35 reviews
"Windows" was directed by noted cinematographer (and frequent Woody Allen collaborator) Gordon Willis, and as one would expect, he has a great eye for artful compositions, creative use of light / shadow, and New York. The film is (nearly) always visually interesting, which helps sustain it through a rather thin story. Elizabeth Ashley is both touching and unsettling, but Talia Shire seemed to have already been typecast into the mousy, "Rocky's wife" type of roles. Trivia: apparently in 1979 you could rent an apartment in Brooklyn Heights for $300 a month!! **1/2 out of 4.
- gridoon2025
- Aug 16, 2019
- Permalink
There are two reasons to watch this movie: Gordon Willis's cinematography & Elizabeth Ashley. It's not as lame as it is made out to be and has exquisite production values, but that being said, it is very niche, succeeding neither as a slasher nor a thriller, but occupying some odd space in between.
"Windows" also reminds us that you can be a great cinematographer but that doesn't necessarily translate to directing: in fact, Gordon Willis never directed another movie again. As far as Elizabeth Ashley, for those not acquainted she was sort of a Tallulah Bankhead of the 70s and 80s. She had a storied Broadway career and multiple husbands and was on The Tonight Show more than 20 times simply because Carson found her amusing. She is captivating, even in claptrap melodrama like this.
This movie was lambasted by the critics when it first came out, snuffing out Talia Shire's major studio leading lady career in the process. Shire had been a hot property after "The Godfather" and "Rocky" movies...but she made three high profile bombs in a row: "Old Boyfriends", "Prophecy", and, finally, "Windows." Film careers ending after a bomb or two happened to a lot of actresses back then and Shire was probably given more chances than most but the bottom line was she just couldn't carry a film.
The movie looks terrific. Ashley wears a series of shimmery Bloomingdales middle-aged Disco blouses and it is impossible not to look at her. She's very interesting as an actress. The city is shot like a lullaby...to Brooklyn (The Brooklyn Heights Promenade and Cher's Cranberry Street block in Moonstruck figure prominently, as does The River Café as well as Fulton Street near Brooklyn Bridge Park, or as it referred to in Windows: "River Street") and Pearl Street in Lower Manhattan. The use of locations is a wonder and everything is very desolate. It definitely creates a mood of unease.
Now, the problems. I don't have an issue with Shire's character, exactly. She is beyond mousey and nearly sexless, with her Prince Valiant hair and series of brown patterned sweater vests and plaid shirts worthy of an assistant librarian. She is certainly not someone one would expect Ashley to be obsessed with. Perhaps that is the point? But we'll never know because the entire story is underdeveloped. It seems to want to coast by on suspense but that is a flaw because there is hardly any suspense whatsoever. The film may have somewhat succeeded had it put some effort into characterizations. Instead we get some hints at what could have been and a choppy series of dull vignettes culminating in an anticlimactic showdown between Ashley and Shire. I do like that they don't spell everything out for you and, if you pause to think, the chain of events is coherent. But it's just not enough.
"Windows" could have been interesting. I think they were going for something akin to "let's make a women's picture about sexual obsession" but then lost their way. Ultimately, it is almost completely devoid of energy but a pleasure to look at and Ashley is always a treat to observe...even when she is wearing eyeglasses the size of dessert plates and stroking an enormous phallic telescope.
"Windows" also reminds us that you can be a great cinematographer but that doesn't necessarily translate to directing: in fact, Gordon Willis never directed another movie again. As far as Elizabeth Ashley, for those not acquainted she was sort of a Tallulah Bankhead of the 70s and 80s. She had a storied Broadway career and multiple husbands and was on The Tonight Show more than 20 times simply because Carson found her amusing. She is captivating, even in claptrap melodrama like this.
This movie was lambasted by the critics when it first came out, snuffing out Talia Shire's major studio leading lady career in the process. Shire had been a hot property after "The Godfather" and "Rocky" movies...but she made three high profile bombs in a row: "Old Boyfriends", "Prophecy", and, finally, "Windows." Film careers ending after a bomb or two happened to a lot of actresses back then and Shire was probably given more chances than most but the bottom line was she just couldn't carry a film.
The movie looks terrific. Ashley wears a series of shimmery Bloomingdales middle-aged Disco blouses and it is impossible not to look at her. She's very interesting as an actress. The city is shot like a lullaby...to Brooklyn (The Brooklyn Heights Promenade and Cher's Cranberry Street block in Moonstruck figure prominently, as does The River Café as well as Fulton Street near Brooklyn Bridge Park, or as it referred to in Windows: "River Street") and Pearl Street in Lower Manhattan. The use of locations is a wonder and everything is very desolate. It definitely creates a mood of unease.
Now, the problems. I don't have an issue with Shire's character, exactly. She is beyond mousey and nearly sexless, with her Prince Valiant hair and series of brown patterned sweater vests and plaid shirts worthy of an assistant librarian. She is certainly not someone one would expect Ashley to be obsessed with. Perhaps that is the point? But we'll never know because the entire story is underdeveloped. It seems to want to coast by on suspense but that is a flaw because there is hardly any suspense whatsoever. The film may have somewhat succeeded had it put some effort into characterizations. Instead we get some hints at what could have been and a choppy series of dull vignettes culminating in an anticlimactic showdown between Ashley and Shire. I do like that they don't spell everything out for you and, if you pause to think, the chain of events is coherent. But it's just not enough.
"Windows" could have been interesting. I think they were going for something akin to "let's make a women's picture about sexual obsession" but then lost their way. Ultimately, it is almost completely devoid of energy but a pleasure to look at and Ashley is always a treat to observe...even when she is wearing eyeglasses the size of dessert plates and stroking an enormous phallic telescope.
