird things start going on in Helgenberger's apartment -- all the appliances start running at once, the oven uncalibrates itself and turns the casserole to a cinder, doors and floorboards creak, a bloody hand grabs at her while she is taking a shower, things like that. (We never learn who the bloody hand belonged to but it doesn't matter. It's one of several cheap shocks used in the film. A hand reaching in from out of frame and grabbing her shoulder and it's only a friend who the writers and director neglected to inform us was present.) The shower scene is clearly indebted to "Psycho," down to the trembling violins on the score, but without Hermann's innovative shrieks. The movie isn't really worth any more analysis or comment. You've seen it before in one or another isotopic form. If there's nothing else on TV and you've caught up on all your reading or homework, this will pass the time.

I have seen this movie 5 times, and I like it. I wouldn't give it top points, but it is worth watching. The plot has great potential, but falls short in places. Anderson and Helgenberger are very convincing in their parts, and are not the reason the movie gets 2 1/2 stars instead of 4, for example. It is a good thriller, and has a really suspenseful ending.