L'ordinateur meurtrier

You can take Michael Crichton's Looker, a way-back-then-high tech thriller with a media-industrial complex, one of two ways. Either it's an interesting preview of computer graphics being used for nefarious advertising gain, with a crime mystery to solve or it's a clumsily acted and directed story of how James Coburn is out to slaughter Albert Finney and Susan Dey using all sorts of out-of-this-world gizmos and tactics.

Personally, I think it's both.

Much like Crichton's Westworld, the movie depends heavily on the computer arts to fill in for substance, and like Westworld, it succeeds. Looker is a pleasant and exciting little period piece, a time capsule for what science and advertising might be heading toward in the not too distant future.

To be fair to yourself, you must forgive the creaky performances by Finney, Dey, and Coburn (plus everyone else). It's the combination of guns, girls, and gadgets that keep the story moving (Crichton gets your attention at the very start by introducing a television lovely asking plastic surgeon Finney to alter her in strangely precise details; then you get the pre-surgery mugshots of the girl with her supposed imperfections--and what imperfections!--in full view). It's cheap and creepy, but everyone in the theater was hooked instantly by the looker on screen.

Don't look too closely, though. The plot holes are big and numerous, so thinking is not recommended. It's the flash-attachments-on-steroids that cause catatonia and the computer mapping of Susan Dey, standing there with her imperfections exposed, that keep you interested. It's strange--I've always liked Dey's looks and I'm not about to complain about seeing her in the all-together, but the bloodlessness of computers, their soul-less nature robs the scene of its prurient nature.

Crichton has hit upon something here. Computers make us so nervous, even a quarter century later, that the use of a story of cynical cyber-manipulation of consumers robs the viewer of getting his or her jollies out of seeing good-looking people nekked or in danger or both. In some ways it robs us of our interest in the human drama that movies depend on to be of lasting quality. It's a double edged sword, but it's both subtle and very effective.

In general, Looker isn't subtle, nor is it a wholly satisfying entertainment, but it does deserve a look.

This movie still holds up. I'm incredibly impatient for films to get going. So, this one is a keeper. Truly entertaining from start to finish. Even the theme song is catchy. Visually fun. Well directed.

Michael Crichton's "Looker" is a challenging and intelligent thriller that's better than you would expect. Since most reviews of the film are negative, that's created an unfair bias against it. That's a shame because this film is a pleasure to watch.

The plot is like a Rubik's Cube. Just when you thought you had it figured out, WHAM!! a twist comes out of nowhere and confounds the viewer. That's one of the films' pleasures.

The stylish photography is another plus. A key part of all of Crichton's films is the flashy, stylish photography and that's no exception here. Shot by Paul Lohmann in Panavision, "Looker" often looks and feels like "Westworld" mixed with "Coma" polished with lemon pledge. It's atmospheric and great to look at.

The performances are another key. Albert Finney, entering the horror cycle of his career (with this and another 1981 release "Wolfen", which contains many of the same elements that make this so good), projects fear and calm every scene he's in and it's another strong performance from one of our most underrated actors (he's never won an Oscar; a thought that boggled the mind). It seems fitting that he's paired up with another underrated actor, James Coburn. In a time where he was making one horrible film after another (until his renaissance in 1997), it's good to see him in a good film for a change.

I have some problems with the plot, mostly things that are left unexplained (the American TV/European theatrical version restores 15 minutes of story that fills in these holes) Now that I think about it, that's a good thing. Crichton wants us to be confused just like his hero and part of the fun is figuring everything out as he does.

"Looker" is a film that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as "Westworld", "Coma" and "The Great Train Robbery". It shows impeccable skill and masterful direction that lesser talents have shown in bigger hits than this. It's worth a look.

**** out of 4 stars

Obviously forgotten today, and maybe that's a problem.

Michael Crichton dealt in practical Science Fiction. How a potential technology could really cause problems in the here and now. This movie hit on a few of them, some of which HAVE come to pass.

His premise is that computers could be used to simulate characters (already has happened) and that they could be used to influence us by using algorithms to calculate our optimum responses. (Again, probably happening now, even if we don't know about it.)

The plot is that a plastic surgeon is asked to alter four women into perfect specimens, but three of them are killed after wards (they never really explain why.) In trying to protect the last, whom he develops a personal bond with, he uncovers a plot to use computer generated images (wow, and now they are real!) to manipulate our responses.

A note on nudity. We have Susan Dey of Partridge family fame going topless in a couple of scenes. We'd NEVER see that now. If we are lucky, we might see a name actress have her head CGI'd (ironic) onto a body double. But usually, the MPAA would go completely nuts and give the film an R or NC-17 rating.

Some things are dated, such as tape-reading computers and big hair on the women- SO 1980's. But the film's concepts hold up pretty well.

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.