WINDOWS (1980) */****
One of the all-time worst films I've ever seen. It's been 25 years since I saw this in a tiny theatre and simultaneously watched it vanish from history without a trace. This recent second viewing via a VHS dupe from some unknown source did not improve things much, but I've got a story to tell about this movie and how it's eluded me for such a very long time. This has become almost a "lost" film, and I'll have a theory later as to why nobody's seeing it anymore, aside from the basic fact that it simply stinks.
In 1980 I was 17 and went to see WINDOWS at the movies with my kid sister. It was only one of the two times in my life I ever recall going to a theatre with her, and we were both in shock at just how abysmal the feature before our eyes was. It was boring, badly acted, and by the final act, completely laughable. The whole theatre was in hysterics. It's not the kind of experience you forget when you're a movie fan, even 25 years after the fact.
The movie starts in its New York City setting with lousy actress Talia Shire (who apparently thinks she's still playing the timid Adrian from the first ROCKY film) being assaulted and raped in her own apartment, getting forced at knifepoint to moan and groan into the attacker's tape recorder. We later discover (and since it's not presented as any kind of mystery I'm not ruining anything that hasn't already been ruined) that Shire's got a psychotic and horny lesbian neighbor (Elizabeth Ashley) across the hall who's so in love with her that Ashley actually hired this rapist/goon to pull off the crime - so she can play the tape over and over and get off on it to her heart's content.
When Talia decides to move to a nicer apartment to start anew, Elizabeth and her loose screws aren't very far behind. She'll do anything to make Talia love her, as her ineffective psychiatrist seems to be aware. Enter vapid policeman Joseph Cortese (who's about as interesting as a door stop) to romance Shire (what the hell do Ashley and Cortese see in her insipid character anyway?) and "help" her ... in an unbelievable sequence, Shire is in a cab with a driver whom she recognizes as the rapist; she asks to be let off at a phone booth, calls the police, but is instructed to get back in the car with her attacker till the cops can get to them!
Besides being ineptly acted, WINDOWS is also dull and boring, but there's something curiously watchable about it for fans of bad movies only, for all its incompetence. It was the first and only film (no wonder) to be directed by cinematographer Gordon Willis; it was his photography that graced THE GODFATHER and some of Woody Allen's picturesque movies, so his shots of New York may be the one thing to watch for here, aside from getting a load of Elizabeth Ashley's embarrassing climax with Talia Shire. This film is also notorious as being the very FIRST film to be released in the entire decade of the 1980's, and of course as of this writing it's a movie that is virtually impossible to locate, as it was never released on home video except in France (I believe). It was through the wonders of the Internet that I was able to hunt this thing down and see how bad it still is.
So why has this film been so hard to track down? Well, for starters, it's got to be a humiliation to everyone involved. I'm fairly positive it's owned by Warner Brothers, and my personal opinion is that, in this Politically Correct world of today, we just cannot have a film available that depicts a homicidal maniac when she also happens to be a lesbian. But that in itself has made the movie all the more desirable for a viewing, and it's at the very least a reminder of the type of movies filmmakers used to be allowed to make. Proceed at your own risk -- if you can ever find a copy, that is.
One of the all-time worst films I've ever seen. It's been 25 years since I saw this in a tiny theatre and simultaneously watched it vanish from history without a trace. This recent second viewing via a VHS dupe from some unknown source did not improve things much, but I've got a story to tell about this movie and how it's eluded me for such a very long time. This has become almost a "lost" film, and I'll have a theory later as to why nobody's seeing it anymore, aside from the basic fact that it simply stinks.
In 1980 I was 17 and went to see WINDOWS at the movies with my kid sister. It was only one of the two times in my life I ever recall going to a theatre with her, and we were both in shock at just how abysmal the feature before our eyes was. It was boring, badly acted, and by the final act, completely laughable. The whole theatre was in hysterics. It's not the kind of experience you forget when you're a movie fan, even 25 years after the fact.
The movie starts in its New York City setting with lousy actress Talia Shire (who apparently thinks she's still playing the timid Adrian from the first ROCKY film) being assaulted and raped in her own apartment, getting forced at knifepoint to moan and groan into the attacker's tape recorder. We later discover (and since it's not presented as any kind of mystery I'm not ruining anything that hasn't already been ruined) that Shire's got a psychotic and horny lesbian neighbor (Elizabeth Ashley) across the hall who's so in love with her that Ashley actually hired this rapist/goon to pull off the crime - so she can play the tape over and over and get off on it to her heart's content.
When Talia decides to move to a nicer apartment to start anew, Elizabeth and her loose screws aren't very far behind. She'll do anything to make Talia love her, as her ineffective psychiatrist seems to be aware. Enter vapid policeman Joseph Cortese (who's about as interesting as a door stop) to romance Shire (what the hell do Ashley and Cortese see in her insipid character anyway?) and "help" her ... in an unbelievable sequence, Shire is in a cab with a driver whom she recognizes as the rapist; she asks to be let off at a phone booth, calls the police, but is instructed to get back in the car with her attacker till the cops can get to them!
Besides being ineptly acted, WINDOWS is also dull and boring, but there's something curiously watchable about it for fans of bad movies only, for all its incompetence. It was the first and only film (no wonder) to be directed by cinematographer Gordon Willis; it was his photography that graced THE GODFATHER and some of Woody Allen's picturesque movies, so his shots of New York may be the one thing to watch for here, aside from getting a load of Elizabeth Ashley's embarrassing climax with Talia Shire. This film is also notorious as being the very FIRST film to be released in the entire decade of the 1980's, and of course as of this writing it's a movie that is virtually impossible to locate, as it was never released on home video except in France (I believe). It was through the wonders of the Internet that I was able to hunt this thing down and see how bad it still is.
So why has this film been so hard to track down? Well, for starters, it's got to be a humiliation to everyone involved. I'm fairly positive it's owned by Warner Brothers, and my personal opinion is that, in this Politically Correct world of today, we just cannot have a film available that depicts a homicidal maniac when she also happens to be a lesbian. But that in itself has made the movie all the more desirable for a viewing, and it's at the very least a reminder of the type of movies filmmakers used to be allowed to make. Proceed at your own risk -- if you can ever find a copy, that is.
