User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 231 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 31 out of 231
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. LaurenW.
    Aug 25, 2005
    4
    I cant imagine how people thought this was a good movie. yes i was awake the whole time, but i was not impressed. i am not a big fan of thrilllers, because i am a huge baby, but this was pathetis even by my standards. i loved rachel mcadams, which is why i gave this a 4, but it probably doesnt even deserve that.
  2. JimG.
    Jan 12, 2006
    4
    Wow. This has got to be one of the most overrated movies of 2005. The trailers (back in 2004?) had me very curious and expecting a real thriller. But it just evaporated on the screen. This is a plot? It was all over after the realization that the seatmate is a bad guy. What was original after that? Yikes. And the scene back at daddy's house? C'mon! This has got to be the stock Wow. This has got to be one of the most overrated movies of 2005. The trailers (back in 2004?) had me very curious and expecting a real thriller. But it just evaporated on the screen. This is a plot? It was all over after the realization that the seatmate is a bad guy. What was original after that? Yikes. And the scene back at daddy's house? C'mon! This has got to be the stock ending to every attempt at a thriller. Victim thinks they've won, villian makes last attempt, third party seals the victory from offscreen. Sheesh. Wes Craven can do a lot better than this. And because of that, it can't be better than a 4. Expand
  3. LarryS.
    Jan 20, 2006
    5
    A decent movie for about 40 minutes. Then it gets stupid and unbelievable.
  4. Nov 28, 2011
    6
    Red Eye is basically what happens when you take an hour of solid psychological tension-building, then tack on a half an hour of "an ode to Scream" at the end. It's a mostly unremarkable film, with the only stand-out aspect being the acting, which is quite good. Cillian Murphy is, as always, a joy to watch, and Rachael McAdams is surprisingly convincing as the ubiquitous "young woman in aRed Eye is basically what happens when you take an hour of solid psychological tension-building, then tack on a half an hour of "an ode to Scream" at the end. It's a mostly unremarkable film, with the only stand-out aspect being the acting, which is quite good. Cillian Murphy is, as always, a joy to watch, and Rachael McAdams is surprisingly convincing as the ubiquitous "young woman in a frightening situation." The first hour or so of the movie is almost entirely carried by the interaction between these two, which is tightly scripted and relatively intelligent. And then...it all kinda falls apart. The last half hour isn't bad, per se...but it takes a sudden leap into the sort of tedium and ridiculousness that characterizes modern slashers--a phenomenon that can be attested to the fact that Wes Craven, master of the unconvincing horror film, directed Red Eye. The end leaves several gaping plot holes and loose ends, most of which come as a result of the last half hour. Overall, it's not a waste of time. It has good acting and overall solid execution. But a lame last half and lack of anything particularly original keep it from greatness. Expand
  5. ClintH.
    Aug 20, 2005
    5
    Kind Of Dissapointing.
  6. JZ
    Aug 20, 2005
    5
    Good dvd pick; a little predictable and unrealistic; characters change in order to accomplish plot lines. For the most the storyline fails to reach a climactic peak worth remembering.
  7. critcsrmad
    Sep 9, 2005
    5
    Had a few okay moments and cillian and rachel are good, but the movie as a whole is just incredibly mediocre. Typical nonsensical ending and fight. Must check brain out at the door. For this movie to get such high ratings, someone must have been bought or our expectations for movies have lowered due to all the bad ones being created today. Since this one isn't as bad as the usual, it Had a few okay moments and cillian and rachel are good, but the movie as a whole is just incredibly mediocre. Typical nonsensical ending and fight. Must check brain out at the door. For this movie to get such high ratings, someone must have been bought or our expectations for movies have lowered due to all the bad ones being created today. Since this one isn't as bad as the usual, it gets good reviews. 5 pts for being watchable. Just don't expect a super good thriller as the reviews would make you think. Expand
  8. [Anonymous]
    Jan 11, 2006
    6
    I found myself rooting for the bad guy about 20 minutes him. Thought Rachel McAdams character was not believable. Loved Cillian Murphy though.
  9. JaniceL
    Jan 10, 2006
    5
    I was expecting something more. the acting wasn't quite up to speed but the plot was interesting.
  10. DennisP.
    Jan 15, 2006
    6
    I enjoyed the scenes on the airplane between McAdams and Murphy, but the last act was just one thriller flick cliche after another (low cellphone battery, fight to the finish with bad guy, etc.). At least Craven kept the flick to 85 minutes.
