jacegaffney WINDOWS reminds me of REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE. When REFLECTIONS came out in 1967, it had the book thrown at it for being deviant, sick, perverse, reactionary, offensive, pretentious (which is such a mouthful that it makes one believe that the hater(s)doth protest too much). On top of these epithets, was the final body blow, and "just plain boring." It's difficult to be all of the above and be "just plain boring" to boot which is the reason I was compelled to check out both movies. I'm glad I did. WINDOWS is not the outright triumph REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE is, but it's thoughtful and original about something that shouldn't be dismissed by film lovers out of court. It's not sleazy or exploitative; as a matter of fact, that's a major problem with it. It refuses to further sensationalize its wildly lurid "givens." It's artful enough in its intentions to try to suggest that the tragedy of urban life is not the violence of melodramatic evil, but the glass cubicles people live in that link and separate them in devastatingly emotional ways. Gordon Willis' direction is typical of a first time director. It suffers from being too studied but it's far from daft or moronic; visually, it's as thought through as REAR WINDOW, its obvious predecessor in voyeurism. But there's nothing in REAR WINDOW, as seriously naked and exposed as Elizabeth Ashley's performance. It's interesting that when great actors like Brando (in REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE), and Ashley in WINDOWS attempt something that goes beyond the average viewer's opinion of how a homosexual SHOULD be portrayed, there's is an automatic reflex action on the part of said viewer to distance themselves from the performance, to laugh at it or automatically dismiss it as being "over the top." This response is, in fact, more reactionary than the sins that have been dumped in the picture's lap. WINDOWS is not as dumb or insensitive as the knee jerk response it provokes in most people who feign an interest in the dark side until it becomes too real.

lazarillo The general opinion of this movie is either that it is terrible, or that it is SO bad, it's actually good. Well, I don't think this movie is really "good" in any sense of the word, but it's not that bad either. It definitely has some good aspects. The cinematography is outstanding, not surprisingly perhaps since it was directed by famed cinematographer Gordon Willis. Visually it was kind of and attempt to update the moody film-noir style of the 40's and 50's to the present day (as of 1980 anyway). It was also filmed in NYC and it captures a lot of the palpably sleazy ambiance of the city in that era that can also be seen in films like "Taxi Driver" or "Dog Day Afternoon".The plot is ridiculous, of course, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either. In fact, the people who were so offended by the movie originally should have taken into account that this movie defames real-life lesbians about as much as "Roadrunner" cartoons defame real-life coyotes. (And Wile E.Coyote gives a much more subdued performance and usually shreds less scenery than Elizabeth Ashley does in this movie). Besides the problem is not that lesbians are frequently portrayed as villains in movies. Even taking their relative numbers into account, there are still far less lesbian villains in movies (not including sexy bisexual women, which is a whole different thing) than there are white male villains. There is certainly a lack of POSITIVE portrayals of lesbians in movies perhaps even today, but that's a different issue. And, ironically, the typical negative portrayal of lesbians in the media does not generally involve them being murderous stalkers, but rather being shrill, self-righteous, humorless, man-hating busy-bodies who want to censor everything under the sun that offends their perpetually outraged sensibilities. Hmmm, I wonder where that stereotype comes from? But back to the movie, this is one of 70's/80's movies that would actually be PERFECT for a re-make. They could put a really sexy actress in the lead who doesn't play the whole thing as deadly earnestly as ole "Yo! Adrienne!" does here. It would actually be pretty hard to best Elizabeth Ashley's campy, OTT performance, but I think modern audiences would certainly appreciate a performance like this a lot more than they did back in 1980. This isn't a good movie, of course,but why re-make a GOOD movie? Re-make, DVD release, or both--this is definitely long-due for some kind of revival.

bob_meg This is one of those flicks I've wanted to see since it came out (I was underage at the time). The plot just sounded very freaky and bizarre. Regardless, it is one of the THE most impossible films to find since I don't believe it got a video release (except overseas) and I don't even think it played on cable in the '80s. It is however on YouTube now :-).This film gets trashed by a lot of people immediately as being non-PC and homophobic. I think that's more a signpost of when the film was released, when attitudes toward people with other orientations weren't so enlightened.No, the core problem behind this picture is that it's just a raving, stinking mess, and it really is virtually all Willis' fault. When you read the opening credits, your jaw drops...they read like an A-list of movie greats: Morricone, Bourne, Willis as DP. How could they screw this up? Easy. A) Don't build any suspense; B) Don't establish any characters or motivations; C) Allow the writer to write any damn thing he wants to, no matter how stupid or no matter what expense to the actors; D) Resort to constant dissolves when you don't know what else to do, especially since there is virtually no coherent action; E) Don't direct your actors...after all they're pros, they know exactly what to do. The list goes on....This is a stalker movie....it should be about stalking. There is absolutely no fear built, no tension. It's a real master class in wasted celluloid.Still, part of me has to admire this in a way you sometimes admire any bad movie. It sure didn't have any self-censoring going on. it did what it wanted to do and took no prisoners. One of the many things that makes it a museum piece today, even if that museum is a wax one.

smatysia I suppose this was meant to be a psychological thriller, but it wasn't very thrilling. The acting was uninspired, but then they didn't have much to work with. The direction was ugly. The photography of NYC was nice, though. On an unrelated note, every time I see a pre-2001 shot of New York in a movie or something, especially one like this where the World Trade Center was a central feature, it just infuriates me anew about the crimes done by Allah's hit men. Anyway, back to the film -- Grade: F