User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 261 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 31 out of 261
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. JohsonJ.
    Sep 18, 2005
    1
    This was the worst movie I have ever seen. Save your money--this movie is not even worth renting. It should be called Brown Eye. It turned out to be a comedy because the scary parts were so predictable and cliche it was comical. I have better movies on Lifetime Television for Women.
  2. NancyS.
    Sep 28, 2005
    3
    I came out feeling like I had seen an up-scale TV movie. It was fine for what it was but not particularly suspenseful. I call it a compromise movie, see it when a group is determined to see a movie and have to find something they all can tolerate. I may have felt a little more negative on this, in that, although the acting was fine, the villan looked more petulant than anything else I came out feeling like I had seen an up-scale TV movie. It was fine for what it was but not particularly suspenseful. I call it a compromise movie, see it when a group is determined to see a movie and have to find something they all can tolerate. I may have felt a little more negative on this, in that, although the acting was fine, the villan looked more petulant than anything else (although that does not preclude being threatening) which I found distracting. Expand
  3. DamonO.
    Feb 27, 2006
    3
    The dialogue and pathetic character development are both shockingly bad. The acting of the two leads reaches B level for brief moments, but it doesn't matter because the plot and dialogue are so distracting that all I could think about was how the heck the movie received such a high (71) metascore. The only reviews to accurately describe the movie are the last three (Boston Globe, LA The dialogue and pathetic character development are both shockingly bad. The acting of the two leads reaches B level for brief moments, but it doesn't matter because the plot and dialogue are so distracting that all I could think about was how the heck the movie received such a high (71) metascore. The only reviews to accurately describe the movie are the last three (Boston Globe, LA Weekly and Portland Oregonian). Seriously, trust only those three for this movie. Expand
  4. ErikY.
    Aug 6, 2006
    1
    Awful movie. Just awful. Terrible plot, annoying actors, predictable, poor characterization, just atrocious. The beginning was littered with bad clichés and tired dialogue. The middle was farfetched and the end was unexplained and bared little resemblance to anything that happened previous. Case in point, the story evolves from airport bar, to airplane, and finally to a knife-chase Awful movie. Just awful. Terrible plot, annoying actors, predictable, poor characterization, just atrocious. The beginning was littered with bad clichés and tired dialogue. The middle was farfetched and the end was unexplained and bared little resemblance to anything that happened previous. Case in point, the story evolves from airport bar, to airplane, and finally to a knife-chase scene at a suburban house. Lastly there was too many loose ends and the film rapped up ineffectively. This is best illustrated with one of the final lines, "And after you finish [the comment card] you can go ahead and just shove it up your ass". Note, this line had nothing to do with the film and was spoken unexpectedly. There was no running gag, there wasn't some hilarious set-up, that was the line in it's entirety. I can't go any further in explaining how hideous watching this movie was. Shame on those critics who believed this film had any redeeming qualities. I can confidently say that this was the worst film I've ever seen. Expand
  5. JohnK.
    Jan 17, 2006
    2
    Not a bad movie for the first 45 minutes or so, but the movie takes an inexplicable left turn from a believability standpoint after the plane lands that ruined the whole thing for me. I could have dealt with the cliches of "No Service" or dead batteries in the cell phone, but you need to at least provide SOME explanation why someone being stalked would avoid security and police like the Not a bad movie for the first 45 minutes or so, but the movie takes an inexplicable left turn from a believability standpoint after the plane lands that ruined the whole thing for me. I could have dealt with the cliches of "No Service" or dead batteries in the cell phone, but you need to at least provide SOME explanation why someone being stalked would avoid security and police like the plague. Just didn't make any sense. Expand
  6. TylerC.
    Feb 10, 2006
    1
    Terrible movie. The main actor is Jack Rippner, Jack the Ripper, get it HA HA! That is almost the only good part of this movie. The only other good part is that this movie has Brian Cox in it. Brian Cox, if you remember, was the original Hannibal Lector that you will see in the movie "Manhunter." Other than that, this is a movie that you should avoid.
  7. ChrisF.
    Aug 22, 2005
    2
    Well it was alright except for the fact that it wasn't exciting, thrilling, interesting, original, well acted, or otherwise entertaining. wow our protagonist is a woman who beats up some guy stalking and threatening her, this is just not able to hold up a flacid film. Boy did they advertize well for this one though, I thought I was going to enjoy it, or get thrilled by it. At the end Well it was alright except for the fact that it wasn't exciting, thrilling, interesting, original, well acted, or otherwise entertaining. wow our protagonist is a woman who beats up some guy stalking and threatening her, this is just not able to hold up a flacid film. Boy did they advertize well for this one though, I thought I was going to enjoy it, or get thrilled by it. At the end i kept waiting... WHERE'S THE TWIST. There is no twist folks, this one kind of stinks. Expand
