Well I haven't seen too many movies starring Mia Farrow. Her most famous role is probably as Rosemary in Rosemary's Baby in which she performed greatly. It was a pleasant surprise to see her in the main role. 9 years later she doesn't seem to have aged much. And here she also carries the movie. And again it revolves around a child of hers. Trying to get over the loss of her daughter Julia leaves her husband and goes to live on her own. What she doesn't know is that the house holds a dark secret. She starts to see visions of a girl that looks a lot like her own daughter. As she is trying to reveal this mystery with the help of people knowing bits of info about the past inhabitants of the house, bad things start to happen to people around her. I must have missed a few things as I didn't understand Julia's actions sometimes. Reading some opinions here it's more clear to me now and I must applaud the writer for it's cleverness. It's based on a book which probably explains things a bit better than the movie. Very overlooked which it really shouldn't be.
73 Reviews
Pretty good and unfortunately also overlooked
Johan_Wondering_on_Waves27 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Slow but awesome
BandSAboutMovies2 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Plenty of people know the Mia Farrow movie Rosemary's Baby, but few know this film, which was based on the book Julia by Peter Straub. It was originally released in the UK as Full Circle, where it bombed before doing poorly in the U.S.
It was directed by Richard Loncraine, who helped make Band of Brothers on HBO and the incredible music film - and another bomb that has been recognized as a great movie years later - Slade In Flame.
Julia Lofting's (Farrow) life changes in a second: her daughter chokes on breakfast and an emergency tracheotomy causes her to bleed to death. This causes her to leave her husband (Keir Dullea) and move into a flat that's filled with toys which once belonged to a girl named Olivia, a young woman with such a power over the other children that she could make them kill one another.
The movie sat unreleased in the United States until it was discovered, along with the Richard Burton movie Absolution, by a movie fan who worked to get both movies into theaters.
This was on Shudder for a few weeks, but is no longer on the service. It's not a great film, but it's interesting. I got my copy at a convention years ago and don't regret the purchase.
It was directed by Richard Loncraine, who helped make Band of Brothers on HBO and the incredible music film - and another bomb that has been recognized as a great movie years later - Slade In Flame.
Julia Lofting's (Farrow) life changes in a second: her daughter chokes on breakfast and an emergency tracheotomy causes her to bleed to death. This causes her to leave her husband (Keir Dullea) and move into a flat that's filled with toys which once belonged to a girl named Olivia, a young woman with such a power over the other children that she could make them kill one another.
The movie sat unreleased in the United States until it was discovered, along with the Richard Burton movie Absolution, by a movie fan who worked to get both movies into theaters.
This was on Shudder for a few weeks, but is no longer on the service. It's not a great film, but it's interesting. I got my copy at a convention years ago and don't regret the purchase.
They just don't make them like that anymore!
enw8 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Thirty-three years ago this seemed like a tired takeoff on DON'T LOOK NOW. With the clunkers that are presently out there, it looks like a masterpiece.
Why? Well, it's not an EXACT copy – also, it has these people called ACTORS in it.
Of course, modern audiences probably wouldn't find it very exciting. After all, the botched-up tracheotomy and infantile castration are both off-screen.
Furthermore, it has a story, that thing, you know, giving you a headache and taking time away from the torture porn. No, they wouldn't like it at all.
Have you noticed those "user comments" on film sites? You know: I Don't THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD MOVI In fact I THINK THIS MOVI SUKS AND ALL MY FRIENDS THINK SO TO I Don't KNOW WHY ANYONE WOULD THINK THIS WAS A GOOD MOVI CAUSE IT Totally SUKS Totally SO AL YOU MORANS OUT THERE WHO THINK THIS IS A GOOD MOVI GET A LIFE CAUSE YOU SUK (Was this comment helpful to you?) Originally I just thought it was because, as we all know, the Internet is for Retards. But I'm beginning to think that this may actually be a sample of the movie-going community, some of them perhaps even twelve years old or more.
Apparently, this is an adaptation of a novel by Peter Straub, who also supplied the goods in the dazzling GHOST STORY. MIA FARROW is as vulnerable as ever, and KEIR DULLEA her son-of-a-bitch husband – he should probably have stayed on Jupiter.
The traumatic loss of a child has of course long since become a stock-and-trade of horror movies, the idea being that it makes the bereaved mother more susceptible to supernatural influences (especially dead children). Nor, I'm sure, will it come as a great surprise to anyone that the juvenile ghost is "evil".
