User Reviews

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.)

A plastic surgeon in Los Angeles investigates after some of his most beautiful clients--all fashion models--turn up dead. '80s thriller with 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. 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 ****

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

Dr. Larry Roberts (Albert Finney) is a top Beverly Hills plastic surgeon who finds himself embroiled in a sinister mind-control conspiracy. After three of his patients are killed in suspicious circumstances, Larry takes it upon himself to protect the apparent next victim, Cindy (the beautiful Susan Dey) and also solve the mystery.

‘Looker' is possibly director Michael Crichton's most criminally underrated film. Admittedly the screenplay often leaves a lot to be desired but the initial premise is both intriguing and fear-provoking. Crichton's script makes some rather fascinating, and in hindsight rather perceptive, comments about how corporations can abuse both the media and the general public simply through the use of television. Towards the end a particularly pertinent speech is made by John Reaston (James Coburn) on how the general public is willing to submit automatically to the enormous power that television possesses. However, much of the power that ‘Looker' could have potentially possessed is lost with poor pacing, inappropriate and unrealistic dialogue and a couple of major plot-holes. In fact, some eminent questions remain unanswered and the movie ends on a sort of anti-climatic note.

Crichton's direction appears to be somewhat disjointed as the pace of the movie alternates constantly. To begin with ‘Looker' has the correct proportion of suspense to action and is quite thrilling to behold. Unfortunately, certain scenes such as a car chase drag on and become somewhat tedious. One particular sequence of events towards the end of the movie drags on for fifteen minutes and while to begin with is compellingly suspenseful, the sequence begins to feel old and certainly spoils what could have been an effective ending. ‘Looker' also suffers from some particular bland performances, particularly from central actor Albert Finney. His performance was predominantly lacklustre and featured uninspired sequences in which Finney would avoid gunfire by unenthusiastically throwing himself across the floor. That being said Finney did seem to fit the role of Larry Roberts and was fairly entertaining to watch. Susan Dey and James Coburn were both enjoyable in their respective roles and one wonders why more was not done with their characters. Had more time been spent trying to develop these characters then maybe something more could have been done with the movie.

Surprisingly, despite all its flaws ‘Looker' is still somewhat compelling. It is certainly not Crichton's best film but is still vastly underrated in my opinion. The opening sequence is suspenseful and intriguing which is occasionally echoed throughout the rest of the movie, though unfortunately not enough. ‘Looker' is blessed with some wickedly delightful black humour, particularly towards the end and a bizarre, yet mesmerizing, electric musical score from Barry de Vorzon. Some fans will be happy to know that there are unnecessary scenes of full frontal nudity, including one from Susan Dey. The humorous overtones of that particular scene undoubtedly shine through. The ideas of hypnotic and subliminal messaging are what make ‘Looker' compelling even though the film is still heavily damaged by the lack of decent characterisation and storytelling. I think ‘Looker' is worth watching but is most certainly not to everyone's taste. My rating for ‘Looker' – 6.5/10.

Those of us who grew up on HBO programming in the early 1980's will easily remember the "light gun" from Looker, as the film was one of the most played flicks in HBO's catalogue. The movie was suspenseful, entertainingly acted, and possessed some cheap effects that were, nevertheless, fun to behold. The PG-rating for films with adult characters has really disappeared in the era of making money off of PG-13 films, and that's led to a reduction in films of this character.

"Looker" is not without weaknesses such as lapses in logic, but it possesses the traits of a typical Michael Crichton story that make for a thoughtful excursion into another person's world. Albert Finney was memorable for his confused and determined (if strikingly unathletic) doctor trying to unravel the mystery before him. Time shift scenes and the score make for positives, as well.

How is LOOKER not a cult classic already? Is it because the budget seems too high and it stars a squarish Albert Finney? Is it because Michael Crichton is too popular? Is it because the satiric humor is hard to pick up on? Nothing about Chiton's movie fits the proper mold of a cult classic but man it should be mentioned in the same breath with THEY LIVE.

I don't want to give anything away, but outside of a some really annoying plot shifts, this is a must watch for any 80's creep-a-zoid fan.

Michael Crichton's 1981 medical mystery thriller is a slick, sexy look into what has become reality in today's world of Medical technology. "Looker" is a blend of Plastic Surgery and Computer Technology that gives birth to the "perfect body".