  8. RobertM.
    Aug 22, 2005
    3
    Awful, awful movie. I don't know where the critcs or even some of the reviewers on this site are thinking about givin it 8's and 9's. It's suppose to be a suspense right? Well, where was the suspense! I was bored to tears and you will be too if you see this drivel. And I like Cillian Murphy too, but this was too much. Wes Craven, cmon man. I KNOW you can do thriller Awful, awful movie. I don't know where the critcs or even some of the reviewers on this site are thinking about givin it 8's and 9's. It's suppose to be a suspense right? Well, where was the suspense! I was bored to tears and you will be too if you see this drivel. And I like Cillian Murphy too, but this was too much. Wes Craven, cmon man. I KNOW you can do thriller better than this. Expand
  9. Mary
    Jan 19, 2006
    3
    Boring, predictable and a general waste of time. Who gets stabbed in the neck and doesn't bleed. Please...
  10. StevenK.
    Aug 12, 2006
    1
    I really thought this was shaping up to be a decent movie until the female lead (name?) stabbed the male lead (name?) through the neck with a toy pen. Everything from that point on just got more farfetched, more predictable, less sophisticated, and just plain boring.
  11. daveg.
    Aug 22, 2005
    2
    Awful movie filled with broadly drawn characters, plot loopholes, and suspense movie cliches. this gets real bad real quick. i want my 2 hours back.
  12. StephV.
    Jan 22, 2006
    1
    Worst movie since Hitchhiker's Guide. I can't beleive anybody that gets paid to be a critic would rate this movie a 70+. The best part was the cameo from Colby on Survivor.
  13. PatC.
    Apr 16, 2007
    3
    Stays on plot and moves right along. Otherwise it's pretty much disposable.
  14. ApocalypseB.
    Nov 29, 2006
    3
    This movie started out so promising; good-looking yet vulnerable women, sinister man and of course a plane! But after a brilliant performance from the cast for the first 30mins, it falls apart into predictable, cheesy, American women can save the world dog poo! The ending was so bad I was actually angry I sat through it. Absolute waste of time and money this film, although the male lead This movie started out so promising; good-looking yet vulnerable women, sinister man and of course a plane! But after a brilliant performance from the cast for the first 30mins, it falls apart into predictable, cheesy, American women can save the world dog poo! The ending was so bad I was actually angry I sat through it. Absolute waste of time and money this film, although the male lead was the only good acting throughout! Avoid! Expand
  15. PeterM.
    Oct 14, 2006
    1
    This movie is terrible. I hated it. So boring, horrible plot, horrible acting, I can't believe the critics loved it. What are they thinking?!
  16. JoM.
    Jan 15, 2006
    2
    Wow...I don't get it. This was just like something you'd see at 2 am on Lifetime television For Women. Cheesy all the way from the obligatory "chick in her bra" scene to the "whoops the guy's not dead and here he is with the knife again" scene. Just seemed really silly and hardly the thriller it's knocked up to be.
  17. JasonH.
    Jan 17, 2006
    1
    Worst movie of the year. The acting is so terrible that I found myself laughing through the entire movie instead of jumping at the so-called surprise or scary moments.
  18. EvanS.
    Jan 24, 2006
    3
    What a rattle-trap piece of trash - styled after Lifetime Television for Women and silly and implausible for the entire ride. Whoever called this "Hitchcockian" needs another helping of "North By Northwest."
  19. JohnO.
    Feb 28, 2006
    1
    I kept wishing the plane would crash and put us all out of our misery. Mrs OH does not believe it got a 71. Perhaps it was really 17. Give it a miss
  20. RyanG
    Nov 17, 2007
    0
    This is a terrible movie. Honestly one of the worst films I have ever seen. The acting in the first 15 minutes of the film (save Rachel Adams) is horrific, the rest of the film is not much better. I cannot convey or articulate how utterly bad this movie is in every respect. That it scored a 71 overall with the critics is baffling. Although this site is usually offbase with its scoring of This is a terrible movie. Honestly one of the worst films I have ever seen. The acting in the first 15 minutes of the film (save Rachel Adams) is horrific, the rest of the film is not much better. I cannot convey or articulate how utterly bad this movie is in every respect. That it scored a 71 overall with the critics is baffling. Although this site is usually offbase with its scoring of films, the score on this film is criminally overrated. Terrible film, just terrible. I cannot stress this enough. Terrible. Expand
Metascore
71

Generally favorable reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 36
  2. Negative: 1 out of 36
  1. Red Eye has a devilish charm. It pulls just about every nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat trick imaginable, yet gets away with it through what is, admittedly, a clever and original gimmick.
  2. Reviewed by: Robert Koehler
    70
    Departing less from his horror bailiwick than he did with "Music Of The Heart" in 1999, Wes Craven retains shocks but dispenses with scares in the negligible Red Eye.
  3. 70
    Craven's terror-alert white-knuckler is zippy, unpretentious.