Windows

"Windows" was directed by noted cinematographer (and frequent Woody Allen collaborator) Gordon Willis, and as one would expect, he has a great eye for artful compositions, creative use of light / shadow, and New York. The film is (nearly) always visually interesting, which helps sustain it through a rather thin story. Elizabeth Ashley is both touching and unsettling, but Talia Shire seemed to have already been typecast into the mousy, "Rocky's wife" type of roles. Trivia: apparently in 1979 you could rent an apartment in Brooklyn Heights for $300 a month!! **1/2 out of 4.

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.

I found this film the other day at a market stall; quite an obscure film. The film appears to be quite good when you read the back of the box, but when you watch it...really awful. The only thing Gordon Willis seemed to care about was the photography. In a film like this you need great acting. We don't get great acting however and you cannot take the film seriously. It just gets ludicrous at times, especially the psycho-lesbian lover storyline. It is disgracefully misogynistic, which is another reason not to watch the film.

I will say that the film's photography is stunning though (similar to woody allen's 'interiors') but that is the only reason to watch this garbage.

Directed by the cinematographer of THE GODFATHER and starring 2 good actresses. Storyline is quite interesting and camera job impressive. It is an original movie. As it was a Warner release (and as I have the Warner Home Vidéo VHS in French version) I wonder how the former commentary can wonder if it was released in vidéo ? Besides, it is the perfect example of a, by now, rare title, which sould be offered again on DVD with sharp image quality and, of course, French soundtrack or subtitles !

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.