Skip to main content

They’re killing all the girls that are perfect.

Looker
(1981)

(SPOILERS) Edgar Wright’s recently revised, gargantuan list of favourite movies (a more interesting and economical rundown might have detailed what didn’t make it on) included many I haven’t seen, and a good few I thought “Oh, I must revisit that”. Of the latter, one such was Michael Crichton’s uneven science fiction thriller Looker, which typically for the author includes prophetic warnings of technology allowed to rampage unchecked. It’s also loaded with satirical swipes at the beauty myth, TV addiction and our capacity to be influenced by advertising. The movie arrived at the perfect moment, predicting a decade that would wear shallowness as a badge of pride, yet floundered in execution, perhaps because as a director, Crichton is a better writer, and as a writer of screenplays, he’s a better novelist.


It might have been preferable for someone with more of a stylistic bent to take this material and run with it. What Verhoeven (then still in Holland, obviously) might have made of the satirical content is tantalising, and likewise how De Palma might run with the opportunities for sleights of perspective and orientation. Crichton’s direction is competent, functional and unadorned, so never in danger of taking your breath away. He composes several strong sequences, however, most notably the visualising of the 3D imaging in which Susan Dey’s model Cindy has her body print measured; the projected patterns overlaying her simultaneously suggest hi-tech and the right side of psychedelia.


Crichton also has a ball with the L.O.O.K.E.R (Light Ocular-Oriented Kinetic Emotive Responses) gun, creating a disorienting and eerie “lost time” effect as its subjects are zapped and rendered varyingly incapacitated, unable to perceive their aggressor and coming back to awareness with vital changes having occurred in their surroundings. In the early stages, when the source of the disturbance is still a mystery, the jumps in clock times evoke alien abduction scenarios.


Later, when Albert Finney’s Dr Roberts is set upon by Tim Rossovich’s moustachioed heavy (a sure sign of a change of decades that a facial caterpillar now signifies a bad guy), Crichton fashions an inspired action scene as the beleaguered plastic surgeon must attempt to turn the tables on an antagonist who has a perpetual advantage. Crichton even throws in a car chase with the device, leading to Roberts and auto reviving in a fountain, the villains departed (why Reynolds didn’t keep the pair of sunglasses he picked up in the lab is one of a number of glaring plot holes).


Unfortunately, there simply isn’t enough substance elsewhere in the story for Crichton to sustain matters. He would later revisit the virtual world as a scene of a crime in the ill-advised sexual harassment thriller Disclosure. Here, the problem isn’t the conception, but simply that he has insufficient places to go with it. James Coburn’s John Reston is revealed to be behind everything, through his company Digital Matrix Inc, during his first encounter with Roberts, through an incredibly clunky “I’m the villain don’t you know” piece of exposition with his assistant Jennifer Long (Leigh Taylor-Young). The only mystery is how the device works and why Reston has been having the models who visited Digital Matrix bumped off. And an explanation for the latter never materialises.


Well, it kind of does in one of the cut scenes that showed up on TV, but the explanation isn’t entirely satisfying. We’re introduced to Roberts (“Everybody says you’re the best plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills”) agreeing to perform surgery on the fourth in a succession of perfect beauties who show up at his clinic with a list of precise nips and tucks to be engineered. The dialogue is occasionally clumsily on-the-nose (“She’s a real looker”; “Has a big man with a moustache been here?”) and occasionally amusingly offhand (“I’ve got some tricky eyes at noon”). When the women start showing up dead, the doctor is quickly set up as a suspect (a button from his jacket is placed at the scene of a crime).


When Roberts begins his own investigation, he is given a lesson in the skin deep nature of perfection, told that while the models looked perfect, as the computer at Digital Matrix dictated, they were still flawed on the inside, unable to reproduce the detailed instructions for how to render the scenes in advertising projects. The actual detail here rather breaks down; Roberts is shown an ad where he is distracted by the model instead of focusing on the product, but surely no amount of doctoring is going to alter that? The only real way would be to remove the model entirely, rather than shift focus. We learn that mapping the model will lead to them being paid $200k per year, to utilise their image rights, the virtual clones rendered over physical set and props. Again, some of this is rather baffling in concept; why not just map the car and have that reproduced to, rather than physically opening its boot and having the virtual model overlaid, appearing to do so herself?


We discover that the models, not unlike the light gun, induce an “auto-hypnotic suggestive trance” to encourage viewers to buy the product (visualised in the blue-glowing eyes, although I’m guessing this is supposed to be a cue for the viewer rather than eyes actually glowing every time one starts on telly, a bit of a give-away if so, although there’s lots of this sort of obvious clumsiness, so maybe not). And the next stage is to repeat the process with that other prized field of populace manipulation, politics, with a virtual Senator Harrison (Michael Hawkins) encouraging voters in his presidential bid.