Great directing by Chrichton and good acting by Albert Finney. I especially liked how Finney's character tried to act intelligent and rational in every tense situation he got into, unlike a lot of heroes in modern films. I also really liked the concept of the weapon that they used which caused people to blank out without knowing it! Some really cool scenes using that, plus, an very entertaining (and slightly humorous) ending sequence! Lots of great looking women certainly don't hurt the film move along either and the looker device itself is an interesting concept when it's put to use in a couple of showdown scenes. Also the hauntingly 80's techno soundtrack compliments this story and all in all we have another Michael Crichton masterpiece! The film is an often-overlooked gem I would strongly recommend to anyone in the mood for a slick, sci-fi thriller.

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

Reston Industries, Digital Matrix Inc., and LOOKER (Light Ocular Oriented Kinetic Emotive Responses) were all the important names other than the characters. Don't worry I'll explain them all.

Reston Industries is a mega corporation that dabbles in all kinds of things. It is the parent company of Digital Matrix Inc., a company that specifically deals with using computer technology to advertise and sell goods. LOOKER is a Digital Matrix product. Using light, it is a method of hypnotizing its target such that they become suggestable to buying products.

Got all that? Good.

Whatever came to mind when you saw the movie title "Looker" you probably didn't think it was an acronym. That's fine because the movie title is a double entendre. It serves as an acronym for the Digital Matrix device, but it also defines the women in the movie as well. These supermodel types were being killed and they were all connected to Digital Matrix Inc., and they were all lookers.

The concept of this Michael Crichton movie was good: a company that digitizes people to use their likeness in commercials--deep fake anyone!?!--and with those same commercials seeks to hypnotize the viewers so that they buy what's being sold. Too bad the movie didn't have a hypnotic effect on me to make me like it. I just couldn't get past the poor acting from the blond airheads. Even their names were what would come to mind when thinking of mindless eye candy-- Tina, Cindy, Susan, Lisa, Candy. Ugh.

As a sci-fi concept this movie was quite brilliant, they just didn't do a good job applying that brilliance. The dramatic and thriller scenes were undramatic and unthrilling while the climax was anticlimactic. If only they could have used the Digital Matrix hypnotizing technology on real movie viewers.

This is not the best film ever made but it's good fun schlock, and the thing that makes it relevant in now is the early prediction and portrayal of deepfaking real actors, and it's potentially dubious uses.

Michael Crichton's "Looker" certainly isn't a hopelessly bad film, but it is pretty forgettable and way too ambitious for an early 80's thriller that superficially looks like a brainless horror effort. The VHS cover art as well as the super-cheesy title song make "Looker" wrongfully appear like an ordinary, by the numbers stalk-&-slash film. An often encountered and unjustified praising is that Crichton's screenplay is intelligent and far ahead of its time. Well, the basic premise may be clever but the film features a countless amount of obvious flaws and, to me, the whole just looked like putting together leftover ideas from Crichton's previous (and much better) scripts for "Westworld" and "Coma". The story revolves on media tycoon John Reston, whose newly founded company Digital Matrix developed hypnotism-techniques that increase the impact and awareness of ordinary TV-commercials among the viewers. The beautiful models that star in these commercials therefore have to be 100% perfect and thus surgically altered to the millimeter. When three models die in mysterious circumstances, the police immediately suspects Dr. Larry Roberts who performed the plastic surgery on all of them. I can't really give a listing of all the flaws and illogical aspects without giving away essential spoilers, but I can say that the story never gives an apparent reason why exactly these fashion models have to die or how Digital Matrix plans to endlessly re-use holograms of dead models without raising suspicion.

Oh well, maybe I've been analyzing the credibility of the plot too much whereas I should've paid more attention to the entertainment value. "Looker" undeniably contains some professionally mounted suspense sequences and introduces a couple of very ingenious gimmicks, such as the 'denuralizer'-gun (I don't know how else to call it) and the perfection-measurement techniques. Michael Crichton also successfully captures the high-society world of Beverly Hills, where plastic surgeons drive around in expensive sport cars and live in fancy beach houses and where young models only care about their looks and dating wealthy doctors. This is not a gory flick but there is at least one disturbing and beautifully shot death-sequence that involves a model falling down from the balcony of her apartment. Albert Finney and James Coburn are both terrific and even the lesser-experienced female beauties give adequate performances. "Looker" may perhaps be a tad bit underrated but it sure isn't a gem that urgently needs to be (re-)discovered.

This movie still holds up. I'm incredibly impatient for films to get going. So, this one is a keeper. Truly entertaining from start to finish. Even the theme song is catchy. Visually fun. Well directed.