Still, the concoction is served with an enthusiasm and attention to detail and effect, from the cozy séance turning into a nightmare to the mother's gleeful confession that she throttled the little monster, that keep you watching. Unfortunately, what might have been an ominously "happy" ending is jettisoned for a standard horrific one.
There is the usual amount of body-bags and puzzlement on the part of the audience as to why missing people aren't missed – still, British professionalism is everywhere present. Jolly good show!
Why? Well, it's not an EXACT copy – also, it has these people called ACTORS in it.
Of course, modern audiences probably wouldn't find it very exciting. After all, the botched-up tracheotomy and infantile castration are both off-screen.
Furthermore, it has a story, that thing, you know, giving you a headache and taking time away from the torture porn. No, they wouldn't like it at all.
Have you noticed those "user comments" on film sites? You know: I Don't THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD MOVI In fact I THINK THIS MOVI SUKS AND ALL MY FRIENDS THINK SO TO I Don't KNOW WHY ANYONE WOULD THINK THIS WAS A GOOD MOVI CAUSE IT Totally SUKS Totally SO AL YOU MORANS OUT THERE WHO THINK THIS IS A GOOD MOVI GET A LIFE CAUSE YOU SUK (Was this comment helpful to you?) Originally I just thought it was because, as we all know, the Internet is for Retards. But I'm beginning to think that this may actually be a sample of the movie-going community, some of them perhaps even twelve years old or more.
Apparently, this is an adaptation of a novel by Peter Straub, who also supplied the goods in the dazzling GHOST STORY. MIA FARROW is as vulnerable as ever, and KEIR DULLEA her son-of-a-bitch husband – he should probably have stayed on Jupiter.
The traumatic loss of a child has of course long since become a stock-and-trade of horror movies, the idea being that it makes the bereaved mother more susceptible to supernatural influences (especially dead children). Nor, I'm sure, will it come as a great surprise to anyone that the juvenile ghost is "evil".
Still, the concoction is served with an enthusiasm and attention to detail and effect, from the cozy séance turning into a nightmare to the mother's gleeful confession that she throttled the little monster, that keep you watching. Unfortunately, what might have been an ominously "happy" ending is jettisoned for a standard horrific one.
There is the usual amount of body-bags and puzzlement on the part of the audience as to why missing people aren't missed – still, British professionalism is everywhere present. Jolly good show!
One of the Best Ghost Stories ever!
alicesweetalice10 March 2000
The Haunting of Julia is an absolute must see for those who love eerie gothic style ghost stories that are intelligent and entertaining. The emphasis here is not blood and guts, but rather a sinister study of the meaning of "evil". The acting by the great Mia Farrow is really to be admired and is among her best. She is perfect for this vulnerable role. I love the atmosphere and the house. The film is full of striking visuals. It is a must see in the tradition of films like the original "The Haunting", "The Legend of Hell House", and and "The Changeling".
read the book
spooky_trix15 September 2000
As soon as I watched this movie, I ran to the bookstore to purchase Julia, by Peter Straub. I had several reasons. The first being that the movie was decent, but some parts were far too strange to be understood. When I read the book, it all became clear as day. This movie follows Julia Lofting, who recently lost her only daughter (and the only thing holding her shaky marriage together). After purchasing a new house in a wealthy London neighborhood, she begins to feel that her daughter is haunting her. After her sister in law convinces Julia to have a seance, and Julia looks into the matter a little more closely, she realizes that it is actually.......well I can't give that away, now can I? I suggest that you read the book after you watch the movie. It allows you to understand some of the sketchier details of the film. It also gives you a better understanding (or misunderstanding, depending on how you interpret it) on Olivia's character. The ending makes much more sense in the movie than in the book, but otherwise the details really help you appreciate this already decent thriller.
6 out of 10: Confusing at times, film quality is poor and really distracts the viewer at times.
6 out of 10: Confusing at times, film quality is poor and really distracts the viewer at times.
ghost story with an emphasis on psychological dread and grief
myriamlenys27 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The movie is lifted above the average by a fine performance by Mrs. Farrow, who is deeply moving as a mother devastated by loss and guilt. Her performance turns the movie into a chillingly accurate portrayal of grief and loneliness : here is a woman whose life has turned into a desert, complete with maddening mirages.