This is one of those flicks I've wanted to see since it came out (I was underage at the time). The plot just sounded very freaky and bizarre. Regardless, it is one of the THE most impossible films to find since I don't believe it got a video release (except overseas) and I don't even think it played on cable in the '80s. It is however on YouTube now :-).
This film gets trashed by a lot of people immediately as being non-PC and homophobic. I think that's more a signpost of when the film was released, when attitudes toward people with other orientations weren't so enlightened.
No, the core problem behind this picture is that it's just a raving, stinking mess, and it really is virtually all Willis' fault. When you read the opening credits, your jaw drops...they read like an A-list of movie greats: Morricone, Bourne, Willis as DP. How could they screw this up? Easy. A) Don't build any suspense; B) Don't establish any characters or motivations; C) Allow the writer to write any damn thing he wants to, no matter how stupid or no matter what expense to the actors; D) Resort to constant dissolves when you don't know what else to do, especially since there is virtually no coherent action; E) Don't direct your actors...after all they're pros, they know exactly what to do. The list goes on....
This is a stalker movie....it should be about stalking. There is absolutely no fear built, no tension. It's a real master class in wasted celluloid.
Still, part of me has to admire this in a way you sometimes admire any bad movie. It sure didn't have any self-censoring going on. it did what it wanted to do and took no prisoners. One of the many things that makes it a museum piece today, even if that museum is a wax one.
This film gets trashed by a lot of people immediately as being non-PC and homophobic. I think that's more a signpost of when the film was released, when attitudes toward people with other orientations weren't so enlightened.
No, the core problem behind this picture is that it's just a raving, stinking mess, and it really is virtually all Willis' fault. When you read the opening credits, your jaw drops...they read like an A-list of movie greats: Morricone, Bourne, Willis as DP. How could they screw this up? Easy. A) Don't build any suspense; B) Don't establish any characters or motivations; C) Allow the writer to write any damn thing he wants to, no matter how stupid or no matter what expense to the actors; D) Resort to constant dissolves when you don't know what else to do, especially since there is virtually no coherent action; E) Don't direct your actors...after all they're pros, they know exactly what to do. The list goes on....
This is a stalker movie....it should be about stalking. There is absolutely no fear built, no tension. It's a real master class in wasted celluloid.
Still, part of me has to admire this in a way you sometimes admire any bad movie. It sure didn't have any self-censoring going on. it did what it wanted to do and took no prisoners. One of the many things that makes it a museum piece today, even if that museum is a wax one.
- moonspinner55
- Mar 4, 2001
- Permalink
WINDOWS reminds me of REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE. When REFLECTIONS came out in 1967, it had the book thrown at it for being deviant, sick, perverse, reactionary, offensive, pretentious (which is such a mouthful that it makes one believe that the hater(s)doth protest too much). On top of these epithets, was the final body blow, and "just plain boring." It's difficult to be all of the above and be "just plain boring" to boot which is the reason I was compelled to check out both movies. I'm glad I did. WINDOWS is not the outright triumph REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE is, but it's thoughtful and original about something that shouldn't be dismissed by film lovers out of court. It's not sleazy or exploitative; as a matter of fact, that's a major problem with it. It refuses to further sensationalize its wildly lurid "givens." It's artful enough in its intentions to try to suggest that the tragedy of urban life is not the violence of melodramatic evil, but the glass cubicles people live in that link and separate them in devastatingly emotional ways. Gordon Willis' direction is typical of a first time director. It suffers from being too studied but it's far from daft or moronic; visually, it's as thought through as REAR WINDOW, its obvious predecessor in voyeurism. But there's nothing in REAR WINDOW, as seriously naked and exposed as Elizabeth Ashley's performance. It's interesting that when great actors like Brando (in REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE), and Ashley in WINDOWS attempt something that goes beyond the average viewer's opinion of how a homosexual SHOULD be portrayed, there's is an automatic reflex action on the part of said viewer to distance themselves from the performance, to laugh at it or automatically dismiss it as being "over the top." This response is, in fact, more reactionary than the sins that have been dumped in the picture's lap. WINDOWS is not as dumb or insensitive as the knee jerk response it provokes in most people who feign an interest in the dark side until it becomes too real.
- jacegaffney
- Sep 15, 2013
- Permalink
I found this film the other day at a market stall; quite an obscure film. The film appears to be quite good when you read the back of the box, but when you watch it...really awful. The only thing Gordon Willis seemed to care about was the photography. In a film like this you need great acting. We don't get great acting however and you cannot take the film seriously. It just gets ludicrous at times, especially the psycho-lesbian lover storyline. It is disgracefully misogynistic, which is another reason not to watch the film.
I will say that the film's photography is stunning though (similar to woody allen's 'interiors') but that is the only reason to watch this garbage.
I will say that the film's photography is stunning though (similar to woody allen's 'interiors') but that is the only reason to watch this garbage.
- kristdavidson
- Jun 7, 2002
- Permalink
Windows is a misunderstood comment on society. Viewers obviously didn't understand in 1980 exactly what director Gordan Willis was trying to convey. This is an examination of gender and sexuality that could never be made today. Shire gives an understated and believable performance and took this risky role that helped end her promising career. Shire however has the last laugh as she can proudly look back now and remember that she made an important film. The cinematography and set design makes this an important chapter in the urban thriller genre. Fans of Gordan Willis will be thrilled by the cinematography, as he directed this motion picture and thereby was given free reign to show off his creative genius. Shire however has the last laugh as she could proudly look back now and remember that she made an important film. This is a great complement to Coppla's The Conversation. The two make an exciting great double feature. I implore you to join me in my campaign to bring this underrated gem to DVD and help it achieve its rightful place among cinemas classic titles.
