Review of Eyes Of Laura Mars

Introduction

Laura Mars (Faye Dunaway) is a celebrity fashion photographer who specialises in glorifying death and sadistic sex. She begins to see murders through the eyes of the killer, first unconsciously (her pictures resemble recent murders) and then consciously as visions hit her with increasing frequency. John Neville (a young Tommy Lee Jones) is a detective assigned to the cases. Initially adversarial, Mars and Neville develop a relationship and become closer as the plot races to a shocking conclusion.

While it’s passé now, this must have been one of the first “through the eyes of a killer” movies. So, does it work 22 years after it was made?

Video

Given a late 70s source, the video is pretty good. We get a 1:1.85 anamorphic image. Detail is good. There are some obvious sparkles during the early part of the film but this is probably down to the source and there are no other obvious flaws.

Colours are muted and desaturated. I haven’t seen the film before and so I can’t be certain, but I suspect that this is an intentional cinematography decision and not a transfer flaw.

There is an occasional striking scene, like a light streaming through a studio window or a photo shoot in Columbus Circle, but the visuals are generally dull.

Audio

This DVD has a Mono soundtrack, which is reasonable for a 1978 film. Sound is largely crisp and clear.

The soundtrack is a mix of cheesy 70s disco (Native New Yorker, etc) and menacing, strident score. Overall, it works but it isn’t a classic.

Features

As well as a photo gallery, you get a bewildering featurette and a commentary by the director Irvin Kershner. The featurette is done is a gaudy 70s style and reveals nothing about the film. You might possibly sit through it once but you’ll never watch it again.

The commentary is adequate but outstays its welcome. Kershner seems uncomfortable leaving even a few seconds silence and, therefore, takes us through the making of the film and its imagery in painstaking detail. Sometimes this is interesting, but often is tedious. For example, he tells us (in detail) how a character is walking down a corridor. Yes, we know this; we are watching the film after all. I suppose I shouldn’t be too hard on him. He is obviously more comfortable behind the camera than the microphone and he does share some valuable insights. Worth a listen.

The menus are static and done is a tacky 70s style. It suits the film but isn’t pretty.

Conclusion

Some films are timeless. It doesn’t matter whether they were made in the 20s or the 90s; the themes, script, direction and music transcend the period and the remain as fresh today as when they were made.

Not Eyes of Laura Mars. Pretty much everything in it is dated. It screams 70s, from the setting (“trendy” NYC) to the hair (big on the women, shaggy on the men). That’s not to say that it’s bad. The script by John Carpenter is fine, direction is stylish (just a shame it is a 70s style) and the music is effectively stylish in places (if strident). The film has some genuinely chilling/thrilling scenes and the ending is surprising yet logical.

For me though, the acting lets it down. It’s not bad; more uncomfortable. Nobody is natural; everybody is obviously playing a role. This may be deliberate; it may be intended to represent the false existence of the characters in the shallow world of fashion in 70s New York. Or, it may not. To my mind the acting just doesn’t work.

I did, however, enjoy it. If you get past the 70s chic/kitsch and the acting, there is a decent film in there. Maybe, it just needs a remake. If you swap Julieane Moore (or even Sharon Stone) for Faye Dunaway and Russell Crowe for Tommy Lee Jones, and update it to post-Millenial New York, you might just have a winner on your hands. After all, it worked for Shaft.