ailynncarrizales It sounded interesting when I first heard about the premise.. but I think I just wasted my time on seeing this. I never got to feel the pain from their parents, maybe the actors just didnt realized they where in a drama and not a comedy, IS SHE SMILING IN HER DAUGHTER'S FUNERAL? And I'm not talking about the scene where she has an episode and she starts to laugh like she just heard a bad joke and its pretending to laugh sarcastically, she just looked very cheerful talking to everyone at the funeral. But seriously what's with the actors? The only ones who act nicely are the two raped girls :/ The villian is so stupid I cant even describe it The cops.. omg.. are they trying to make fbi look stupid? They nailed it. This movie should have been done, Its very slow, dumb and unpleasant. If my daughter was killed in that way and her killer was set free and after my other little girl I would have made a freaking diasaster everywhere I swear.. Nobody would be this calm.

Robert Levy (levybob) The premise of the film - a victim's family-member takes revenge - has been done and done better: think Charles Bronson. What makes this film different is that we have a woman in the Bronson role. Not merely a woman but the pixie-like Sally Field. She goers from pixie to prize-fighter in no time, from never having held a gun to scoring high in her test-shoot in no time as well. Ed Harris truly did phone in his role as her husband. Keifer Sutherland, however, is quite good as the perpetrator / rapist / killer; there is something all too real in the way his lip curls into a snarl. The last 15 minutes of the film are positively awful; as though its intent was to fool the viewer. A waste.

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.

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".