|Claire Forlani is one of the most beautiful women
in the world. She is a reasonably competent actress now as well, but
it was her beauty alone which originally qualified her as an actress,
and it was this beauty which enabled her career to survive some
stinking performances in stinking films.
Forlani is supposed to be playing a gypsy in Romania
(the movie was actually filmed in Croatia and processed in Slovenia),
but she quite literally has a different accent in every scene -
including a few scenes which she speaks with an American accent (she's
from the U.K., but she can portray Americans convincingly). The accent
was only the beginning of her troubles. She was about high school age
when she made this movie, and she really didn't have any idea how to
deliver the scenes. Except for dancing roles, her only acting before
this film had been three brief appearances in UK television shows.
The performance in Gypsy Eyes may not have been
entirely her fault. Who knows what the youngster might have done with
some competent guidance. Nobody really seems to have been aware of
where this film was going. There is no writing credit, and I don't
think that is a coincidence. It appears that scene after scene was
improvised, with no particular relevance or connection to the
surrounding scenes. Ideas mentioned in some early scenes are never
mentioned again. A rendezvous is promised, then forgotten. Characters
enter and leave for no apparent reason. All the Rumanian gypsies speak
perfect English, albeit with a variety of accents. (Where would they
learn English in rural Romania, away from any formal schooling?)
It really seems that nobody was in charge, and I
guess that is pretty much true. The director, a Slovenian guy named
Vogue-Anzlovar, would never direct another English-language film,
which is not surprising after the investors saw the mess he made of
this film. He directed a micro-budget Slovenian film in 2001, then
In the first scene,
Forlani is a Gypsy hooker about to slip a Mickey Finn to an American
and steal his valuables. Beneath the window of their hotel room is a
mysterious armed stalker. We think perhaps the hooker and the stalker
are in cahoots, but when she goes to the bathroom, the stalker enters
a window, shoots the American, and the hooker stays hidden, terrified,
until the stalker/killer leaves.
Now think about
that for a second.
- The American guy
is in a hotel room in the same city in which he lives, and the
stalker knows exactly which room he is in.
- Given those two
facts, the stalker must also know the American's purpose for being
there. (Makin' whoopee, natch.) That purpose requires a second human
being, of course. There were also two champagne glasses in the room,
and the American had not yet removed all of his clothes, indicating
that the sex had not yet taken place.
- So when Mr
Stalker shot the American, did he check to see if there might be
someone in the bathroom, like, oh, I don't know - a hooker? Nah.
illogical the film was in the first three minutes. And that was
actually the logical highlight of the film, since (1) unlike some of
the characters elsewhere in the film, the characters in that scene
were actually important to the development of the alleged plot, and
(2) since it was only the first scene, it did not yet present any
continuity problems with previous scenes!
The filmmakers had about the same authoritative
command of a title as they did of the shooting script. The original
title was Pick Pocket; it was released briefly in
theaters as Gypsy Eyes; it was then released on video as
C.I.A. Trackdown; and is now back to Gypsy Eyes
The score at IMDb
is 5.2, but that has been poisoned by the fact that fifteen voters
scored it a ridiculous 10/10 - that was undoubtedly Vinci himself,
since he clearly has nothing else to occupy his time these days.
Without those perfect tens, the average score is about where it should
Having made those points, however, let me point out
that there are some good things to see and hear if you watch this
film, but do not do so without having your thumb very near to the
1. It doesn't matter how bad Claire's acting is.
The girl is absolutely stunning, and you can't take your eyes off
her. It doesn't hurt that she removes her clothing quite a bit.
2. There is a very nice acoustic guitar score.
If you are female
or a gay male, consider it a 1/10 unless you're into acoustic guitar,
because the film's only appeal is Claire Forlani's beauty, which is
not meaningful to you.