If one subtracts Mrs. Farrow from the movie, then "Full Circle" becomes a well-crafted horror movie of the more subtle and psychological kind : it's pretty decent, but nothing stratospheric.
Its credibility was somewhat undermined by the remarkable ease with which the protagonist succeeded in piecing together a long-buried story of woe : she constantly meets the right people pointing in the right direction, at the right moment. In my experience, people who try to reconstruct old stories, especially old stories involving crime and injustice, are more likely to meet interlocutors threatening to flatten their faces with the aid of a tire iron. And if they do happen upon a benevolent and helpful witness, they'll soon discover that human memory is as riddled with holes as a slice of Swiss cheese. ("Yes, I remember Mrs. Watson from Number 18, she had three sons - no wait, two sons and a daughter, the little daughter had infantile cancer, she died in 1957 or 1960, the poor kid was killed in a car accident, her eldest brother was called Shirley and he became a policeman after his two sisters died in an airplane disaster in the Belgian Congo. Mr. Watson was a criminal - he once tried to kill the Queen with a cauliflower - but Mrs. Watson was a decent Christian woman, she kept all five of her sons on the straight and narrow. Nowadays they all live in Independence Street, with the exception of Pamela Snowdon, who married a Greek astronaut.")
Still, it's a pleasure to watch a movie which relies on a careful creation of an uncanny atmosphere, rather than on acres of gore.
If one subtracts Mrs. Farrow from the movie, then "Full Circle" becomes a well-crafted horror movie of the more subtle and psychological kind : it's pretty decent, but nothing stratospheric.
Its credibility was somewhat undermined by the remarkable ease with which the protagonist succeeded in piecing together a long-buried story of woe : she constantly meets the right people pointing in the right direction, at the right moment. In my experience, people who try to reconstruct old stories, especially old stories involving crime and injustice, are more likely to meet interlocutors threatening to flatten their faces with the aid of a tire iron. And if they do happen upon a benevolent and helpful witness, they'll soon discover that human memory is as riddled with holes as a slice of Swiss cheese. ("Yes, I remember Mrs. Watson from Number 18, she had three sons - no wait, two sons and a daughter, the little daughter had infantile cancer, she died in 1957 or 1960, the poor kid was killed in a car accident, her eldest brother was called Shirley and he became a policeman after his two sisters died in an airplane disaster in the Belgian Congo. Mr. Watson was a criminal - he once tried to kill the Queen with a cauliflower - but Mrs. Watson was a decent Christian woman, she kept all five of her sons on the straight and narrow. Nowadays they all live in Independence Street, with the exception of Pamela Snowdon, who married a Greek astronaut.")
Still, it's a pleasure to watch a movie which relies on a careful creation of an uncanny atmosphere, rather than on acres of gore.
Cliché, but has some good moments, some good performances and a really good score
zetes19 August 2012
Also known as The Haunting of Julia, which is the title under which you can find it on Netflix Instant, which is about the only place where you can see it. This is a forgotten British haunted house flick from the late '70s (actually not released until 1981 in the United States). Mia Farrow stars along with her Rosemary's Baby haircut. In the prologue, her young daughter starts choking on an apple and Farrow, in a panic, tries to slice into her throat with a knife, thus making sure she's quite dead. Haunted by guilt, she ends up leaving her husband (2001's Keir Dullea) and moving into an old mansion in London. She soon realizes she's not alone. The film follows basic genre beats for the most part - appliances get left on, Farrow gets curious about the house's history, discovers its grisly past, does some investigations, etc., etc. It's not too interesting, really, but it has some good moments, notably its fantastic final moments, which are so good I would almost recommend the film for that alone (it's fairly short at 97 minutes). Farrow is fine, and Dullea isn't bad, but the rest of the cast, made up of mumbly Brits, is incoherent. I also really loved the score by Colin Towns.