- danielturek
- Aug 14, 2006
- Permalink
- acidburn-10
- Jul 28, 2009
- Permalink
- richard-seelbach
- Dec 9, 2007
- Permalink
This is a fascinating, however flawed film. It's hardly perfect, as so many of the negative reviews here will attest. But it's not nearly as awful as so many people expecting something else - more blood? more bodies? more shock cuts? more exposition? more girl-on-girl action? - might suggest. "Windows" is the only film directed by celebrated cinematographer Gordon Willis, the "Prince of Darkness" who photographed the Godfather films, "All the President's Men" and a number of Woody Allen's best films made between 1977 and 1985.
"Windows" is a stunningly beautiful film, shot on location in Brooklyn with many gorgeous shots of NYC (with the Twin Towers off in the distance) and many angles of the Brooklyn Bridge. Willis was a native New Yorker and obviously loves the city (as evinced in the gorgeous "Manhattan") and he films New York in a way that makes you feel like you are part of the story. The story that was filmed obviously differs from the original script ("Corky") that was provided. Willis seemed to want a movie that was more Hitchcock (think "Rear Window") than Hitchcockian (think "Dressed to Kill"). But the result is, well, not much of either. Indeed, Elizabeth Ashley's character went from man-transitioning to manly lesbian...like that made any more sense. And Talia Shire's damsel in distress is, well, just distressing.
There was also a bit more Hitchcockian humor in the original script, which is unfortunately absent here. Many things appear to be missing here: scene after scene ends suddenly and unresolved; some scenes play out with no dialogue or resolution; Ennio Morricone's score seems heavily edited; Talia Shire's character, Emily, doesn't seem to be all there herself - and her oddity doesn't explain her sexual appeal to everyone; Emily's relationship with Andrea (pronounced not like the woman's name, but rather a man's name) is never realistically explained; the attack at the beginning of the film seems unusually staged (even though that's exactly what it is) - and the cab ride with the perp is unbelievable in the extreme. The film winds up as a series of weird compromises that cannot have pleased anyone.
Still, "Windows" is worth watching. Willis may not have made a great director, but what he puts up on screen is utterly fascinating. The way he lights scenes and doesn't light faces is amazing. He can make you fear Elizabeth Ashley while she does little more than throw a creepy shadow. The location shooting can't be beat. Elizabeth Ashley gives a bravura performance, even if it doesn't make much sense...but there's no accounting for someone in love. Even if the final film differs from what might have originally been intended, there is something here, as in "Eyes of Laura Mars," "Cruising," "American Gigolo" and "The Fan," that is credible and fun to watch. It's also a top-tier NYC film.
"Windows" is a stunningly beautiful film, shot on location in Brooklyn with many gorgeous shots of NYC (with the Twin Towers off in the distance) and many angles of the Brooklyn Bridge. Willis was a native New Yorker and obviously loves the city (as evinced in the gorgeous "Manhattan") and he films New York in a way that makes you feel like you are part of the story. The story that was filmed obviously differs from the original script ("Corky") that was provided. Willis seemed to want a movie that was more Hitchcock (think "Rear Window") than Hitchcockian (think "Dressed to Kill"). But the result is, well, not much of either. Indeed, Elizabeth Ashley's character went from man-transitioning to manly lesbian...like that made any more sense. And Talia Shire's damsel in distress is, well, just distressing.
There was also a bit more Hitchcockian humor in the original script, which is unfortunately absent here. Many things appear to be missing here: scene after scene ends suddenly and unresolved; some scenes play out with no dialogue or resolution; Ennio Morricone's score seems heavily edited; Talia Shire's character, Emily, doesn't seem to be all there herself - and her oddity doesn't explain her sexual appeal to everyone; Emily's relationship with Andrea (pronounced not like the woman's name, but rather a man's name) is never realistically explained; the attack at the beginning of the film seems unusually staged (even though that's exactly what it is) - and the cab ride with the perp is unbelievable in the extreme. The film winds up as a series of weird compromises that cannot have pleased anyone.
Still, "Windows" is worth watching. Willis may not have made a great director, but what he puts up on screen is utterly fascinating. The way he lights scenes and doesn't light faces is amazing. He can make you fear Elizabeth Ashley while she does little more than throw a creepy shadow. The location shooting can't be beat. Elizabeth Ashley gives a bravura performance, even if it doesn't make much sense...but there's no accounting for someone in love. Even if the final film differs from what might have originally been intended, there is something here, as in "Eyes of Laura Mars," "Cruising," "American Gigolo" and "The Fan," that is credible and fun to watch. It's also a top-tier NYC film.
I only viewed this film one time in my life, at a theatre some twenty years ago in 1980. It's rare that one can recall how awful a movie is based on a single screening two decades later, but trust me about WINDOWS. I don't believe the flick has ever been released for home video on any format, and it appears to be lost. Thank Heavens. I'll never forget the audience howling in uncontrollable laughter at the goings-on in this abomination!
Directed by the cinematographer of THE GODFATHER and starring 2 good actresses. Storyline is quite interesting and camera job impressive. It is an original movie. As it was a Warner release (and as I have the Warner Home Vidéo VHS in French version) I wonder how the former commentary can wonder if it was released in vidéo ? Besides, it is the perfect example of a, by now, rare title, which sould be offered again on DVD with sharp image quality and, of course, French soundtrack or subtitles !
The first film to kick of the 1980s and having somewhat of a cult reputation due to its daring (if not explicit) lesbian overtones and somewhat box-office failure. "Windows" is an immensely so-so, dour obsessive psycho thriller affair with some creative photography and an effectively sensitive lead turn by Talia Shire (who just came off "Rocky 2"). She really does impress in her timid role and convincingly portrays someone who's battling their own insecurity. Outside the sullen cinematography, Shire's performance and the slightly disturbing and intense opening assault sequence. It's rather disappointing, overdone and a banal effort.
