Look

In New York City there is a TV channel that plays nothing but traffic camera footage all day. I enjoy watching this channel and keeping tabs on the humans of New York and their automobiles. However, I have often longed for the elements of sound and story to be added to this channel. Fortunately, Look was made and now after seeing it my longing has been sated.

I have found after exposing humans to this film that shooting an entire movie primarily with surveillance cameras opens up many of the voyeuristic pleasure centers in their brains. This despite the fact that the humans are watching this with the knowledge that this is a work of fiction.

This film leaves you wanting more. I do not know if that is a good thing or if wanting more should leave you feeling dirty. Perhaps it is both and perhaps that is a good thing. I do not know, allow me some time to consult Martha Stewart on this matter and I will get back to you.

See this film humans.

No one could do this movie justice in a review- you just have to watch it. However, for those wanting bitesize details of what it's about they can read the next paragraph and skip the rest.

---The story follows a number of characters over two days as they go about their lives, lives which are caught on CCTV. They include a student and a teacher, two killers on the run, a store clerk and his mate, a womanising department store employee and a bullied insurance clerk. There's sex, lies, adultery, violence, abduction and death. By the end of the movie the paths of most of these often unrelated characters have crossed in the 3 main locations- a mall, a school, and a convenience store.---

After reading the other reviews I was still very much in the dark about this movie. At the time of writing this review some 45 people had given it zero while 36 gave it ten. The zero count was high enough not to be ignored whilst the ten count was low enough to be fake ratings by people involved with the movie, so I was a bit iffy about it. However it was the passion of the other reviewers that convinced me to give it a go.

After watching Look I can only assume that those giving it zero must be the type of moviegoers who lap up the shallow dross that Hollywood more often than not peddles out to the sleeping herds. So if you are one of those brain-dead masses then you probably won't think much of this movie.

BUT if you are more discerning, enjoy thought provoking material and sometimes despair at the apparent crumbling of western societal values you should find this to be as stunning, riveting and sickly voyeuristic as I did.

For me this film is a modern classic. It's a winding, weaving, surprising, intersecting story of vice, and of people sadly lacking in moral fibre. It lays bare the darkness that is within all of us. Because we view the film entirely through CCTV, it's unbiased, free of moral judgements and shows only pure truth.

Overall? A Stunning tour de force spewing forth the moral decay that is eating away at western civilisation.

"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.

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

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.