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-

To this films' credit, I did manage to sit through the whole thing - and there are a couple of interesting "ideas" (discussed more lucidly on the back cover of the video than onscreen) The main problem though is that the acting, suspense, and production values are no better than those of a "Brady Bunch" episode - or any other TV show of that vintage. There were "Stun Gun" shoot-outs (Star Trek?), unbelievable resolutions to events, holes in the plot, and questions left unanswered like: "Why were the girls being killed?" It was watchable but

by no means a great movie: "It's the story, of a plastic surgeon, who gave face lifts to some very lovely girls ....."

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.

"Looker" focuses on a series of strange deaths involving Los Angeles commercial models, each of whom were involved with a mysterious computer graphics company that has developed technology to scan human bodies and generate CGI models. A plastic surgeon (Albert Finney) who operated on the dead models, shaping them to "perfection," along with one of his patients (Susan Dey), find themselves in the company's crosshairs.

This science fiction thriller from Michael Crichton is an extremely prophetic effort that has much more resonance now than when it was first released, and for that alone, it deserves some credit. The media culture of the 21st century resembles much of what this film depicts, though, as a pre-internet film, "Looker" examines the subject from the standpoint of commerce and television rather than the worldwide web.

Given the ideas churning beneath the film's surface, one may expect a bit more from "Looker" than it is fully able to deliver. The special effects, ostensibly impressive for the period in which it was made, are dated and hokey by today's standards-however, the film's main pitfall is that it never manages to ramp up to any tangible fever pitch, which is necessary for a thriller like this to fully work. Unfortunately, there is a blasé tone that runs through most of it, which is a shame given the prospective depth of the material. The characters are very lightly drawn, leaving Finney and Dey fairly doomed from the start (there is only so much they can do here), and there are moments of more "talking" rather than "showing" that leave the proceedings feeling unnecessarily limp.

That said, "Looker" is still a worthwhile film both as a time capsule of '80s techno horror, and as a cautionary warning against the dangers of mass media and the capabilities of technology to recreate the human body for nefarious purposes. While it lacks bite, there are some standout sequences here, and Crichton's attempt to explore a prescient subject is a noble one at that. 7/10.

Susan Dey is Cindy Fairmont, a patient of plastic surgeon Dr. Roberts (Albert Finney), who might be the next one targeted for murder after his previous patients have been killed for apparently being too pretty. Roberts is about to uncover a huge sprawling conspiracy involving high-tech research company, Digital Matrix.

A somewhat prophetic little film that again has author Crichton mining his massive mistrust of technological advancements. Much of the movie is absolutely married to the '80s but there are certain elements of the film that are very much still relevant to today. I liked the film on the whole, but it does drag on in places. Furthermore I kind of wished that it would have been as scathing to the superficiality of the cosmetic surgery business as it was technology, but that's a more personal gripe.

Eye Candy: Terri Welles gets topless; Susan Day goes fully nude

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.

This film begins with a beautiful young model by the name of "Lisa Convey" (Terri Welles) presenting a list to a noted Beverly Hills plastic surgeon named "Dr. Larry Roberts" (Albert Finney) detailing several very minor alterations she wants done for her. At first, Dr. Roberts is bewildered by her request since she is quite beautiful and doesn't seem to need any surgery at all. It then turns out that she needs the cosmetic surgery in order to do a commercial for a local corporation known as Digital Matrix. So because of her insistence-and the fear than another plastic surgeon of lesser ability might become her next option--he eventually consents to her request. Not long after that a homicide detective by the name of "Lieutenant Masters" (Dorian Harewood) comes to his office and tells him that Lisa has died in what appears to be a suicide attempt. However, since this is the third patient that Dr. Roberts has recently performed surgery on, the case has been flagged as somewhat suspicious. That said, when another model by the name of "Cindy Fairmont" (Susan Dey) arrives with her own list of alterations he becomes concerned and decides to investigate this situation on his own-and what he discovers is a bizarre plot that puts both of their lives in immediate danger. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was an interesting science-fiction film which had some good mystery and a little humor throughout as well. On that note, however, while I found the ending to be somewhat amusing it also seemed to lessen the overall suspense and thereby weaken the overall effect to a degree. Be that as it may, this rather strange film had its moments and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

The notorious writer Michael Crichton had a countless of their books adapted to widescreen, the Looker plainly not belongs to most assessed, although it seems top copy somehow was not well-received by critics and almost goes unnoticed by theatres, even exposing bountiful of nudity scenes, this awkward science fiction didn't interact with the reality.

In early eighties at Los Angeles four models are instructed to make smallest plastic surgery to rectify some dissonant details at their prefect body, all them made by a renowned Dr. Larry Roberts (Albert Finney), soon three of them committed suicide, car's accident and the police looking into these case reach at Dr, Larry due the connection with the victims, Larry did not envisages any possibility of suicide, meantime the last model alive the skinny Cindy Fairmont (Susan Day) who is the next victim.

