Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Comeuppance Reviews Sean Kane (Chuck) is the best undercover narcotics cop in the San Francisco police department. During what he initially believes to be a standard bust, his partner is killed. His classic BYC (Black Yelling Chief) Capt. Stevens (Roundtree) yells at him for a while about his rogue ways, and, without even being asked in the traditional fashion, Kane turns in his badge and gun. But the threat is far bigger than he originally believes, as a reporter, Linda Chan (Chao) is murdered. So Kane teams up with his buddy James Chan (Mako) and the two men work together to get justice, results, or some reasonable combination of the two. But it's not going to be easy, as dapper baddie Morgan Canfield (Lee) is a powerful man with connections, and his right-hand man has some massive right hands, because it's Professor Toru Tanaka playing, as if he could play anything else, The Professor. So Kane and Chan have their work cut out for them, but even in the face of insurmountable odds, Kane never loses his cool, or doubts the fact that "he's a human weapon!" Will an eye be taken for an eye? Find out today...An Eye for an Eye is generally what people think of when discussing early-80's Chuck: it's a little slow, a little dull, but it's steady, solid, and gets the job done. Perhaps the filmmakers didn't trust Chuck alone at this early period in his career, so they loaded the movie up with action fan favorites: Mako, Professor Toru Tanaka, Roundtree, and of course Christopher Lee. Unfortunately, the fight between Mako and Tanaka left a bit to be desired, and Lee doesn't show up until 43 minutes in. He should have been more murderous and sinister. But he does his usual professional job, and his mustache and pipe make him seem so sophisticated. Amazingly, in the same year, 1981, Lee starred opposite none other than Eddie Deezen in another San Francisco-set movie, Desperate Moves (1981). We don't know which was filmed first, but to go from Eddie Deezen to Chuck Norris, or vice versa, is enough to make your head spin.This was the phase of Chuck's career where he had a blonde mop-top and no facial hair. He might be the only man of action to make the sweater-with-a-collared-shirt look seem intimidating. An Eye for an Eye follows the formula of "Chuck chasing a hulking brute who's going around murdering people" template later used for Silent Rage (1982) and Hero and the Terror (1988). While Mako makes a great sidekick, and there are some excellent moves displayed in the fight scenes, there's no conceivable reason why this needed to be 104 minutes. It should have been 90 at most. But then again, this was before ADD had come along and ruined people's attention spans.That's just the thing: as we talked about in our Hero and the Terror review, we're not against slow paces necessarily, but take a comparable action star of the day like Arnie. His personality, accent and charisma can help viewers power through the boring parts. Chuck doesn't have those tools at his disposal. His co-stars ended up falling into some similar ruts: Roundtree ended up playing BYC's again, most notably in A Time to Die (1991). Director Carver apparently had no problem with Chuck's shortcomings and went on to work with him again with Lone Wolf McQuade (1983). From there he did Bulletproof (1988) with Gary Busey and Danny Trejo, and River of Death (1989) with Dudikoff. So his resume of video-store action speaks for itself. Finally, it should be noted that fan favorite Richard Norton is listed as a stuntman, but doesn't appear in the movie, unfortunately.An Eye for an Eye certainly has its moments, but there's some dullness surrounding them, which is a common problem for Chuck movies. Don't hesitate to see it, just be prepared for that.

lost-in-limbo 'Chuck Norris doesn't need a weapon... he is a weapon!' Oh, yeah. Don't you know it! This is what I like to see. Where can you get a Norris film which has him in a red sports car, flaunting a blinding fashion sense, glowing golden hair, a sensitive pet dog called Mort, Mako as his comical martial arts mentor, an unstoppable henchman, Richard Roundtree, Christopher Lee, haunting flashbacks, plenty of fodder for some ass-whooping and of course that fuzzy mo. Hey wait on. What, there's no mo on show?! I don't know, but I guess I have to deal with it. Even though it has dynamism of its own. More so than the man! Anyhow all of this can be found in director Steve Carver's "An Eye For An Eye", who was also responsible for the highly amusing and surprisingly stylish Norris' outing "Lone Wolf McQuade (1983)".Carver knows his stuff, by keeping it at a cracking pace, competent flair and plastering it with brilliantly stylised and choreographed action set-pieces. Some lively suspense, and jolting thrills are randomly worked in along the way. The premise is routine, and the twists foreseeable. Vengeance, vengeance. I think Norris has got vengeance on mind, and flashy slow motion is the weapon of choice. Of course nothing is going to get in his way. This makes it quite exciting, over-the-top and at times comical. Yes there's some intentional humour too, even in the wonky script. The San Francisco backdrop is well-used (from the gritty to the attractive) as its spaciously photographed and William Goldstien's moodily appealing score is pitch-perfect. The wooden plank that's Norris does what's needed of him, and strangely holds your attention in an adequate turn. A tip-top supporting cast give it a little more credit. Mako brings a wilful personality that suitably feeds off Norris. Richard Roundtree's cynical, frown-beating Capt. Stevens and Christopher Lee's smooth presence features largely as Morgan Canfield. Rosalind Chao, Maggie Cooper and Matt Clarke are solid too. In a role that's hard to forget is Professor Toru Tanaka as the formidable, stone-engraved opponent that Norris must encounter. A swiftly executed and undoubtedly engaging actioner.

kittiwake-1 How any Chuck Norris movie can be called "good" is beyond me. First and foremost, Chuck is a poor actor then and now. This movie doesn't have just a bad part, it is a bad part. And I will say, Chuck's later movies were actually better. Maybe because the scripts were better??? 'Cause his acting certainly wasn't. (Sorry, Chuck. You just don't have "it".) I recommend skipping this one unless you are a die-hard fan. (Does Chuck have any??) At least some must exist since this movie got a score above 2. Come on, be realistic, people. One or two "catch phrases" does not a movie make. One or two martial arts favorites also doesn't qualify to make this movie worth seeing. --Again, unless you are a die-hard fan.-- I found this movie trivial and unentertaining. I realize we're not looking for Oscar quality in an early martial arts film (especially an American one from the 1980s), but bad is bad and this movie is BAD.

Jaroslav Penaz I have seen this movie many times and I think it's a very good 80's cop movie. I don't know why, but the atmosphere reminded me of some old Bruce Lee movies. The acting isn't the best- especially Mako's performance is really awful, but it has some decent action. Of course Norris is not Bruce Lee, his karate moves are slow and he looks quite clumsy. But I know he is considered to be a very good martial artist, so maybe it's just because of bad choreography. Apart from the Norris's fumble, some of the fight scenes are very good, especially those fights near the end. The story is very simple, but it has good atmosphere, so it never bores. It's a pity, that this movie didn't get higher budget, 'cause it could have been much better. 6,5 out of 10