Looker

source: Looker

Not awful. Michael Crichton's techo-thriller has a lot of great ideas floating around, but few are really fleshed out enough to make for a really good movie. Albert Finney plays a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon who stumbles upon a plot to kill off models (many of whom were his patients). The trail leads to a conglomerate run by oily James Coburn and his sexy goon Leigh Taylor Young. What he uncovers is a pretty clever plot to replace the models with computer generated replicas, thus allowing them to work forever without aging or getting paid. Unfortunately, the leaden pacing of the movie does it in. Finney seems surprisingly engaged, but Crichton has directed nothing. In fact, his direction here (as it was with COMA) is so without personality it has a deadening affect on everything. Coburn is fine in an all too brief role and Susan Dey is terrific as one of Finney's luckier patients.

With the use of digital technology becoming more and more prevalent in the way movies are made, and how the performances of actors can be manipulated, eradicated or even replaced entirely, LOOKER is more timely than it was when it was first released. Though the production values weren't top drawer, there are still great performances here by the leads, and an engaging thriller wrapped around what once upon a time was a fantastic, almost ludicrous concept, even for sci-fi. Albert Finney plays a plastic surgeon who services interesting new clientele: gorgeous model-types who know exactly what alterations they'd like made to their faces and bodies, down to the last centimeter. When these beautiful women start turning up dead after their operations, Finney finds he must get to the bottom of what's happening or be implicated as the prime suspect in their murders. What he finds is a corporate scheme to replace actor/models with computerized stand-ins, involving a technological advance using light sources for...but to say too much more would be giving it away. The theme of man's idiotic misuse of new technologies for greed and gain are as prevalent here as in most of his other work, but at no other time has the premise seemed more plausible than now. (The digital completion of Brandon Lee's performance in THE CROW after his untimely death was just the tip of the iceberg. I dare you to watch LOOKER, and not think of that instance without getting major goosebumps.) A sci-fi thriller that should have a DVD edition, but even on VHS it's definitely worth a...look.

Thinking about it, I'm not a very big fan of Michael Crichton. Westworld is a good film, but Coma was disappointing; and this film, Looker, isn't up to much at all. The early scenes and music indicate that the film is going to be another trashy eighties thriller, which is fine by me; but suddenly the film slows down to snail pace, and despite a few nice murder sequences early on; there really isn't much to remember Looker for. For this film, Crichton has took ideas from the worlds of plastic surgery and advertising, and attempted to blend them into a horror/thriller. To say he wasn't successful would be an understatement, as the plot requires a huge stretch of the imagination and the murders that happen early on never get anything in the way of an explanation. The film focuses on an eminent Beverley Hills plastic surgeon named Larry Roberts. After performing slight surgery on a number of almost perfect young women, he is surprised to find them turn up dead. After doing a bit of research, he stumbles on an advertising company called Digital Matrix, who have their own uses for 'perfect' women. Given that this is an early eighties film, you've got to expect some tacky visuals and an even tackier soundtrack; but the film takes these elements and then delivers a story that is far too serious in tone, and it doesn't bode well at all. Furthermore, Crichton's plotting is awful as the film quickly becomes boring when the writer-director starts forgetting to explain things properly. You can't fault him for imagination, as plastic surgery usually leads to an interesting film, and there's no end of social commentary that can be sprung from the world of advertising; but in failing to capitalise on the story's strong elements, Crichton has made what could have been a masterpiece into a dull and boring film. The acting isn't bad, but again; nothing to write home about. Albert Finney is good in the lead role, and he receives welcome feedback from the likes of James Coburn and Susan Dey. The film isn't all bad (just mostly), and there are a few memorable sequences; most notably a young girl falling several stories onto a car roof, and a scene at a dinner table towards the end; but I'm really surprised that this is given praise as an "unsung movie" - it certainly doesn't deserve it!

A plastic surgeon gets suspicious when the police question him about the death of a model he's worked on, and learns that all the models he's worked on who came in with "shopping lists" of miniscule changes that "had to be fixed, so I could be perfect," are dead. Susan Day has just come in with a list of her own, and he decides to keep an eye on her - and learns of a plot to use computer generated images made from detailed electronic measurements of the models to replace live models for commercials and acting. One bonus is about 3 minutes of Susan Day being measured, sans clothing. Let's face it, every boy who grew up watching "The Partridge Family" dreamed of the chance to see her like this! (The nudity is handled tastefully - there's nothing graphic.)

I first saw this movie on HBO as a child. I couldn't remember the name of th movie or who played in it, but I couldn't get the scene of Albert Finney on the commercial set near the end of the movie out of my mind. After asking around using that scene as my only guide, I was finally able to get someone to tell me. After watching it again, I was very interested in the movie's plot despite how ridiculous it seemed. For example, why would RI security officers be at the scene of a car accident? Why didn't DMI use computers to generate locations as well as models? Or why did the mustachioed man suddenly remember he had those special glasses in the car chase scene only AFTER being shot by the LOOKER gun? There are others. But it has it's redeeming qualities as well. The music is captivating and helps to build on the excitement of some of the action scenes. And I don't believe I've seen a more passionate kick to the groin than the one given by Albert Finney. All in all, Looker would probably not stand up next to today's movies, but it has a charm about it. It must have made some kind of impression on me as a child to remain in my head for the past 25 years. Recommended rental. Buy it if you like off-beat, quasi-mainstream movies. I bought it and plan on getting good use out of it. Perfect for unsuspecting house guests.