Looking the circle closing at yourself Dr. Larry investigate a high tech laboratory with model all body scanned and insert at computer to use as holographic model in tv commercials with any coast itself, lead by the Tycoon Reston (James Coburn) to aiming for redesign those old TV advertisement and for computerized means control all media and audiences, however the odd weapon used in the movie a sort of laser beam somewhat is nullified by use of dark glasses, the killer Moustache man (Tim Rossovich) is a clumsy and out of lucky shooter.

I'm deeply sorry, this movie never gets fire, also pointless, what gain would the TV network in this bewildered idea, no make sense at all, at least few scenes with the eye candy Leigh Taylor Young from Soylent Green is worthwhile to see!!

Thanks for reading.

Resume:

First watch: 2023 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 6.5.

I first saw this movie on HBO as a child. I couldn't remember the name of th movie or who played in it, but I couldn't get the scene of Albert Finney on the commercial set near the end of the movie out of my mind. After asking around using that scene as my only guide, I was finally able to get someone to tell me.

After watching it again, I was very interested in the movie's plot despite how ridiculous it seemed. For example, why would RI security officers be at the scene of a car accident? Why didn't DMI use computers to generate locations as well as models? Or why did the mustachioed man suddenly remember he had those special glasses in the car chase scene only AFTER being shot by the LOOKER gun? There are others.

But it has it's redeeming qualities as well. The music is captivating and helps to build on the excitement of some of the action scenes. And I don't believe I've seen a more passionate kick to the groin than the one given by Albert Finney. All in all, Looker would probably not stand up next to today's movies, but it has a charm about it. It must have made some kind of impression on me as a child to remain in my head for the past 25 years. Recommended rental. Buy it if you like off-beat, quasi-mainstream movies. I bought it and plan on getting good use out of it. Perfect for unsuspecting house guests.

"Looker is ultimately not worth a look"

DECIDE FOR YOURSELF

This is a great film. I did not give it a higher score only because I reserve 7+ scores for films that are also important, which this film is not. (Case in point "True Lies")

This being said, it is an extremely enjoyable film to watch.

Michael Crichton often chose his stories to examine actual concerns of the time, as he did in "Terminal Man", "Coma", and even in "Jurassic Park" (the issue of Genetic Research). In this film the concern involved the increasing affect that computers and advertising are having on us.

Albert Finney was in several "workmanlike" films during this period....films that were consistently enjoyable, with another example being "Wolfen".

It is great news that this is finally being re-released on DVD!

...now where is "Serial"?! ...or Americathon?! ...or Peter Proud?!

Thinking about it, I'm not a very big fan of Michael Crichton. Westworld is a good film, but Coma was disappointing; and this film, Looker, isn't up to much at all. The early scenes and music indicate that the film is going to be another trashy eighties thriller, which is fine by me; but suddenly the film slows down to snail pace, and despite a few nice murder sequences early on; there really isn't much to remember Looker for. For this film, Crichton has took ideas from the worlds of plastic surgery and advertising, and attempted to blend them into a horror/thriller. To say he wasn't successful would be an understatement, as the plot requires a huge stretch of the imagination and the murders that happen early on never get anything in the way of an explanation. The film focuses on an eminent Beverley Hills plastic surgeon named Larry Roberts. After performing slight surgery on a number of almost perfect young women, he is surprised to find them turn up dead. After doing a bit of research, he stumbles on an advertising company called Digital Matrix, who have their own uses for 'perfect' women.

Given that this is an early eighties film, you've got to expect some tacky visuals and an even tackier soundtrack; but the film takes these elements and then delivers a story that is far too serious in tone, and it doesn't bode well at all. Furthermore, Crichton's plotting is awful as the film quickly becomes boring when the writer-director starts forgetting to explain things properly. You can't fault him for imagination, as plastic surgery usually leads to an interesting film, and there's no end of social commentary that can be sprung from the world of advertising; but in failing to capitalise on the story's strong elements, Crichton has made what could have been a masterpiece into a dull and boring film. The acting isn't bad, but again; nothing to write home about. Albert Finney is good in the lead role, and he receives welcome feedback from the likes of James Coburn and Susan Dey. The film isn't all bad (just mostly), and there are a few memorable sequences; most notably a young girl falling several stories onto a car roof, and a scene at a dinner table towards the end; but I'm really surprised that this is given praise as an "unsung movie" - it certainly doesn't deserve it!