Looker (1981)

This must be the only movie ever produced in which the hero is a Beverley Hills plastic surgeon. Albert Finney has had a few of his recent patients return for more alterations taken from a list, down to the millimeter. Then two or three of them die in disfiguring accidents.Another of his patients, Susan Dey, who requires absolutely nothing in the way of renovation, sort of latches on to him as he tries to find out if there is some link to the recent deaths. The police are eyeing him as a suspect but his interests focus on some computer digitalizing outfit that, as it turns out, has discovered a way to replace human models in commercials with what we now call computer-generated images, or CGIs. It was a novel idea at the time.Well -- "So what?", asks the sophisticated viewer. Is that all there is to it? No. The CGI corporation is run by the evil James Coburn. Not only does he now create commercials out of nothing but he has learned how to insert a hypnotic ray into the pupils of his CGIs. Bad enough when you're selling mouthwash. A disaster when you're producing political ads for a candidate who promises to rid us of inflated government and bureaucratic bloat and return to us the freedoms bestowed on the nation by the Founders. Oh, he's against pollution and big corporations too, so no need to read any messages into it, beyond those carried by any commercial production, including, "Spend money on this movie and make us famous and rich." There are multiple plot holes. I'll just mention two in passing and then give up. (1) It's never explained why those two or three suicides took place. (2) The cops switch from suspecting Finney to being convinced of Coburn's guilt for no particular reason.The technology is kind of interesting, dated though it is, but a little confusing too. Evidently, in the course of developing the hypnotic eyeballs, Coburn and company stumbled onto the possibility of installing the ray into a handgun, through the kind of serendipity that Robert K. Merton wrote about.Albert Finney makes for a clumsy action hero. He doesn't move very quickly or gracefully. There is a car chase of course, only the weapons are not machine guns or shotguns but those flash rays. And the final sneaking around, with Finney and a couple of villains creeping into commercials being shown to a select (and amused) audience of Big Wigs, is a little sluggish. The pace isn't helped by an ostinato in the musical score that goes on and on until -- until -- I woke up in a daze a week later and found myself in Cozumel. I was glad it happened -- GLAD! What with the pina colada and that bronzed babe.

This movie was written ahead of television technology, but on the computer it really leaves room for imagination. If you want to see into the motivation behind marketing,(Myspace,Google,Microsoft,etc...),check this movie out. It's not a movie that follows into any previous genre. Micheal Chrieghton never does. That's what's so great about it. It leaves you with a feeling of insight into the hearts and minds of corporate America. It is a must see. I saw this movie in the eighth grade. My friends and I were all raving about it. A real "Star Trek" atmosphere to it. The women were really sexy, especially at the age I was. I think the movie would be great for a college course in marketing. After seeing the movie you might consider where your mouse wanders, eh?

Spoilers within.I just watched this again and it occurred to me that it still works in 2007. If anything the premise is even more believable now than it was 26 years ago. In that sense it was a pretty darn accurate bit of future prediction in terms of where our video and computer technology was going.I've always liked this movie. It stands as a classic underrated film and a fond memory of my childhood. I took two points off though, one for each of the two problems I have with it: First, they didn't provide enough motivation or explanation for killing the models. One of them seemed to have figured out what was really going on, so that makes sense. But the others? Was it just to avoid paying out their contracts? They made a point of saying how rich the RI company was, so the cost would seem to be trivial in comparison to murder.Second, it struck me as odd that they could accurately digitize human beings but they still shot the commercials on a real set. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Even today it's much easier to model a kitchen than it is to model a human being.Overall though it's still a solid and enjoyable flick. You could make this movie today and it would be a perfectly good film for 2007.

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.