It had potential...
moonspinner557 May 2006
A failed adaptation of Peter Straub's eerie book "Julia", which had a tough time getting released in the States (in the early 1980s, it made the rounds of the Los Angeles art-house circuit under the title "The Haunting of Julia", not much of an improvement over "Full Circle"). Plot concerns an emotionally fragile woman, still grieving over the choking death of her young daughter, sensing the spirit of a child around her, which may be causing death to her acquaintances. Damp, peculiar treatment doesn't raise chills so much as it does simple confusion. Mia Farrow is well-cast in the lead, but there's hardly any character here for her to play, and all we see is her anguish. Some interesting passages--and a bizarre climax--yet one is inclined to believe the film may have been pared down in post-production...it feels truncated and tampered with. ** from ****
Slow, but one of the few genuinely frightening films out there
matheusmarchetti10 July 2010
The 70's was undoubtedly the heyday for horror cinema, with some well known masterpieces such as Alien, The Exorcist, Suspiria, etc. Still, there were quite a few of them that were just as good, but didn't get the recognition they deserved, and are still quite obscure today. "Full Circle", or as it is better known under it's US title "The Haunting of Julia", is one of these cases.
In many ways a hybrid of Nicolas Roeg's "Don't Look Now" and Mario Bava's "Kill Baby ... Kill", is a slow-burning, intelligent horror film that genuinely scares the Hell out of you. Director Richard Loncraine goes for a stylish yet subtle approach at a somewhat old-fashioned ghost story formula, without resorting to 'in your face' scares that were popular at the time. While it does open with a bang and ends with a bang (probably the films' most powerful and haunting sequences), Locraine goes instead for an interesting psychological analysis of a grieving mother's crisis over her daughter's death. Staring with small things that go grow more and more nasty as the story progresses, and the line between fantasy and reality becomes more and more blurry, The events that go on through the film may well be figment of her imagination, and the fact that, by the film's shocking climax, you still don't know for sure if it did happen at all, only adds to it's creepiness and strange atmosphere.
It's snail-like pace works both for and against it, as some might find it particularly fascinating and delightfully unnerving, while others might find it dull and uninteresting. In fact, it does move a little too slow for it's own sake, but Mia Farrow's gripping, strong performance and Locraime's visual flourishes help it from becoming uninteresting. Speaking of visuals, the film is beautifully photographed by Peter Hannan, but sadly it does show it's full aesthetic power in the bad VHS print it's available on. Nevertheless, one can still see it's impact on the film, particularly on making the wintry streets of London and the old-dark-house setting even more menacing.
The film also benefits from having a lovingly melancholic and often genuinely spooky score by Colin Towns, which blends perfectly with it's visual brilliance, as well as perfectly capturing the characters' emotions.
Overall, a sadly unrecognized classic which, in spite of it's few flaws, deserves much more praise. 9/10
In many ways a hybrid of Nicolas Roeg's "Don't Look Now" and Mario Bava's "Kill Baby ... Kill", is a slow-burning, intelligent horror film that genuinely scares the Hell out of you. Director Richard Loncraine goes for a stylish yet subtle approach at a somewhat old-fashioned ghost story formula, without resorting to 'in your face' scares that were popular at the time. While it does open with a bang and ends with a bang (probably the films' most powerful and haunting sequences), Locraine goes instead for an interesting psychological analysis of a grieving mother's crisis over her daughter's death. Staring with small things that go grow more and more nasty as the story progresses, and the line between fantasy and reality becomes more and more blurry, The events that go on through the film may well be figment of her imagination, and the fact that, by the film's shocking climax, you still don't know for sure if it did happen at all, only adds to it's creepiness and strange atmosphere.
It's snail-like pace works both for and against it, as some might find it particularly fascinating and delightfully unnerving, while others might find it dull and uninteresting. In fact, it does move a little too slow for it's own sake, but Mia Farrow's gripping, strong performance and Locraime's visual flourishes help it from becoming uninteresting. Speaking of visuals, the film is beautifully photographed by Peter Hannan, but sadly it does show it's full aesthetic power in the bad VHS print it's available on. Nevertheless, one can still see it's impact on the film, particularly on making the wintry streets of London and the old-dark-house setting even more menacing.
The film also benefits from having a lovingly melancholic and often genuinely spooky score by Colin Towns, which blends perfectly with it's visual brilliance, as well as perfectly capturing the characters' emotions.
Overall, a sadly unrecognized classic which, in spite of it's few flaws, deserves much more praise. 9/10
Dated but worthy psychological/ghost flick
redoubt-216 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this the first time back in the early 1980s when it was making a run on HBO and was immediately mesmerized by it. Mia Farrow is the perfect lead... and victim.
Nutshell overview (no spoilers or give-aways): After losing her own daughter to a random act of providence, Julia (Mia Farrow) isolates herself to try and make some sense of life afterward. Little does she know she has walked into a situation that will, ultimately, trump her own tragedy and lead her down some very dark paths.
