Glucedee
It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.
FuzzyTagz
If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.
Lucia Ayala
It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.
OllieSuave-007
This is a sci-fi drama about plastic surgeon Larry Roberts (Albert Finney) who performs a series of minor alterations on a group of models for perfection. However, when the models start to die mysteriously, Dr. Roberts starts investigating, along with surviving model Cindy Fairmont (Susan Dey). The trail leads them to the activities of high-tech computer company Digital Matrix.Looker has an interesting storyline that contains some good-old fashion detective work of murder solving, made more mysterious and intriguing by the involvement of the high-tech company and the sci-fi elements. The acting was actually good and the pacing was steady. The story could have used more suspense, though, as I thought the investigative scenes lacks some gotcha moments and tension. There were also some plot holes that left some questions unanswered in the movie. But overall, it's not a bad sci-fi drama to spend a quiet afternoon with and is a worth a look.Grade B-
dbdumonteil
Before he began to work for Spielberg and co and got caught up in the Hollywood machine,Crichton was really an auteur,whose works have strong connections between them."Mondwest" "Coma" and "Looker" deal with the same subject:distrust or disgust of technology,heroes trying to find what lies beneath.These three works display two worlds which coexist ,the second thriving in the shadow of the "real" one.We have James Brolin and Richard Benjamin leaving their routine nine-to-five life for a fake far-west(Mondwest);Geneviève Bujold ,far from her comforting hospital ,pacing up and down the ominous Jefferson Institute (Coma).Albert Finney,(Doctor Robert)hip cosmetic surgeon,closing his office to investigate in the unsettling building of "Digital Matrix inc." That said,"looker" is not as strong as the two previous works (I put aside "the first grain train robbery " which is a different matter):one can go as far as to write it's merely some kind of repetition of what came before:the Jefferson Institute and Digital Matrix inc. play the same part in "coma" and "looker";and there's more:Leigh Taylor -Young 's part in the latter recalls Elizabeth Ashley's in the former:same spooky smile,same frightening coolness.You can compare James Coburn and Richard Widmark as well ."Coma" wins hands down though:its directing is much more mastered,the camera wonderfully used the corridors of the hospital,and the huge room full of dead bodies in the institute; it lacks vigor,intensity,which makes it look like a made-for-TV movie.There are excellent ideas particularly when Coburn says that nobody forces you to watch TV,and however most of the American people spend 20% of their time in front of their set.We might see commercials differently next time we're confronted to a spate of this mind-destroying drivel.But suspense is very weak -in "Coma" it was almost constant- and Albert Finney was not perhaps the good choice :a good Hercule Poirot( who works with his gray cells),he's too listless in this active part."Looker" is worth a look anyway.
lost-in-limbo
Dr. Larry Roberts is a well renowned Beverly Hills plastic surgeon who makes beautiful women even more so, however he captures the attention of the police when three of his model patients are strangely murdered. Seeing a link with the three, he's determined not to let the same thing happened to the fourth girl, Cindy. There he finds further information about a program called Digital Matrix, where a computer system photographs and measures models to create a duplicate image for TV.Novelist Michael Crichton again hit's the director's chair (fourth time after 'Westworld', 'Coma' and 'The First Great Train Robbery') to adapt his material (which he also contributed the film's screenplay). The gimmicky 'Looker' is a polished piece, but definitely lesser than that of his previous outings. What lifts it up out left field is its audaciously sophisticated look at the manipulative side of media advertising, digital technology advancement and the dependency on perfect appearances. Crichton seems comfortable with these pervasive paranoid sci-fi thrillers where we take everything for face valve, but underneath there's something not quite right or waiting to destruct. There's a real sharp edge to the scientific theories (with some nicely amusing satirical digs), however with its dead-serious tone it can fall into silliness, illogical occurrences and its big aspirations aren't always matched, but in the end there's a real strange quality to the story (like the optical gun) and the visuals that go on to make it rather striking. Too bad about the ending fizzling out. Crichton's direction keeps it clinically tight as the energy levels arise in the last 30 minutes of blindingly staged suspense. Barry DeVorz's suggestively trance-like electronic score gels well with eerily smoky atmospherics. The performances by the likes of Albert Finney, Susan Dey, James Coburn and Leigh Taylor-Young all remain solid. Also appearing are Tim Rossovich and Dorian Harewood.Flawed, but engrossing entertainment.
innocuous
Mediocre performances aside, there were a lot of missed opportunities in this movie.The miscasting of Finney and Dey is a big problem. Finney is not the right actor for the role of the protagonist/romantic lead and you can't help feeling he's just picking up a paycheck. He certainly doesn't put any effort or sincerity into the part. Dey is just plain wrong in a role as a model with supposedly "perfect" and symmetrical features. Dey is cute and great in many roles, but Crichton really needed someone who actually has a symmetrical face.As a director (and, unfortunately, also as an author) Crichton puts much effort into some details and none at all into others. Why, for example, does the main bad guy/thug move items unnecessarily when searching an apartment? The victims always notice that the items are out of place or missing. That's just stupid. Plus, why kill off people under such obvious and suspicious circumstances? It's not like the police don't investigate murders. An intelligent assassin also wouldn't use a submachine gun in a doctor's office, the Looker weapon wouldn't fit in a standard pistol holster, a sink won't spray water out of the drain when hit by an errant bullet, yada-yada....There are some creepy sequences, but far fewer than Crichton intended. Worth seeing if it's on SciFi, but don't waste a rental on it. I never did understand why it was necessary to kill any of the models, either.
