After discovering her boyfriend (played by Pantoliano) has had an affair, Helgenberger moves into a dilapidated apartment and has Richard Dean Anderson renovate it. Predictably, she becomes casually involved with Anderson, but he has other ideas. I should also mention there is a mysterious piece of glass in an eye symbol that is etched into one of her windows of which she (and Anderson) seem to be in awe.Helgenberger is very beautiful in this suspense thriller and she is a good actress. Richard Dean Anderson plays the volatile builder and David Marshall Grant does a fine job in the role of Helgenberger's friend. This is good made-for-TV material and I recommend watching it, as it is a little different that more of the pedestrian ones I have seen lately.

Macgyver sucks. Marg Helgenberger (?!?) is horrid. The plot is predictable. But the eye? The eye is AMAZING! I tell you, when Lifetime Movie said that this was on following ROTOR, I was already looking for something else faster than you can say "Snap Dandy". The camera work looks like a first time college student at a rave, especially the first outdoor scene on the patio where I suspect the viewer is meant to feel motion sickness (or maybe it's the dialogue doing that). Overall, I completely suspected that this was intended to fulfill some cock-en-eyed television contract of Macgyver's.But then the eye came on the scene, and I was all eyes myself. Helgenberger is looking for a cheap apartment in the Big Apple when she comes upon yet another rundown sleaze-hole. But just as she is planning to give it up, she perchances upon the eye pyramid in the window. She stares at it just long enough, and then...the sun shines through and mesmerizes her. She MUST have the apartment. And then Macgyver sees the eye, too.And it all gets better from there.P.S. Beware the Guillotine Room!

This is about average for TV fare and belongs on Lifetime Movies for Women. The performances are the best part of the work, probably. Marg Helgenberger is a delight to look at with her wide blue eyes and model's bone structure and her cute belly and saucy rump. Her talent as an actress is modest but that's good enough. The guy who plays Roy more successfully inhabits his character though. Unlike Helgenberger he seems not to be playing himself but rather a role. The role itself isn't too original: fantasy number three, sub a, in which a classy woman acquires a gardener or, in this case, an unlicensed architect, who unexpectedly makes rather rough love to her and she loves it. (I thought that was supposed to be offensive to women.) A friend asks her for the details of their sex life and Helgenberger displays, unseen by the viewer, the inside of her thigh and says, "Does this give you any indication?" I'm still wondering about that. I can't quite remember the character's name. Mellors? No, not that. This particular gardener, I mean unlicensed architect, is an untidy person with rough hands and an artistic soul, but he makes the mistake of wanting Helgenberger to love him as much as he loves her, whereas she's perfectly satisfied with nothing more than a physical relationship. As it is, he turns out to be an unreliable lover. He rapes her best friend, finishes redoing her apartment, and disappears. So far so good. But then the narrative gets kind of twisted. Joe Pantoliano has been hanging around in the background, mooning over his now defunct relationship with Helgenberger. He's quite good, as always, but his part is minuscule. The raped best friend disappears. The unlicensed architect disappears. Pantoliano disappears. But SOMEBODY is hanging around, because weird things start going on in Helgenberger's apartment -- all the appliances start running at once, the oven uncalibrates itself and turns the casserole to a cinder, doors and floorboards creak, a bloody hand grabs at her while she is taking a shower, things like that. (We never learn who the bloody hand belonged to but it doesn't matter. It's one of several cheap shocks used in the film. A hand reaching in from out of frame and grabbing her shoulder and it's only a friend who the writers and director neglected to inform us was present.) The shower scene is clearly indebted to "Psycho," down to the trembling violins on the score, but without Hermann's innovative shrieks. The movie isn't really worth any more analysis or comment. You've seen it before in one or another isotopic form. If there's nothing else on TV and you've caught up on all your reading or homework, this will pass the time.

I have seen this movie 5 times, and I like it. I wouldn't give it top points, but it is worth watching. The plot has great potential, but falls short in places. Anderson and Helgenberger are very convincing in their parts, and are not the reason the movie gets 2 1/2 stars instead of 4, for example. It is a good thriller, and has a really suspenseful ending.