Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

fedor8 Al Finney looks positively bored. He moves through the scenes like a bored man, knowing full well that this script isn't worth the effort. If there ever was an example of a good actor signing up just for the money and deciding that he'd replace effort with apathy, it's this.I am frankly a little amazed that Michael Crichton wrote such a pedestrian script. There is a small measure of originality, sure, but the plot is full of logic-holes and unfolds more like a comic-book than a movie intended for adults expecting a little more than pulp fiction.I was amused at the idea of female "perfection" being symbolized by wafer-thin fashion models with no boobs or asses. Evidently, these computers were programmed by pedophiles and gay designers.I am still confused about the matter of police corruption: were the cops bought by Coburn or not? This is just one of several inconsistencies in a script that is muddled rather than concise.

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.

JoeB131 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.

scrlllah1 I haven't seen it as much as everyone else posting here. But, remembered, none-the-less, most of it. Just wanted to say a couple things, about it. Aside from the thought of albert finney, as a action hero. It was out of necessity, of his characters' need to know the truth. And then getting in too deep. I thought he was great in it. And the idea of the manipulating with light flashes, was brilliant. I was never sure if this story didn't just come from a true experiment, some where. The gun used, worked sort of like, the bright flash of video games on an epileptic. Only instead of a seizure. You get a mental-pause. Seems to me, to be a completely plausible idea. Doctors are delving still further into how the brain works. For medical healing and understanding, of the overall operations. Only years away from being realistic. A mental anesthesia. Again, unless its already real, some where. spookyFor, the person, who commented about the gun being useful in wars, and police procedures. Just think of it as a regular gun. In the wrong hands, it does, harm. I can see all kinds of crime being committed with one of those. As you can clearly tell from the movie. I wouldn't want it to be made to be real. But, it still would be cool. Good luck future!