Critics’ reviews

Open Your Eyes (1997)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 66: 4 positive, 3 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Open Your Eyes

66
Positive
4
Mixed
3
Negative
1

The reviews lean positive on Open Your Eyes, with praise centred on its shifting perceptions, visual ambition and Eduardo Noriega’s controlled performance. Admirers find the thriller demanding but compelling, crediting Amenábar with keeping its changes of direction purposeful and unsettling. Its blend of genres and questions about appearance and reality appeal particularly to those who regard the intricate plotting as evidence of control rather than needless complication.

The spread is fairly wide, however, and the reservations concern how much that complexity delivers. Even favourable reviews find the resolution hurried or the ideas occasionally pretentious. Others describe an imaginative, stylish film whose plotting becomes confusing. Slant Magazine finds the journey hollow and preposterous despite admiring the final scene. The Guardian is more dismissive, finding the execution workmanlike and the film less rewarding than its resemblance to Buñuel and Georges Franju promises.

Radio Times
★★★★ · David Parkinson
80

Parkinson regards the film as a dazzling, delirious work that demands close attention. He praises Eduardo Noriega’s controlled performance and the film’s unsettling blend of genres and ideas about appearance and reality.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· TJ
80*

The accessible description presents the film as a dazzling thriller that toys with perception. It praises the film’s skillful, tortuous handling of those perceptions.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · David Parkinson
75*

Parkinson regards the film as a visually and structurally audacious success, though its hurried, trite resolution disappoints. He particularly praises Amenábar’s control of its shifting perceptions and Eduardo Noriega’s performance across César’s transformations.

Read the full review →
Variety
12 January 1998 · festival review · Jonathan Holland
70*

The critic finds the thriller ambitious and compelling, though potentially perplexing and occasionally pretentious. He singles out its strong script, fierce directorial intelligence, and striking visual design for praise.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
16 April 1999
64*

The article text is unavailable, so the critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaint cannot be established. The page returned only an access message rather than review content.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
18 August 2001 · ★★½/4 · Ed Gonzalez
62

The critic finds the existential thriller more teasing and perplexing than genuinely provocative. He praises its riveting final scene but says the events leading up to it feel hollow and preposterous.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
· Peter Bradshaw
40*

Bradshaw finds the film workmanlike and says it never quite comes to life. He singles out its resemblance to the work of Buñuel and Georges Franju, while finding that comparison more promising than the film itself.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
50*

The critic finds the film imaginative and seductive, but ultimately too ambitious and confusing. Its energetic, stylish thriller filmmaking is singled out for praise, while its convoluted reality-bending plot leaves the audience baffled.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate