StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

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.

deme1995 I was astounded at the astoundfullness of this piece of art. It is so rare to find a masterpiece such as thee, that exemplifies the magic of windows. It was perfect...the shiny...the dull...pained and beveled...it covered it all. "Windows" proudly displays all of these wonderful types of windows. I was rather impressed with subplot of the stained-glass. I did, though, think it could have been brought down to earth with a mere reference to some sort of window cleaner. i.e. "windex" possibly. I thought that would have provided some degree of comic relief. Overall, best movie I have seen in ages about windows. Might I suggest a sequel perhaps called..."The Doors"? I personally feel this was the best movie released in January of 1980.

kristdavidson 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.

preppy-3 I had totally forgotten this crap until I was watching "Rocky" last night. After seeing Talia Shire this all came back to me. Talia Shire is raped by a (literally) slobbering man. He was hired by her neighbor (Elizabeth Ashley!), a psychotic lesbian (sigh), to drive Shire into her arms.Offensive, homophobic, sick, dull when not offensive. Shire has never mentioned this movie (I wonder why) and Ashley herself said she took it because her agent was getting sick of her turning down offer after offer. She also said it should play the third movie in a triple bill at the drive-in. Director Gordon Willis (a talented cinematographer) never directed another movie. This was a box office disaster. What does all this tell you?Also it contains one of the stupidest sequence EVER put on film. Shire is in a cab and quickly realizes the cab driver is the one who raped her. She has him stop the cab, she gets out and calls the police and then is told to get BACK in the cab till the police arrive!!! I'm no police officer but I don't think that would ever happen in real life. Other comments here have said there was laughter in theatres playing this back in 1980--probably this scene set people off. Still, I think this is too disturbing to be even good for laughs. It was never even released on video. I would like to hear what Shire and Willis (if he's still with us) think of this now. Avoid.