Looker

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.