Look

I really like this movie. Taking the conceit of ubiquitous surveillance cameras and crafting a movie is a great idea and nicely executed.

Remember CRASH. Those were "real life' stories of urban life. Rifkin goes one step further to create "real life" scenarios from surveillance footage. Or seemingly surveillance footage shot on a Sony Cine Alta camera. From sexual charged females caught in a dressing room to a body locked in a car trunk, this is a tour de force of human behavior often caught in the eyes of a security camera.

I thought it was very real at first and was delighted to find it was scripted. And the actors did a great job of being "candid". The stockroom scenes are a seduction delight. The car with the body it in reminded me of the parking lot scenes in Fargo.

Now with Paranormal, we may be entering a Security Camera era of filmmaking. In fact this style of filmmaking reminds me of the mies en scene filmmaking style in the early 1900's, and shows what is happening in front of the camera is more important that what is happening with the camera.

Viewers may went to watch David Holtzman's Diary, by Jim McBride make in the 60's.

This movie is basically several stories woven together, with the technical constraint of only using footage from any security cameras that would have seen them. It's an interesting approach, but beyond that I found the actual stories lacking.

This wouldn't be so bad if the packaging didn't make it out as a movie that showed why security cameras were bad; ironically, almost all the significant things the cameras capture the characters doing involve breaking the law or other poor things that you want cameras to capture. Regardless, with so many cameras out there, there's no way even a small fraction of them can be watched by people all the time, since there are so many millions of hours produced each day.

At some point I also realized that *none* of the shots in the movie are from actual security cameras, rather they're all done with movie cameras and then digitally altered to look like security camera footage (blurry, camera ID and time text overlay). Sometimes peoples' faces are pixelated out, as if these were real security camera shots, even though this is just fiction. This for me seemed almost deceptive, trying to trick the audience into believing it was from real security cameras. I don't even think cameras are legal in dressing rooms, as in the gratuitous opening shot of the movie.

I found this movie disappointing, but still have to respect the creators for the interesting technical constraint of having all shots from security cameras. That's its only saving grace.

Didn't think from synopsis I would be into this, but was hooked in the first 10 minutes. Really engaging and fascinating how the format draws you in. Good, solid entertainment. Very well executed.

The lack of traditional camera-work and the ugliness that inherently comes with this "security cam" type footage was a big issue for me before I even started watching it, but once into it I forgot it entirely. The great thing about it is that not only is it fun and enthralling, but it gets your thinking about the whole concept of voyeurism and how often we're being watched. Check this out for something different but refreshing. Definitely recommend it.

i guess the purpose of this movie is too show that no matter where you are,there's a surveillance camera recording your every movement.that might make some paranoid,but others might be indifferent to it.i mean,if you have nothing to hide,who cares,right.but this isn'rt really a movie Per Se.it's more a cluster of vignettes some of which are connected,others which are not.it regardless,it isn't very realistic.and there are a lot of scenes,that could kindly be referred to as filler.you'll have to view it to find out more.there are no big name actors here,which is a plus.form a purely entertainment point of view,it's not bad.from an information standpoint,i don't think it's as good,though.but if you want something to pass the time,this works.for me,Look is a 6/10

"Look", more like watch, takes the movie experience to a new high in voyeurism. Using the medium of film in a new way, Director Adam Rifkin employs the idea and view of surveillance cameras to construct a very thought provoking masterpiece. As the movie opens before any flesh is exposed we are greeted by "facts" about the world of surveillance. It is explained that on any given day an average American can be captured on camera about 200 times. If that's not interesting enough what follows is even more engaging.

The real heroism in coming up with this idea for a picture is the competency for telling it. "Look" could have easily become some pet project that explored the fascinating world of eyes in the sky and manifested in to some stimulating avant-garde piece. Yet, Mr. Rifkin explores, in a very Altmanesque arrangement, the intertwining of seemingly ordinary lives, if only outwardly, and exposes them intimately. Not only is "Look" visually engaging but the story holds up as well.

"Look" is a breakthrough in cinema for creativity and style, reminiscent of other achievers, "Shortbus" by John Cameron Mitchell, "Waking Life" by Richard Liklater and Darren Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream". It doesn't just break barriers in film-making it embraces structure, story, tone and pace to create the ultimate engaging movie experience.