Elizabeth Ashley starring opposite of Shire as the compulsively manipulative and startling neurotic friend who really takes a liking to Shire's character. What she does to her is really screwed up, unstable and it generates a real uneasy mood around her when on screen. However I find her stalker performance grating and somewhat off. Joseph Cortese gives a sleepy turn as the detective looking into the case and the uninteresting love interest formed with Shire. The rest of the support add little colour.
Cinematographer Gordon Willis makes his film debut and so far to be his only crack at the director's helm. For most part it meanders with little in the way of suspense. Slowly building towards it underwhelming payoff. Sure it can be malicious and dark in an atmospheric sense, but the dreary script bungles the psychological interplay with uneven patterns, ridiculous turns and blatant clichés that just go nowhere. It's the imagery that lingers with authentic urban locations, where lighting had that neon-touch with dim, shadowy passages and Ennio Morricone's music score is smoothly melancholy.
"It hurts".
Elizabeth Ashley starring opposite of Shire as the compulsively manipulative and startling neurotic friend who really takes a liking to Shire's character. What she does to her is really screwed up, unstable and it generates a real uneasy mood around her when on screen. However I find her stalker performance grating and somewhat off. Joseph Cortese gives a sleepy turn as the detective looking into the case and the uninteresting love interest formed with Shire. The rest of the support add little colour.
Cinematographer Gordon Willis makes his film debut and so far to be his only crack at the director's helm. For most part it meanders with little in the way of suspense. Slowly building towards it underwhelming payoff. Sure it can be malicious and dark in an atmospheric sense, but the dreary script bungles the psychological interplay with uneven patterns, ridiculous turns and blatant clichés that just go nowhere. It's the imagery that lingers with authentic urban locations, where lighting had that neon-touch with dim, shadowy passages and Ennio Morricone's music score is smoothly melancholy.
"It hurts".
- lost-in-limbo
- Mar 22, 2013
- Permalink
Windows is perhaps the most unfairly rated film on IMDB. Here is just a sample of films which share it's undesirable score of 4.8:
Howard the Duck
Legally Blonde 2
After Earth
For a film to earn a 4.8 it must've committed an unforgivable sin towards the viewer, be that through it's failure to successfully fulfil the expectations of its genre or style, or (as is most common among films with ratings this low) it's insulting of the audience to an almost maddening level.
I'd struggle to believe the words of anyone who told me they sincerely felt that Windows committed any such sins. Despite it's plot, the film does not attempt to emulate the pacing or content of adrenaline-soaked thrillers such as Play Misty for Me. It is deliberately slow and methodical, and carries the viewer through it's engaging characters and atmospheric cinematography as opposed to techniques more typical of the thriller genre such as sensational set pieces. Perhaps this is why the film has failed to connect with an audience, it's drawn-out scenes and reluctance to 'manufacture' tension through techniques such as editing and music is more akin to films such as The Conversation, and is the reason for many reviewers calling the film 'boring' and 'undramatic', and likely why it is perceived as a failed thriller.
To me, this is decidedly not the case. Windows was a thrilling experience for me due to it's realism. It's long-winded and mundane tone (even during dramatic moments) felt indicative of real-life, thereby making the events of the film very believable and effective. Andrea's (Elizabeth Ashley) descent into madness as her obsession with neighbour Emily (Talia Shire) becomes increasingly unhealthy is given time to occur gradually and naturally and is not punctuated by the filmmakers in any way beyond Ashley's performance, itself an exercise in restraint, thereby making Andrea's activities more shocking as the viewer is surprised to a larger extent by her actions than they would be if Ashley had played the role as an all-singing, all-dancing psychopath.
The same restrained manner and tone is evident throughout the work of the rest of the film's cast, all of whom reinforce the film's unobtrusive mood. Talia Shire's performance as Emily is effective as her performance is both fearful enough to present her character as vulnerable to the threat of the film's villains, while also not being too timid so as to alienate the audience from rooting for her. Joe Cortese is also effective in his performance as Lt. Bob Luffrono. The detective who becomes friendly with Emily while investigating her case. He is calm and collected but also aloof and anonymous. He feels like a real person. Yet his quick-witted nature and initiative gives the audience confidence that he can successfully perform his duty of protecting Emily and unravelling the crime committed against her in the film's opening.
Two members of the film's crew are also deserving of praise. The obvious being Gordon Willis, the director and cinematographer. It is a crying shame that he was deterred from directing another film following Windows' negative critical reception, as his sense of style even beyond the film's incredible cinematography deserves to be celebrated alongside all of the famous auteurs of Hollywood's Second Golden Age (though Willis may've lacked opportunities to exercise this style as the movement was on the wane by the time Windows was released). The film's consistency in tone and style evidences the clarity of vision (and confidence in said vision) that he had as a filmmaker. Finally, Ennio Morricone also delivers an effective score for the film which, far from adding suspense, predominantly reinforces the film's low-key atmosphere through it's somber and mournful tone.
In summary, you need to view Windows in the right frame of mind. Anyone expecting Hitchcockian thrills will doubtlessly be disappointed. Instead, it should be seen as a slow-burn character piece.
I'd struggle to believe the words of anyone who told me they sincerely felt that Windows committed any such sins. Despite it's plot, the film does not attempt to emulate the pacing or content of adrenaline-soaked thrillers such as Play Misty for Me. It is deliberately slow and methodical, and carries the viewer through it's engaging characters and atmospheric cinematography as opposed to techniques more typical of the thriller genre such as sensational set pieces. Perhaps this is why the film has failed to connect with an audience, it's drawn-out scenes and reluctance to 'manufacture' tension through techniques such as editing and music is more akin to films such as The Conversation, and is the reason for many reviewers calling the film 'boring' and 'undramatic', and likely why it is perceived as a failed thriller.
