The following day, he receives a package of the stolen money from the thief. But he is forced to put his plans on hold when 1.8 billion is stolen from a bank truck, and then 600 kg of gold from an airport, with the thief having impersonated Baek. Particularly worrisome are treatment options presented that sound plausible enough, like using a yttrium aluminium garnet (YAG) laser, a tool that’s become commonplace in ophthalmology, but which do not yet have much empirical support or approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. Veteran police detective Baek Seong-chan is on the verge of retiring to set up his own business. That’s high enough that such patients “should be triaged for urgent ophthalmologic assessment.”ĭespite the fact that for most folks the condition is not problematic, a cursory internet search yields a plethora of treatment ideas, ranging from the nonsensical (yoga) to the plausible but invasive (surgery). A recent Journal of the American Medical Association study found that patients with an acute onset of floaters referred to ophthalmologists had a 14% likelihood of having a retinal tear. PVD can then lead to retinal tearing and, eventually, to blindness. The sudden and intense onset of floaters in older people, for example, can suggest something called posterior vitreous detachment or PVD, the separation of the vitreous humour from the retina. Since most people either learn to live with the condition or the floaters eventually disappear, most researchers and practitioners consider the condition to be benign.īut for others, the phenomenon can lead to more serious distress or impairment, or it can be a herald for future problems. But only about a third of them complained about detrimental effects on their vision.
Out of 603 Android users, about 446 or 74% reported floaters. Another study used a smartphone app to assess the prevalence of floaters in the general population. According to one UK study, each optometrist can expect an average of 14 patients per month complaining of floaters.
But between the lens and the retina lies an ocean of liquid referred to as vitreous humour, vitreous gel, or sometimes just vitreous.īased on optometrists’ reports, it’s a fairly common phenomenon. When the neurons that form the retina become excited by light, they send messages through the optic nerve and into the brain, relaying information about just what it is you’re seeing. Between the two lies a small reservoir of liquid called the aqueous humour.Ī layer of light-sensitive cells lining the back of your eye is called the retina. At the front of your eye is the cornea, and behind it you can find the pupil (the dark centre of your eye) and the iris (the colourful fringe around the pupil). To understand where they come from, it helps to bone up on a little ocular anatomy.
They’re really there, drifting about inside your eyes. Cast & Crew Sally Field Karen McCann Kiefer Sutherland Robert Doob Ed Harris Mack McCann Beverly DAngelo Dolly Green Joe Mantegna Det. They may appear as spots, small threads, filaments, or cobwebs and they’re not optical illusions. The perception of these floating apparitions, sometimes also called vitreous floaters or Muscae volitantes (Latin for “flying flies”), is known as myodesopsia. Enjoyable, but flawed, Eye for an Eye is the type of film that you watch on a rainy night when there's nothing else better to do.You might not know their official name, but you’ve no doubt seen eye floaters. However keep your expectations low on this one as it doesn't try to do anything creative to elevate the boundaries of the genre. If you want a mindless, somewhat predictable thriller, then give this film a shot. As a whole this is an entertaining flick that I liked somewhat, but I did feel that it could have been much better than what it turned out to be. The strength of the film lies in Sutherland's performance. This is not a bad film, but it could have been so much better. Eye for an Eye is a prime example of a decent flick that could have been much better, but ended up of falling flat of its mark. Director John Schlesinger could have done a bit better and considering that this is a revenge thriller, the way the film could have ended up could have turned out so much better if the script was better written, and some parts would have been rewritten. Kiefer Sutherland is a great villain in the film, and his performance makes the film worth watching despite its flaws.
There things that I liked about the film, but overall I felt that the film had too much wasted potential on-screen. The script has a good idea for a plot, but it definitely could have used a few rewrites because the finished the film seems to struggle in delivering great thrills. Decent, but flawed thriller, Eye for an Eye could have been much better than what it turned out to be.