One of the issues with Looker is that, amid all this hi-tech intrigue and high-conspiratorial play (it’s suggested the police may be in on things too, but that ultimately proves not to be the case), Reston and his cronies haven’t been terribly clever about framing Roberts. Everything they do seems designed to display staggering ineptitude and make as big a scene as possible. Perhaps the dedication to following computer logic has resulted in them making howlers. Or perhaps hubris leads them consider themselves untouchable.


In the deleted scene, Reston explains that the murdered models were “walking examples of our computer research” and that it is “corporate policy to shred all old documents and keep it out of the hands of competitors” thus providing their motivation. But... if every time they map a model, to use in adverts, they kill the real one, it’s going to be a tad blatantly obvious who’s responsible. And even if this was a one-off, for test purposes (with the political side being the real objective), it’s still incredibly dubious and risky. Other theories have been voiced, that the girls found out about the political side (what, all of them, include Cindy, who hadn’t a clue, and how did they find out?) or that the company simply didn’t want to pay them (right).


Crichton seems to be taking an almost casual approach to internal logic, assuming that, amid all the chasing and shooting, viewers will forget to ask the questions (very meta-, eh; we’ve been hypnotised by Crichton himself… except it didn’t work as no one was interested in watching the thing). As it is, one gets the sense the scene was excluded because it was so unconvincing, and Crichton, without anything better, hoped no one would notice (what in fact happened was that no one noticed the movie).


Reston paints himself as a promoter of global order, as any corporate true believer would rationalise (“It’s the multinationals who want peace and stability throughout world while governments spin recklessly out of control”), and it’s to this end that he is steering Senator Hawkins’ campaign. The general gist of Hawkins’ spiel could have been written yesterday, with its appeals to American values, forefathers, and “ending the pollution of the environment and in our lives”. Of course, the idea that the public should even need hypnotising through such a method is really Crichton’s point; we’re doing a very good job of swallowing whatever we’re fed hook, line and sinker.


Reston: Who would have predicted that free people would spend one fifth of their lives voluntarily sitting in front of a box with pictures? Fifteen years in prison is punishment. But fifteen years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment.

Reston goes on to provide further specifics (“One and a half years of life with commercials, fifteen minutes every day of life”). Crichton’s polemic is a little reactionary, since one might equally claim spending one’s life with one’s head in books is a waste, when you should get out there and live it. He has a point, but like most of his points here he hasn’t distilled them to a sufficiently digestible concotion.


For example, fake advertising runs throughout the picture, but rarely carries the sharpness of presentation that would make the barbs sting. Some of the background accompaniment raises a smile (“Constipation is nothing to be sneezed at”), and the TV-addicted parents of Cindy are very similar to Emilio Estevez’ telly evangelist-transfixed parents in the later Repo Man


The intercut finale, playing out as viewers see the real combatants interposing themselves into the virtual characters’ scenes is frequently quite funny – moustache man winds up dead on a kitchen table as kids complain to mum that they’re tired of the same old breakfast; the ad for Spurt toothpaste (“New Spurt makes any mouth come alive”) that plays out as a bloody squib erupts from Reston’s neck is a particularly mirthful touch – but never quite as effective as it could be (one only has to look at any earlier scene, in which Crichton labours an insert of Roberts stealing entry tags, to see where the picture is coming up short).


Paul Lohmann, a veteran of Robert Altman and Mel Brooks, photographs Looker nicely enough, and there are some nice design touches, such as the illuminated floor that would look at home in TRON, but Crichton’s approach fails to embrace the potential. His inclusion of title cards (Friday; Sunday) feels arbitrary, as if he saw it in a movie, liked it, but has no good reason for it narratively (it probably resulted from the temporal disorientation of the gun, but doesn’t play as a helpful guide). Barry Devorzon’s score is early ‘80s synth heaven without ever being especially distinctive; the most effective choice on the soundtrack is the use Vivaldi as Roberts works on a patient and then again accompanying Cindy’s topographic scan. That said, the cheesy songs (Looker and High Wire) are good fun.


There’s a slight TV movie feel wafting through Looker, from the henchman to the second choice leads. Coburn is always a fine catch, but he isn’t used especially effectively here (indeed, his best scene might be the cut exposition, as dissatisfying as it is). Finney had spent four years away from the big screen, yet returned with a couple of movies where he filled shoes he had mostly steered clear of in his career; the classic hero type in this and Wolfen. You need to give Finney something actorly to get his teeth into to make the most of him, and Looker simply fails to do that.


For all that, Looker’s not a bad film. It’s arresting premise sees it through a lean running time, and the sequences with the L.O.O.K.E.R. gun and the body mapping are particularly noteworthy. What it really lacks is the immediate, portentous quality of Crichton’s ‘70s thrillers (Coma, Westworld); a tangible sense of how these advances in technology can lead to the whole world unravelling. Perhaps plunging more assertively into the political side would have done the picture favours, but as it is, this element seems like little more than an afterthought. It’s ironic that a movie taking pot shots at the illusory nature of perfection should be undone through settling for such an average appearance.





Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.