To me, this is decidedly not the case. Windows was a thrilling experience for me due to it's realism. It's long-winded and mundane tone (even during dramatic moments) felt indicative of real-life, thereby making the events of the film very believable and effective. Andrea's (Elizabeth Ashley) descent into madness as her obsession with neighbour Emily (Talia Shire) becomes increasingly unhealthy is given time to occur gradually and naturally and is not punctuated by the filmmakers in any way beyond Ashley's performance, itself an exercise in restraint, thereby making Andrea's activities more shocking as the viewer is surprised to a larger extent by her actions than they would be if Ashley had played the role as an all-singing, all-dancing psychopath.
The same restrained manner and tone is evident throughout the work of the rest of the film's cast, all of whom reinforce the film's unobtrusive mood. Talia Shire's performance as Emily is effective as her performance is both fearful enough to present her character as vulnerable to the threat of the film's villains, while also not being too timid so as to alienate the audience from rooting for her. Joe Cortese is also effective in his performance as Lt. Bob Luffrono. The detective who becomes friendly with Emily while investigating her case. He is calm and collected but also aloof and anonymous. He feels like a real person. Yet his quick-witted nature and initiative gives the audience confidence that he can successfully perform his duty of protecting Emily and unravelling the crime committed against her in the film's opening.
Two members of the film's crew are also deserving of praise. The obvious being Gordon Willis, the director and cinematographer. It is a crying shame that he was deterred from directing another film following Windows' negative critical reception, as his sense of style even beyond the film's incredible cinematography deserves to be celebrated alongside all of the famous auteurs of Hollywood's Second Golden Age (though Willis may've lacked opportunities to exercise this style as the movement was on the wane by the time Windows was released). The film's consistency in tone and style evidences the clarity of vision (and confidence in said vision) that he had as a filmmaker. Finally, Ennio Morricone also delivers an effective score for the film which, far from adding suspense, predominantly reinforces the film's low-key atmosphere through it's somber and mournful tone.
In summary, you need to view Windows in the right frame of mind. Anyone expecting Hitchcockian thrills will doubtlessly be disappointed. Instead, it should be seen as a slow-burn character piece.
- oliverwjganley
- Jul 10, 2025
- Permalink
I suppose this was meant to be a psychological thriller, but it wasn't very thrilling. The acting was uninspired, but then they didn't have much to work with. The direction was ugly. The photography of NYC was nice, though. On an unrelated note, every time I see a pre-2001 shot of New York in a movie or something, especially one like this where the World Trade Center was a central feature, it just infuriates me anew about the crimes done by Allah's hit men. Anyway, back to the film -- Grade: F
So silly that it's almost intelligent, and so bad that it's almost good. Explaining "Windows" is so embarrassing that everything about it sounds so unbelievable, so marvelous and so insane that one might think I'm inventing this film with such a nonsense plot.
Brief details of the event: Talia Shire is having a fine day, walks back home and then she's assaulted by this mysterious man who threatened with a knife. The police is called, investigates and her dedicated neighbor Andrea (Elizabeth Ashley) comes to support her. Next thing we know is that she's the one who arranged for this attack so she could hear Talia screams and moans. Why? Because she's obsessed with her, she desperately loves her. That's what we're led to believe. The rest of the movie is just showing Andrea's failed attempts to get near her friend/neighbor, the analysis she has with her psychiatrist (should I feed you with more info or the picture is already formed in your head on who Andrea is), Shire's involvement with the detective (Joseph Cortese) following her case and interested in her as well.
The screenplay by Barry Siegel (so far his only work) is pitiful, mildly gripping, prejudiced by its meanders. It's entirely limited to clichés from psycho films but also trying to make a drama that's isn't inquisitive nor fully interesting, and even flirts with the romance that only works in the detective/victim relationship but forces too much when the final moments walks in (one of the most annoying anti-climax endings ever made). It's the kind of screenplay that needed to be written and rewritten countless times to finally get the chance of being decent or appealing to audiences. This is so "Fatal Attraction" before "Fatal Attraction", with threats, deaths, obsessions and all when it could be a much lighter film, psychological and positive to be seen.
Why people are so bothered by the portrayal given to the lesbian character in here? It wasn't so prejudicial, it showed a variation of a behavior and it wasn't setting this psychotic mannerisms as a pattern like the one developed in the controversial "Crusing" where all the gay characters were strong male sympathizers of S&M (even with that in mind, the bad reviews and the protests, that movie accomplishes to be greater than "Windows"). It's a little focused on stereotypes but it's not so hurtful or annoying.
"Windows" was Gordon Willis first and only film sitting on the director's chair, after many years as being one of the greatest cinematographers of all time. His photography here is beautiful, dark, perfectly match with the movie, and he filmed glorious shots of New York's street scene of the 1980's and there's lots of them in the movie, perhaps the most enjoyable aspect of the film. Too bad his direction of actors is cheap, confused and inspireless. I don't blame him all that much. With a script like that, there isn't much one can do. I might blame the casting director just a little. At times, there's this vague sensation of seeing something that is about to be good, a thoughtful project but when the actors are talking, "acting" and representing everything sounds phony and creepy. Stranger than this is when all the actors seem to getting up on scene while the story keeps going down and ridiculous. Shire shows some versatility in playing the stutter victim but there isn't much she can do with a weak, fragile, broken to pieces character. Ashley is playing this male hater yet with some masculine aspects, rough, rarely delicate (only when reading her love poem to the doctor) and this is the kind of character that in a good movie would be more important than the victim, a profound characterization of body and soul. But no, she's out of time and it's unbearable to watch at times.