The critic in me says: The screenplay is pretty dated which lumps it in with a lot of movies of the time. But the storyline is worthy and the soundtrack impeccable, with the combination holding this up as one seriously spooky ride if you can immerse yourself into it.
Availability: Unfortunately, the entertainment industry casts aside those children it doesn't love and this one is no exception. The Haunting of Julia, aka Full Circle, is not available on DVD and the soundtrack is all but impossible to find.
Beyond all that: To the credit of one You Tube contributor (who has at least one post here), the movie is available there to watch. I am personally very grateful to both that You Tube submitter and to the movie industry for allowing it to remain for fans who have no other avenue of access.
In closing: The beautifully haunting main theme to this movie has followed me for nearly three decades, keeping alive the memory and finally leading me here, full circle.
Nutshell overview (no spoilers or give-aways): After losing her own daughter to a random act of providence, Julia (Mia Farrow) isolates herself to try and make some sense of life afterward. Little does she know she has walked into a situation that will, ultimately, trump her own tragedy and lead her down some very dark paths.
The critic in me says: The screenplay is pretty dated which lumps it in with a lot of movies of the time. But the storyline is worthy and the soundtrack impeccable, with the combination holding this up as one seriously spooky ride if you can immerse yourself into it.
Availability: Unfortunately, the entertainment industry casts aside those children it doesn't love and this one is no exception. The Haunting of Julia, aka Full Circle, is not available on DVD and the soundtrack is all but impossible to find.
Beyond all that: To the credit of one You Tube contributor (who has at least one post here), the movie is available there to watch. I am personally very grateful to both that You Tube submitter and to the movie industry for allowing it to remain for fans who have no other avenue of access.
In closing: The beautifully haunting main theme to this movie has followed me for nearly three decades, keeping alive the memory and finally leading me here, full circle.
Too difficult to keep up with, and not a bit scary or entertaining
Catharina_Sweden27 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I did not find this movie a bit entertaining. In spite of the fact that many (TOO many) people die in appalling ways, there is no feeling of scariness, no thrills, no suspense, no atmosphere, and no jumps. When you finally get to see the ghost girl, in spite of all the evil things you know that she has done, you do not feel any fear.
This movie OUGHT to be scary and entertaining, because it is about a ghost child in an old house, and there is also a mystery that Julia (the main character) is trying to unravel by visiting people who might know what happened thirty years ago... That is: just the kind of horror movie I would like. But - it falls completely flat.
It is also difficult to understand. Too little is actually shown. You are left guessing. When I had watched it through I was not sure if I had understood the ending, so I had to go back and watch it a second time... Also when Julia's daughter died at the beginning, it was difficult to understand what was really happening. And at another point, when the ghost girl's toys could not be photographed, this was also not shown properly - I missed it at first and had to go back. You have to concentrate very hard at all times, and you often have to guess what is happening.
Maybe some movie buffs prefer movies that are "difficult", but a horror movie, I think, should be entertaining first of all. It should be easy to understand what is going on, if not at first at least all questions should be answered later in a way that cannot be mistaken. If you try to make a horror movie into something else, it will unfailingly disappoint people who were hoping for something scary and thrilling that would make them forget about their own problems for a little while. After all, that is what movies - and especially horror movies - are for. It comes as no surprise, that this movie was a failure when it was first released.
This movie OUGHT to be scary and entertaining, because it is about a ghost child in an old house, and there is also a mystery that Julia (the main character) is trying to unravel by visiting people who might know what happened thirty years ago... That is: just the kind of horror movie I would like. But - it falls completely flat.
It is also difficult to understand. Too little is actually shown. You are left guessing. When I had watched it through I was not sure if I had understood the ending, so I had to go back and watch it a second time... Also when Julia's daughter died at the beginning, it was difficult to understand what was really happening. And at another point, when the ghost girl's toys could not be photographed, this was also not shown properly - I missed it at first and had to go back. You have to concentrate very hard at all times, and you often have to guess what is happening.
Maybe some movie buffs prefer movies that are "difficult", but a horror movie, I think, should be entertaining first of all. It should be easy to understand what is going on, if not at first at least all questions should be answered later in a way that cannot be mistaken. If you try to make a horror movie into something else, it will unfailingly disappoint people who were hoping for something scary and thrilling that would make them forget about their own problems for a little while. After all, that is what movies - and especially horror movies - are for. It comes as no surprise, that this movie was a failure when it was first released.
