It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Very straightforward documentary unfolds the making of a bomb. I haven't seen Eye of the Beholder, it seems some people just loved it but even they find it difficult. So whether it is an uncompromising artistic vision or self-indulgent drivel is something I look forward to discovering on my own.A number of comments here suggest the movie was destroyed by the suits, but it doesn't really look that way to me. Yes, the suits wanted changes and additions and made the director re-shoot some stuff, but it did not look like (from what is seen in the documentary) that they wanted huge changes; they just wanted it sexier to be more commercial. So when the test audience loathed the film, it was probably loathing more-or-less Stephan's vision.I think it is also important to note that Stephan made it perfectly clear in the documentary that he had basically conned his backers. He told them he was making a commercial thriller when he was planning to do nothing of the kind. If you promise something specific to someone in exchange for money and then deliver something else, you have to expect them to want you to change it to what they were expecting. So it was a calculated risk; get the money, make the movie he wanted and hope it succeeded. One of the most interesting parts of the movie is seeing how nervous Stephan is as the time comes near when he's going to show the film to his backers with every expectation that they are in for a shock.The movie is mildly interesting throughout but only really interesting in the last part as things increasingly fall apart. I doubt anyone not interested in the film industry would find it especially interesting.

What makes this documentary so intriguing is having seen both "Eye of the Beholder" and "Priscilla". One cannot dspute the fact that Priscilla was a terrific film. It was hilarious and touching in equal measure. This is important because it justifies the absolute dedication to the preservation of one's artistic principles that is so clearly on display here. It is equally important to note, however, that "Beholder" is an almost unwatchably bad film. Inasmuch as you might find the idea of watching a documentary about a mediocre director making a poor film to be boring, you would be entirely mistaken. "Killing Priscilla" gives us wonderful insights into the workings of Hollywood (from distributors who have never seen the film, to financial backers who want to make a soft-core porn out of the film) and its utterly fickle ability to ignore the passion of artists in favor of the big cash-in.That said, however, the truly fascinating part of the film is the singlemindedness with which the director views his project. Not only does he not see that "Beholder" is incoherrent and laughable, he actually believes that he is creating a visual masterpiece. Instead of scoffing at his naivety, however, I actually began to root for him and admire his dedication to his vision. This film almost succeeds as an expose of an artist's battles against the shallow studio system. The only problem, of course, being that the execs were justifiably upset by the fact that "Beholder" is such a god-awful film. The film succeeds almost accidentally, however, as an insight into the creative mind of the artist, and how dedication to one's vision is just as alive and well for the bad artists and hacks as it is in the work of the true visionaries.

Australian director Stephen Elliott's film "Eye of the Beholder" failed at the boxoffice and was trounced by critics. Why the film was so problematic is revealed in Lizzy Gardner's documentary, Killing Priscilla. While Elliot tries to secure funding and actors for his film, Hollywood suits advise and undermine his self-confidence and artistic vision. Shot as filming took place, Gardner's camera crew follows Elliott as he must juggle a shooting schedule, non-existent budget, and wanning interest in his film from Canada to San Francisco, Arizona, D.C. and London. A must for any film maker who dreams of Hollywood as the golden opportunity to make a career. Great snips between star Ewan McGregor and Elliot in rehersal for the film.

This film a remarkable insight into Hollywood and film making. No glitz, glamour or incessant sales-pitch spin here. Just long hours and endless struggles with the studio system. The film follows director Stephan Elliot during the making of EYE OF THE BEHOLDER (A fairly successful film that was generally considered to be mediocre at best; and I should add that I haven't seen it at the time of this post). After the massive world wide success of THE ADVENTURES OF PRISCILLA: QUEEN OF THE DESERT, Elliot's follow up, WELCOME TO WOOP WOOP, practically got him thrown out of the business. EYE had to be a success. With the casting coup of Ewan McGregor and Ashley Judd, both on the cusp of superstardom, as leads in a psycho-sexual thriller there was little chance it would fail. But strangely the studio doesn't seem to care. In fact, as this film tells it, every obstacle to its release is put up.This documentary shows us the movie business unadorned; the endless drafting, the constant lying and stroking of egos, the fact that a budget of 30mil only gives you about 8mil to work with after everyone down the line has skimmed a little. Watch as Stephan's vision and adaptation of the book are butchered, his set pieces are cut, the money dries up and the finished product (after many re-cuts) is left on the shelf for eighteen months and all but forgotten. This film is offputting but would make great preparation for anyone wanting to enter the business and anyone who ever dreamt of making movies.