I have said too much, I know, you're probably running to watch this now. Gladly, this is a little difficult to find. I'll take the suggestion of a fellow reviewer here and support a remake of this film since there's things in it that can be better explored now. But I add this: trade the women and replace them for men. I'm imagining this movie right now. It can be awesome, far more violent and please, whoever made this, emphasize just a little the romantic point of view of someone's suffering for not having the other person instead of just planning attacks and recording moans. That was so brutal and wrecked of what could be a good film. 4/10
Brief details of the event: Talia Shire is having a fine day, walks back home and then she's assaulted by this mysterious man who threatened with a knife. The police is called, investigates and her dedicated neighbor Andrea (Elizabeth Ashley) comes to support her. Next thing we know is that she's the one who arranged for this attack so she could hear Talia screams and moans. Why? Because she's obsessed with her, she desperately loves her. That's what we're led to believe. The rest of the movie is just showing Andrea's failed attempts to get near her friend/neighbor, the analysis she has with her psychiatrist (should I feed you with more info or the picture is already formed in your head on who Andrea is), Shire's involvement with the detective (Joseph Cortese) following her case and interested in her as well.
The screenplay by Barry Siegel (so far his only work) is pitiful, mildly gripping, prejudiced by its meanders. It's entirely limited to clichés from psycho films but also trying to make a drama that's isn't inquisitive nor fully interesting, and even flirts with the romance that only works in the detective/victim relationship but forces too much when the final moments walks in (one of the most annoying anti-climax endings ever made). It's the kind of screenplay that needed to be written and rewritten countless times to finally get the chance of being decent or appealing to audiences. This is so "Fatal Attraction" before "Fatal Attraction", with threats, deaths, obsessions and all when it could be a much lighter film, psychological and positive to be seen.
Why people are so bothered by the portrayal given to the lesbian character in here? It wasn't so prejudicial, it showed a variation of a behavior and it wasn't setting this psychotic mannerisms as a pattern like the one developed in the controversial "Crusing" where all the gay characters were strong male sympathizers of S&M (even with that in mind, the bad reviews and the protests, that movie accomplishes to be greater than "Windows"). It's a little focused on stereotypes but it's not so hurtful or annoying.
"Windows" was Gordon Willis first and only film sitting on the director's chair, after many years as being one of the greatest cinematographers of all time. His photography here is beautiful, dark, perfectly match with the movie, and he filmed glorious shots of New York's street scene of the 1980's and there's lots of them in the movie, perhaps the most enjoyable aspect of the film. Too bad his direction of actors is cheap, confused and inspireless. I don't blame him all that much. With a script like that, there isn't much one can do. I might blame the casting director just a little. At times, there's this vague sensation of seeing something that is about to be good, a thoughtful project but when the actors are talking, "acting" and representing everything sounds phony and creepy. Stranger than this is when all the actors seem to getting up on scene while the story keeps going down and ridiculous. Shire shows some versatility in playing the stutter victim but there isn't much she can do with a weak, fragile, broken to pieces character. Ashley is playing this male hater yet with some masculine aspects, rough, rarely delicate (only when reading her love poem to the doctor) and this is the kind of character that in a good movie would be more important than the victim, a profound characterization of body and soul. But no, she's out of time and it's unbearable to watch at times.
I have said too much, I know, you're probably running to watch this now. Gladly, this is a little difficult to find. I'll take the suggestion of a fellow reviewer here and support a remake of this film since there's things in it that can be better explored now. But I add this: trade the women and replace them for men. I'm imagining this movie right now. It can be awesome, far more violent and please, whoever made this, emphasize just a little the romantic point of view of someone's suffering for not having the other person instead of just planning attacks and recording moans. That was so brutal and wrecked of what could be a good film. 4/10
- Rodrigo_Amaro
- Aug 27, 2012
- Permalink
I've read the user reviews for this film, and some of them seem way too harsh. I understand Windows was critically bashed during its theatrical release and considered offensive to many viewers, but watching it today, it's not that bad. In fact, keeping an open mind as to how the characters interact with one another, it's at the very least interesting. Sure, there are plot holes the size of Manhattan, but this is a stylized thriller with beautiful photography at its core.
The story centers on a psycho named Andrea (Elizabeth Ashley) – who just happens to be a lesbian – infatuated with her timid neighbor Emily (Talia Shire). Andrea goes so far as to hire a creep named Obecny (Rick Petrucelli) to attack Emily and have the ordeal recorded. Andrea gets her kicks listening to the audio despite seeing a therapist. We soon learn that curing Andrea of her obsession may not be in the cards. What follows is Emily trying to cope and get on with her life while Andrea basically stalks and watches her through a telescope.
The film does drag a bit at times, but the climax certainly holds its own until the very end, where it just fizzles. However, I did scratch my head a couple of times in a good way by being perplexed as to what the intentions of the characters were. I also thought Ashley gave an unusual performance. Andrea was played as confused and sometimes volcanic, but with more subtlety, unlike an Alex Forrest (Fatal Attraction), for example. I think she should have been the focus of the film, giving Ashley more to work with and to create a deeper connection to the material. The acting was credible by the rest of the cast, especially Shire, who warms up to the role as the film progresses. Finally, the whole controversy over Andrea being a lesbian seems silly now. I mean, it's a character. We have all kinds of movies featuring different types of psychopaths relishing in various fetishes. Andrea just happened to be a lesbian whose obvious crush was going to be on another woman. Let's get over it already.
I wanted to see this film for over 30 years because of the controversy it spawned. Was it worth it? Yes and no. I didn't see it as controversial, but it did keep me watching until the end. Just watch the Syfy channel, and you'll see WAY more movies worse than this one in every respect, literally. If you do decide to see Windows, don't overanalyze it and remember this was the first and only directorial effort from the renowned cinematographer Gordon Willis.
