Good concept, poorly executed.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Blistering performances.

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.

Not awful. Michael Crichton's techo-thriller has a lot of great ideas floating around, but few are really fleshed out enough to make for a really good movie. Albert Finney plays a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon who stumbles upon a plot to kill off models (many of whom were his patients). The trail leads to a conglomerate run by oily James Coburn and his sexy goon Leigh Taylor Young. What he uncovers is a pretty clever plot to replace the models with computer generated replicas, thus allowing them to work forever without aging or getting paid. Unfortunately, the leaden pacing of the movie does it in. Finney seems surprisingly engaged, but Crichton has directed nothing. In fact, his direction here (as it was with COMA) is so without personality it has a deadening affect on everything. Coburn is fine in an all too brief role and Susan Dey is terrific as one of Finney's luckier patients.

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.

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.