Mr. Friedman's review says it all. I loved this film when I first saw it and have never forgotten it. The premise includes the notion that, one day, it will be possible for computers to create lifelike images of real people. 20 yrs. later, we're still working on it, but close. Haven't seen it in a long time but remember it was dramatic and well executed. And yes, I'd personally see this film again just for that scene of Susan Dey's gorgeous bod being turned on a pedestal, being laser scanned into a computer.

Looker is a major disappointment. Michael Crichton proved his credentials with The First Great Train Robbery and Coma, but this is a real let-down in comparison. Albert Finney tries hard as a plastic surgeon who probes into a series of murders (those killed were all clients at his surgery). He gradually uncovers a bizarre advertising conspiracy, in which a powerful corporation has been using a hypnotic computerised image to increase the sales of its products. For the first half or so, this movie looks like it is going to be a real winner. It builds up intrigue. It has some effective suspense moments. It even has some sharp dialogue. Then, as the film enters its second half, the mystery begins to unravel and we are left to contend with a very weak solution. After setting up such an intriguing mystery, it's desperately disappointing to discover that what's really going on is so bland and unconvincing. Most of the second half comprises of muddled and derivative chase sequences and shootouts. Looker is ultimately not worth a look.

Dr. Larry Roberts (Albert Finney) is a top Beverly Hills plastic surgeon who finds himself embroiled in a sinister mind-control conspiracy. After three of his patients are killed in suspicious circumstances, Larry takes it upon himself to protect the apparent next victim, Cindy (the beautiful Susan Dey) and also solve the mystery. ‘Looker' is possibly director Michael Crichton's most criminally underrated film. Admittedly the screenplay often leaves a lot to be desired but the initial premise is both intriguing and fear-provoking. Crichton's script makes some rather fascinating, and in hindsight rather perceptive, comments about how corporations can abuse both the media and the general public simply through the use of television. Towards the end a particularly pertinent speech is made by John Reaston (James Coburn) on how the general public is willing to submit automatically to the enormous power that television possesses. However, much of the power that ‘Looker' could have potentially possessed is lost with poor pacing, inappropriate and unrealistic dialogue and a couple of major plot-holes. In fact, some eminent questions remain unanswered and the movie ends on a sort of anti-climatic note. Crichton's direction appears to be somewhat disjointed as the pace of the movie alternates constantly. To begin with ‘Looker' has the correct proportion of suspense to action and is quite thrilling to behold. Unfortunately, certain scenes such as a car chase drag on and become somewhat tedious. One particular sequence of events towards the end of the movie drags on for fifteen minutes and while to begin with is compellingly suspenseful, the sequence begins to feel old and certainly spoils what could have been an effective ending. ‘Looker' also suffers from some particular bland performances, particularly from central actor Albert Finney. His performance was predominantly lacklustre and featured uninspired sequences in which Finney would avoid gunfire by unenthusiastically throwing himself across the floor. That being said Finney did seem to fit the role of Larry Roberts and was fairly entertaining to watch. Susan Dey and James Coburn were both enjoyable in their respective roles and one wonders why more was not done with their characters. Had more time been spent trying to develop these characters then maybe something more could have been done with the movie. Surprisingly, despite all its flaws ‘Looker' is still somewhat compelling. It is certainly not Crichton's best film but is still vastly underrated in my opinion. The opening sequence is suspenseful and intriguing which is occasionally echoed throughout the rest of the movie, though unfortunately not enough. ‘Looker' is blessed with some wickedly delightful black humour, particularly towards the end and a bizarre, yet mesmerizing, electric musical score from Barry de Vorzon. Some fans will be happy to know that there are unnecessary scenes of full frontal nudity, including one from Susan Dey. The humorous overtones of that particular scene undoubtedly shine through. The ideas of hypnotic and subliminal messaging are what make ‘Looker' compelling even though the film is still heavily damaged by the lack of decent characterisation and storytelling. I think ‘Looker' is worth watching but is most certainly not to everyone's taste. My rating for ‘Looker' – 6.5/10.

Nearing its 20th birthday, "Looker" still holds up today as a solid techno-thriller. Expertly tucking a government/industrial conspiracy beneath a blanket of computer-phobic tension, the film manages to predate the success of the "X-Files" before cyberspace became a household word. Finney and Coburn are subtly superb in their roles, while Crichton (unintentionally) satirizes a media-saturated culture ripe for the string-pulling. Barry De Vorzon's score is hauntingly impressive (and sadly, unavailable in soundtrack form) as is the cheesy 80's title track performed by Sue Saad (later covered by Kim Carnes on her "Voyeur" album). People have slammed the script for its lack of explanation... however, a 15-minute scene depicting a rather detailed "summing up" of the plot was deleted from the theatrical/home video cut, but did make the film's network TV airings. With or without the scene, the film is an often-overlooked gem I would strongly recommend to anyone in the mood for a slick, sci-fi thriller.