An acquired taste
tictacjak27 November 2008
I am a very big fan of slow moving, atmospheric horror movies. In fact, "Full Circle" aka "The Haunting of Julia" is probably the movie that got me into these kind of movies. However, the truth is that many people out there go into horror movies expecting thrill-a-second horror and blood and guts everywhere. This movie is not like that at all. It is built completely on atmosphere, character development, and a slow building plot that eventually leads to a shocking and unexpected conclusion. This is the reason i love this movie. I think that atmosphere contributes so much in unnerving us and sending chills down our spines and that is what horror is all about, isn't it? I love the music, the characters, and just about everything else. If you are into films such as "Don't Look Now" and "Let's Scare Jessica to Death" you should check this one out if you can find it.
You don't know where you are
begob15 July 2015
Fleeing from her useless husband after the death of her daughter, a woman rents a house where the past revisits with deadly intent. But whose past is it?
An overlooked classic? Not quite, and I can see where the haters and lovers are coming from.
First up, this is London in the '70s, so the mix of classes is plausible and the notion of well-to-do school children suffering cursed lives makes for a good plot device that drew me into the mystery. There's the usual guff about research/asylum-dweller revealing a clue just before she dies etc, but the story does get its creeps on and ends with chilling ambiguity.
The main problem is the first half tells a drab, simplistic story with no spark in the dialogue, and it's hard to tell if it's going anywhere. Sometimes it feels like slice-of-life meets Damian Omen. But the acting is good enough to keep me engaged, with plenty evidence why Farrow was in demand for close-ups.
The score is decent, but it misjudges several scenes - especially the mirror reveal toward the end - with cheery/wistful plinky-plinky synth.
Overall, a good story that undersells itself at the start. A lot of material could have been cut out to focus on the mother-daughter theme.
ps. Take a look at the cast - some nice names in there, and I missed the Downton Abbey link. Plus Mrs Flood was a highly prolific bit-parter - RIP.
An overlooked classic? Not quite, and I can see where the haters and lovers are coming from.
First up, this is London in the '70s, so the mix of classes is plausible and the notion of well-to-do school children suffering cursed lives makes for a good plot device that drew me into the mystery. There's the usual guff about research/asylum-dweller revealing a clue just before she dies etc, but the story does get its creeps on and ends with chilling ambiguity.
The main problem is the first half tells a drab, simplistic story with no spark in the dialogue, and it's hard to tell if it's going anywhere. Sometimes it feels like slice-of-life meets Damian Omen. But the acting is good enough to keep me engaged, with plenty evidence why Farrow was in demand for close-ups.
The score is decent, but it misjudges several scenes - especially the mirror reveal toward the end - with cheery/wistful plinky-plinky synth.
Overall, a good story that undersells itself at the start. A lot of material could have been cut out to focus on the mother-daughter theme.
ps. Take a look at the cast - some nice names in there, and I missed the Downton Abbey link. Plus Mrs Flood was a highly prolific bit-parter - RIP.
JULIA:"Don't be frightened." ME:"No problem."
utgard147 December 2014
After the accidental death of her daughter, Julia (Mia Farrow) leaves her domineering husband Magnus (Keir Dullea) and moves into an old house. Soon she believes she is being visited by her daughter's spirit. But when people around her are murdered, Julia realizes this isn't her daughter she's dealing with.
I wish I understood the logic behind casting Americans Mia Farrow and Keir Dullea and then making them speak with British accents the whole film (when they remembered). I just don't see what them being Brits contributed to the film but their poor accents did take away from it. So perhaps they would have been better off making them Americans living in England or something. Anyway, that bit of business aside, it's a by-the-numbers ghost story with some mindless killings thrown in for good measure. There's the creepy old house, the strange noises, the gauzy photography, the haunting piano music, the obligatory séance scene, the investigation into a decades-old crime, and so on. It's based on Peter Straub's first novel "Julia." Haven't read it but I see many people who have saying it's better than this film. I'll assume it must be. Ghost stories have always fared better in books where fear of noises and shadows holds more weight. There's nothing scary about this movie. While it is watchable, it has very little atmosphere and the pace is terribly slow. The murders do nothing to liven things up, either. It's really pretty dull. I wouldn't recommend bothering with it unless you're a Straub fan or a ghost movie nut who just wants to see as many of them as possible. The only other thing worth seeing here is Tom Conti's hair, which is admittedly magnificent.