  11. BrandonB.
    Aug 19, 2005
    6
    A very intriguing picture. It is nothing fantastic, but is very fun to see. The plot is somewhat flimsy but makes up for it by Rachel McAdams way of connecting with the audience. By the end of this movie you are rooting for her. Cillian Murphy makes you hate him and does a great job of it. In my opinion Wes Craven chose the right actors to work with him, and if it wasn't for them A very intriguing picture. It is nothing fantastic, but is very fun to see. The plot is somewhat flimsy but makes up for it by Rachel McAdams way of connecting with the audience. By the end of this movie you are rooting for her. Cillian Murphy makes you hate him and does a great job of it. In my opinion Wes Craven chose the right actors to work with him, and if it wasn't for them this movie would be unwatchable. Expand
  12. AdamY.
    Aug 19, 2005
    5
    The movie was really great at the outset and continued to develop an interesting plot for most of the film. The ending, without giving it away, was a huge let down and managed to destroy any credibility the plot managed to establish. While walking out of the theater I felt like I had paid merely to see a great idea solved with a copout.
  13. JulienC.
    Aug 20, 2005
    4
    The first half hour is a good 7/10 movie, good suspense and nice scenario. Then the movie chokes totally and it feels like the director thought "ok, I put all my ideas in the first half hour, what am I going to do, I can't sell this movie like that... let me find a solution". then his hollywood friends told him he simply had to follow the well known hollywood recipe (phone wth the The first half hour is a good 7/10 movie, good suspense and nice scenario. Then the movie chokes totally and it feels like the director thought "ok, I put all my ideas in the first half hour, what am I going to do, I can't sell this movie like that... let me find a solution". then his hollywood friends told him he simply had to follow the well known hollywood recipe (phone wth the low battery is a good example) and the last 45 mn or so is simply unwatchable, horribly predictable, all that we all hate in hollywood movies. the last hour killed all the rest of the movie, but I give a 4/10 for the first half hour which was very promising. Expand
  14. LynnB.
    Aug 24, 2005
    5
    Very entertaining movie, however I don't think they developed the plot enough. I never really understood Jackson's motivating force - what made him be so evil? Who was behind the [omitted]?
  15. SusanM.
    Sep 14, 2005
    6
    A pretty straight-forward flick with no thrilling plot twists or surprises. It's a good chance to rest your brain and just watch a movie without having to think too hard. And even if you don't like it, it's pretty short. Rachel McAdams is a really good actress.
  16. A.B.
    Jan 28, 2006
    5
    so cheeesy. how can people make such a cheesy movie. so horrible. so horrible. not as good as lotr. ok i'm pretty bored if im writing this.
  17. JeffM.
    Sep 11, 2006
    6
    Based on the positve reviews, this was somewhat of a disappointment. Good cast, but the story just needed some more twists and turns to make it worth sitting through. At least it's short.
  18. BenK.
    Aug 19, 2005
    4
    Poor movie, mainly due to totally unrealistic events and situations. Good acting, but horrible screenwriting. 40/100
  19. matta.
    Aug 25, 2005
    6
    Had some fairly intense moments but near the end it just kind of ran out steam and got pretty cheesy. Cillian Murphy is great though.
  20. MarcD
    Aug 27, 2005
    5
    Are we that easily amused that we can give this film a score of 7 on average? I should hope not. For, it speaks volumes for how shallow our perception of thrillers has crashed in recent memory.
  21. BrettH.
    Sep 11, 2005
    6
    All right as someone said, leave your brain at the door. This is one of the blandest movies I've ever seen. The plot is HORRIBLE and unrealistic. The ending is so....dull. You expect a twist you get nothing. Overall it is entertaining but there's so much better out there.
  22. MikeG.
    Jan 12, 2006
    5
    Eh. It wasn't terrible, but I just never felt all that invested in the story or the characters. I kept thinking throughout the film, "well, this is interesting." That would be fine if this was a documentary about penguins or Enron, but this was supposed to be a nail-biting thriller. This is competent work by Craven, but I was definitely expecting better.
  23. GregT.
    Jan 24, 2006
    6
    Please Sir, can I have some more... of the drugs that the critics are on? How this movie rated 71 by the professional critics is beyond me. It was a very short (85 minute) movie and was a teen slasher flick reworked for seemingly 30 year old heroines and villains. And yes, I enjoyed her beating the **** out of him. I guess you could term this movie as "redemptive slasher".
  24. JeffV.
    Feb 18, 2006
    5
    This movie gets a C+. It is an average movie, but well done. If you are a Craven fan, you will identify with his style. The acting was well done. I personally thought it was far fetched and cheeky. Well done, but cheese ball with a kind of incredulous plot line.
  25. TomM.-
    Feb 22, 2006
    4
    The fact that this Craven movie Red Eye is getting such fantastic reviews is mindboggling. As said in many a user review from real people, this is a [below] average movie and in my opinion not even a worth a theatre release, i could care less if it was. Not Recommended.
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.