Like this.

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 Vinci 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 disappeared.

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.

That's how 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 on DVD.

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 be.

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.