Looker

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.

Amazing how everyone panned this as paranoia back when it was released. "Computer generated fake people: That's crazy". Now we can't tell real from fake and the movie industry just had the biggest walk out ever because of the use of computer generated acting/actors.

Sure it looks like a 1980's movie now, because it is. But when we barely had 'Pong' who amongst us had this much prophetic vision back then?

And the light gun that sent people into temporary pause - did anyone even know about light-induced seizures back then? I know I didn't.

Don't grade it against movies of today 50+ years later. If you look at in the context of its time, then the lens of today's reality... Pretty good forevision.

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

Plastic surgeon in Los Angeles investigates after some of his most beautiful clients--all fashion models--turn up dead. Thriller has a now-dated design but a terrific set-up. Writer-director Michael Crichton keeps his premise absorbing and exciting for about a third of its length, though he later resorts to assembly-line action, ending the picture on a whimper. Albert Finney just fine in the lead, Susan Dey terrific as his sidekick, yet the characters themselves are rather one-dimensional. Strictly as a time-filler, not bad. **1/2 from ****

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.