Looker

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)