Release Date: 16th March 2009 Available from Amazon U.K priced at £15.98 and Amazon U.S. (priced $16.99) Maybe Im old fashioned, but I like at least a hint of a feasible plot in my films- a sentiment that DJ Caruso clearly does not share, considering the increasing ridiculousness of EAGLE EYE as the film unwinds. Never have the scars of having too many writers been so evident. Now dont get me wrong, a little brainless fun is occasionally irresistible, but not in a film with such obvious political sensibilities. Imagine the claustrophobic tension of 1984, or even THE HANDMAIDS TALE but cranked up to 11 by a director who fancies himself as the new Michael Bay so that any semblance of the required subtlety vanishes without trace in a muddle of wrecked cars and charred cadavers. So too does the potential to create something truly great- a commentary about not only the frightening prospect of intelligent technology but also about the integrity of politicians and the hysteria created in this the age of the Patriot Act. In a rather bizarre twist of fate it seems that Shia Laboeuf and quasi-Hitchcockian remakes now go together like love and marriage- first we had DISTURBIA; as close a remake of REAR WINDOW as possible (allegedly), and now we have in EAGLE EYE which has more than a faint whiff of NORTH BY NORTHWEST about it. A case of a civilian being mistaken for an agent (or in this case a newly activated sleeper cell), leading to an epic chase for survival- although admittedly EAGLE EYE also draws from influences like DIE HARD 4.0 with its more modern cyber-terrorism theme. That's not to say this is a straight remake of NBNW, indeed the sleeper cell motif, with each member activated against their will is a very contemporary fear, although it is one that Hitchcock may have been proud of. That isnt the end of the obvious references to other films; from the LA STORY style communicating road signs to the rogue, calm-voiced computer- I wonder how tempting it was to just outright call the film HAL. Or even SKYNET. We are also treated to features of ENEMY OF THE STATE, 1984, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH... the list is very much endless, yet instead of being a good film composite of the better features of some of the greatest thrillers of the cinematic era, EAGLE EYE manages only to be an advert for the originals. How four writers could not come up with an original way to tell this strangely familiar tale of intrigue is beyond me. The question remains, how far do we really believe Laboeuf as the bona fide leading man? I still tend to see him as the slightly cocky side-kick (think CONSTANTINE and INDIANA JONES), rather than the central figure- even in TRANSFORMERS he didnt have the right credentials and was ultimately superseded by the flashy robots. There is too much of the wide-eyed excitable boy about him (he is still just 22 after all) which translates well into the initial bewilderment and necessary emotional intensity of the situation he finds himself in, but he still has a way to go before he can capture the steely-eyed man of resolve. Abandoning his usual wit, in favour of a graver demeanour simply does not work yet. Of course this isnt a one man show- Billy Bob Thornton is watchable as the cat to Laboeuf and Monaghans mice, but his effortless cool is undeniably beginning to wane- perhaps its the knowledge of his horrific musical career, or the ravages of age, but his swagger just dont stick any more. And those teeth- yee gads are they white! Similarly Rosario Dawson may be solid as agent Zoe Perez, but I prefer her in grittier roles like the phenomenal KIDS and A GUIDE TO RECOGNISING YOUR SAINTS where she bring a little more attitude to the role. When it comes to it, EAGLE EYE features a series of miscastings- Laboeuf is best when hes witty and wet behind the ears; Thornton self-assured with a certain dark arrogance; Dawson vulnerable but cock-sure and fierce. But more than anything, Michael Chiklis, Mr Corruption himself in Foxs sublime THE SHIELD, definitely shouldnt be the one with the morals. The only cast member who didnt inspire this feeling was Michelle Monaghan who is pretty good as frantic single mother Rachel, whose motive for complicity to the evil will of Eagle Eye is a death threat on her son, which is one of the better ideas of the film. Pity it just made me think of how long it was since Id seen COMMANDO. And before my continual references to other films inspire any wrath, I realise that all art forms are inherently intertextual and that the key is the progression of a canon of perpetually recycled characteristics- it is just that EAGLE EYE makes little attempt to better those unoriginal features it borrows from elsewhere. Of course EAGLE EYE is hardly about acting performance- it is an exercise in blistering paced action and although the proceedings steadily become improbable there is a certain adrenaline pumping pleasure in it. Any hint of acting is quickly brushed aside as soon as the characters have given us enough of a hint of their personal conflicts for us to imagine we know who they are, in favour of something far more flammable. DJ Caruso clearly likes car crashes and ear-splitting explosions, and to a certain extent suspending all belief and allowing yourself to briefly occupy his crazy mind for almost two hours makes the film enormously more fun. It is difficult not to imagine Caruso judging every beautiful cityscape in terms of its potential for an explosive chase scene and even more difficult not to imagine him as the next director to helm a Bond film the way that chase-happy franchise seems to be going. But with a fully working brain there are just too many what-the-fuck moments in EAGLE EYE to make it a cohesive experience: chief among them is the fact that Eagle Eye employs a copier guy and a single mom as terrorists, and expects a favourable outcome. In reality they would both be killed in the first action sequence, and would never get the opportunity to act upon their flimsy forced chemistry. Final analysis? If youre after a Michael Bay style inane adrenaline thrill-ride, with more than a few obvious cinematic influences, then just maybe EAGLE EYE is for you. But if you want something new, that doesnt feel like something Tony Scott should have made a decade ago, then maybe steer clear. Trust me, youve seen it before, and it was probably better that time around. EAGLE EYE is very much a tale of what ifs: it had the potential to be the ultimate summer popcorn flick, as OWFs cinematic review stated if it had been released at the right time; and what if Spielberg had decided to direct rather than produce, in the process saving us from director DJ Carusos apparently insatiable appetite for mindless adrenaline fuelled self-indulgence.