Eyes of a Stranger

Eyes of a Stranger

A TV newswoman (Lauren Tewes) catches a pervert (John DiSanti) watching her sister (Jennifer Jason Leigh) who cannot see, hear or speak.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:84 minutes
  • Release:1981
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Eyes of a Stranger 1981 full movies, Eyes of a Stranger torrents movie

A reporter suspects a creepy neighbor, who lives in the high-rise building across from hers, is a serial killer terrorizing the Miami area. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Eyes of a Stranger torrent reviews

Alex S (ru) wrote: This film is a joke.

Greg P (de) wrote: Just loved the movie. Heigl is so geat.

Shane H (us) wrote: if you want some all out in your face blood and guts you need to get this. not only is it total trash but that trash is top notch

Rawballs B (it) wrote: This film is truly watchable, edge-of-your seat horror movie...

James W (au) wrote: Hanging around socialists in student circles you begin to wonder if they simply pull all this rhetoric out of their arses, or if it was around before that. Well, it most certainly was, and in 'Children of the Revolution' is in the guise of Joan Fraser Welch (Judy Davis), President of the Balmain Branch of the Communist Party in the 1950s. Alongside her is her life partner, Zachary Welch (Geoffrey Rush) a man who is very much under her thumb and not as committed to Stalinism as Joan would like. Joan spends much of her time protesting, and writing letters to Uncle Joe aka Joseph Stalin (F. Murray Abraham), who finally receives her letters and is intrigued enough to invite her to Moscow, for the Communist Party conference, but most importantly, so he can 'get to know her'. Out of it, she gets a child, Joe (Richard Roxburgh), who eventually winds up a class traitor, and brings Australia on the verge on revolution. This mockumentary styled comedy/drama is helped along by its brilliant cast, Davis, in particular, but also with supporting roles from Sam Neill and Rachel Griffiths. Rush is great as the embattled and lovelorn Welch, while Roxburgh is particularly menacing as Joe, later in the film. It never quite hits the mark, but it does have a very subtle humour which is easy to miss, although I daresay I found the beginning of the film far funnier than most due to my proximity in terms of socialist activists. Things to watch out for: Flacco and Sandman (from Good News Week) as two of 'The 3 Stooges'. Rachel Griffiths is also particularly sexy as a dominatrixesque cop.

Gabriele C (jp) wrote: Such great performances. Very theatrical in its setting

Sarah P (ru) wrote: It starts off creepy and seems like there is a lot of potential, but it kind of just goes downhill from there.

DeE S (ag) wrote: I love James Caan in this movie as Jolly, he is awesome. :)

rebeka r (nl) wrote: "i see a pearl, a pearl of a girl"

Doctor S (de) wrote: Intriguing journey of amnesiac who takes an experimental drug to restore his memory and then escapes from the institution lacks luster with unconvincing attempts to bill itself as a horror film. There is a really nifty twist which makes a lot of sense in hindsight, a feature not many screenplays can withstand so credit the writers for that. The acting is pretty good during the calmer segments with Jon Favreau-like Greg Grunberg and youngster Shawn Pyfrom scoring highest, but are only spottily convincing during ratcheting tension. Unfortunately the film needs those scenes to work better for any lasting impact. Lucy Lawless is notable for being unrecognizable as a boozy bathrobe-wearing blonde. If you're more interested in characters than chills in a suspenser, this could be one to check out.

Victor T (it) wrote: In 2001, Harry Potter became a colossal hit by earning critical acclaim, more than positive feedback from audiences and earning almost a billion dollars (something that was only achieved by Cameron's "Titanic" at the time), so only a year later the first sequel arrived. Is this second installment better than the first?Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts for his second year of learning magic but now a new evil emerges as an old legend held within the walls of the school is unleashed and threatens the students. Making a sequel to successful film is a tricky assignment, as you can either go to new territory or repeat the same formula of the predecessor, so it is surprising that the second adventure of Potter and company lands in between those scenarios. "Chamber of Secrets" introduces some welcome ideas that can be fun for one scene (and expand the world), the inclusion of a mystery (which is quite ludicrous to be honest) is a smart decision as it gives a new angle to the story and starts taking the franchise to a darker territory, Kenneth Branagh is so much fun to watch, the action sequences are more exciting than last time (which is not saying much but still they are well executed), the acting is at the same level as last time, and it is still enjoyable. But regardless of those new welcome additions this first sequel is more flawed than the original. The story is easily the most forgettable of the whole saga (granted there are three memorable action sequences but the story that unites them isn't), the script lacks character moments, Columbus' directing is as bland as last time, Williams' score is lackluster, and it repeats numerous beats of "Philosopher's Stone". "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is the most forgettable installment of the saga. It lacks an identity as it continues to use the style of the first film but it doesn't add anything new to the table. But regardless it is still charming, fun to watch and introduces key elements to this franchise.

Colby C (de) wrote: Enthralled by majestic 3Dness! One of DreamWorks' best!

Grahame W (jp) wrote: From the moment Hoskins delivers his very well written and brilliantly delivered speech, as he does his best to sell the redevelopment project in the city to his potential American business partners, it all starts to go wrong for Harold Shand. This film predicted the boom that happened in Docklands during the 80's, and makes it appear like it was based on a true story. Which a lot of it almost certainly was. One of my top tenners!