The story centers on a psycho named Andrea (Elizabeth Ashley) – who just happens to be a lesbian – infatuated with her timid neighbor Emily (Talia Shire). Andrea goes so far as to hire a creep named Obecny (Rick Petrucelli) to attack Emily and have the ordeal recorded. Andrea gets her kicks listening to the audio despite seeing a therapist. We soon learn that curing Andrea of her obsession may not be in the cards. What follows is Emily trying to cope and get on with her life while Andrea basically stalks and watches her through a telescope.
The film does drag a bit at times, but the climax certainly holds its own until the very end, where it just fizzles. However, I did scratch my head a couple of times in a good way by being perplexed as to what the intentions of the characters were. I also thought Ashley gave an unusual performance. Andrea was played as confused and sometimes volcanic, but with more subtlety, unlike an Alex Forrest (Fatal Attraction), for example. I think she should have been the focus of the film, giving Ashley more to work with and to create a deeper connection to the material. The acting was credible by the rest of the cast, especially Shire, who warms up to the role as the film progresses. Finally, the whole controversy over Andrea being a lesbian seems silly now. I mean, it's a character. We have all kinds of movies featuring different types of psychopaths relishing in various fetishes. Andrea just happened to be a lesbian whose obvious crush was going to be on another woman. Let's get over it already.
I wanted to see this film for over 30 years because of the controversy it spawned. Was it worth it? Yes and no. I didn't see it as controversial, but it did keep me watching until the end. Just watch the Syfy channel, and you'll see WAY more movies worse than this one in every respect, literally. If you do decide to see Windows, don't overanalyze it and remember this was the first and only directorial effort from the renowned cinematographer Gordon Willis.
Trust me, the only good thing about this stinker is the capturing of New York City and when the film is over! Really bad!
Windows (1980)
** (out of 4)
Emily (Talia Shire) walks into her apartment when she is attacked from behind. She is forced onto the ground with a knife where the man threatens to kill her unless she shows him what she has and that she moans in satisfaction so that he can record it. Police detective Luffrono (Joseph Cortese) questions Emily but she has no details of the man. Soon the two of them are striking up a relationship, which doesn't sit well with Emily's former neighbor Andrea (Elizabeth Ashley).
WINDOWS is a film that I heard about decades ago when movies like SINGLE WHITE FEMALE and THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE were making big cash at the box office. It seems WINDOWS was pretty much forgotten for the most part yet I always wanted to see it even with the rather negative reviews that it got. I must admit that the film wasn't very good and in fact it's pretty silly when viewed today. The film attempts to be a psychological study of two troubled women but in the end it's basically about a lesbian who can't tell another woman she wants her.
It's interesting that this same year also gave us CRUISING. That film was highly controversial and perhaps so much so that this film got away with the idea that a woman could be a nut simply because she was a lesbian and wants another woman. Instead of telling her she orders the woman to be sexually attacked and then she begins to stalk her. All of this should have made for a more interesting film but sadly WINDOWS just never really takes off. The biggest problem is the screenplay, which tries to avoid any real violence or anything all that dramatic and instead we just see the two women as they discuss their situations with the men in their lives. Emily has her cop friend and Andrea has her shrink.
I'm not going to sit here and say that the movie doesn't have any good qualities because it does. Shire was very good in her role, although the screenplay doesn't give her too much to do except to act scared at times and at other times to stutter. She's still quite good as the fragile woman as is Ashley, although she's given even less to do. The real standout was Cortese who was excellent in the role of the detective. The film does benefit from some nice cinematography and the New York City locations were great.
Some people might find the subject disturbing and some might find the film to be creepy but neither really worked on me. The film is mildly entertaining but it never has any real suspense and that's its real downfall. Gordon Willis was a wonderful cinematographer but it's easy to see why he never really blossomed as a director. The lack of any real energy or suspense kills the film and you just keep waiting for it to take off but it never does.
** (out of 4)
Emily (Talia Shire) walks into her apartment when she is attacked from behind. She is forced onto the ground with a knife where the man threatens to kill her unless she shows him what she has and that she moans in satisfaction so that he can record it. Police detective Luffrono (Joseph Cortese) questions Emily but she has no details of the man. Soon the two of them are striking up a relationship, which doesn't sit well with Emily's former neighbor Andrea (Elizabeth Ashley).
WINDOWS is a film that I heard about decades ago when movies like SINGLE WHITE FEMALE and THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE were making big cash at the box office. It seems WINDOWS was pretty much forgotten for the most part yet I always wanted to see it even with the rather negative reviews that it got. I must admit that the film wasn't very good and in fact it's pretty silly when viewed today. The film attempts to be a psychological study of two troubled women but in the end it's basically about a lesbian who can't tell another woman she wants her.
It's interesting that this same year also gave us CRUISING. That film was highly controversial and perhaps so much so that this film got away with the idea that a woman could be a nut simply because she was a lesbian and wants another woman. Instead of telling her she orders the woman to be sexually attacked and then she begins to stalk her. All of this should have made for a more interesting film but sadly WINDOWS just never really takes off. The biggest problem is the screenplay, which tries to avoid any real violence or anything all that dramatic and instead we just see the two women as they discuss their situations with the men in their lives. Emily has her cop friend and Andrea has her shrink.
I'm not going to sit here and say that the movie doesn't have any good qualities because it does. Shire was very good in her role, although the screenplay doesn't give her too much to do except to act scared at times and at other times to stutter. She's still quite good as the fragile woman as is Ashley, although she's given even less to do. The real standout was Cortese who was excellent in the role of the detective. The film does benefit from some nice cinematography and the New York City locations were great.
Some people might find the subject disturbing and some might find the film to be creepy but neither really worked on me. The film is mildly entertaining but it never has any real suspense and that's its real downfall. Gordon Willis was a wonderful cinematographer but it's easy to see why he never really blossomed as a director. The lack of any real energy or suspense kills the film and you just keep waiting for it to take off but it never does.
- Michael_Elliott
- Oct 7, 2017
- Permalink
- mark.waltz
- Jun 27, 2020
- Permalink