T. Bleakman

In all I think it is worth a watch. Someone mentioned a kind of cinematic antiquity they recognized in it and though I hadn’t thought about that, I did pick up on it a bit later. That’s about the nicest thing that can be said about it because at first glance, Behind Her Eyes is uncomfortably modern…and also breakable. Though there may be a faint reference to old world intrigue (Hitchcock mainly I think), the production embellishments and antiseptic set dress snap us back to the twenty first century on the double, digitally reassured. And ANY reassurance is welcome once the show’s plausibility in the “real world” becomes unsustainable, our suspension of disbelief reduced to one stubborn thread, we might be costumes in a theme park haunted house into which the dread of going further has outbid that of turning back. If there WERE wardrobe or photography choices or other elements that might be perceived as a call back to old Hollywood, the characters do not deserve them. Louise excepted, the principals are silhouettes of ghastly artifacts painted on the wall of a forgotten tomb fashioned from an Apple Store. They are AWFUL! Think Rebecca De Mornay’s frightening, murderous affront to au pairs and nannies everywhere in 1992’s The Hand That Rocks The Cradle. Good once, for a scare, but probably not ever again.