I wish I understood the logic behind casting Americans Mia Farrow and Keir Dullea and then making them speak with British accents the whole film (when they remembered). I just don't see what them being Brits contributed to the film but their poor accents did take away from it. So perhaps they would have been better off making them Americans living in England or something. Anyway, that bit of business aside, it's a by-the-numbers ghost story with some mindless killings thrown in for good measure. There's the creepy old house, the strange noises, the gauzy photography, the haunting piano music, the obligatory séance scene, the investigation into a decades-old crime, and so on. It's based on Peter Straub's first novel "Julia." Haven't read it but I see many people who have saying it's better than this film. I'll assume it must be. Ghost stories have always fared better in books where fear of noises and shadows holds more weight. There's nothing scary about this movie. While it is watchable, it has very little atmosphere and the pace is terribly slow. The murders do nothing to liven things up, either. It's really pretty dull. I wouldn't recommend bothering with it unless you're a Straub fan or a ghost movie nut who just wants to see as many of them as possible. The only other thing worth seeing here is Tom Conti's hair, which is admittedly magnificent.
The Least Of Mia's Big Three Horror Outings But Still Fun
ferbs546 November 2022
Warning: Spoilers
You've got to feel a little sorry for the characters that Los Angeles-born actress Mia Farrow portrayed in her three big horror outings of the late 1960s and early '70s. Her Rosemary Woodhouse, in the 1968 classic "Rosemary's Baby" - surely one of the classiest fright fests of that great decade - was not only set up by her husband and later knocked up by Old Scratch himself, but was later the unwitting deliverer of the son of Satan. In 1971's "See No Evil," Farrow played a character named only Sarah, a blind woman who is pursued by a maniacal killer. And in "The Haunting of Julia," she ... but more on this unfortunate character in just a moment.
"The Haunting of Julia," as it is known today, originally debuted in 1977 at Spain's San Sebastian International Film Festival sporting the perhaps more apropos title "Full Circle." The British-Canadian coproduction would then open the following year in those two countries but never played in the U. S. until 1981, when distributors apparently felt that by changing the film's title to "The Haunting of Julia," more box office dollars would be the result. The film was the first to be based on a book by Peter Straub - in this case his 1975 novel "Julia" - featured some A-list talent in front of the cameras and some sophisticated filmmaking talent behind them, certainly provided its fair share of creepy moments, and yet, for all that, would appear to be a somewhat forgotten and overlooked film today. Yes, it surely pales in comparison to the Roman Polanski film of 1968 - but then again, not too many horror films can hope to approach the greatness that is "Rosemary's Baby" - and is not even as nerve racking as Mia's underrated suspenser of 1971, but still has some interesting bits to offer to the discriminating horror fan looking for something offbeat.
In the film, Mia Farrow - looking precisely as she did in "Rosemary's Baby," short hair and all - plays the part of Julia Lofting, an American wife living in London. Julia has a pretty, blonde, 8-year-old daughter named Kate, as well as a handsome husband, Magnus (Cleveland-born actor Keir Dullea), with whom, we later learn, she does not get along. Tragedy strikes the Lofting household one morning when Kate chokes on her food while eating breakfast and begins to suffocate. Julia performs an emergency tracheostomy in order to save her daughter's life, resulting in Kate's unfortunate death. Julia, needless to say, is devastated by the tragedy, and spends some months in a hospital recovering from the shock of it. Once released, she decides to move into a fashionable Victorian townhouse and separate from her husband, and the viewer really can't blame her, as Magnus does come off as something of a cold-blooded fish, only interested in Julia for her money, and the fully furnished home that Julia moves into is certainly a stunner. But once ensconced therein, strange things begin to transpire to poor Julia. A heater in the building keeps turning on and off by itself. She repeatedly imagines seeing Kate outdoors, in playgrounds and elsewhere. A séance that she allows her sister-in-law Lily (British actress Jill Bennett, whose earlier horror credentials include 1965's "The Skull" and "The Nanny," and who would go on to appear, four years later, in the 007 blowout "For Your Eyes Only") to conduct in her living room results in the medium's panicked sighting of both a ghostly little girl and a spectral little boy in the home. Julia's only true friend, an antiques dealer named Mark Berkeley (the Scottish actor Tom Conti, here in his fourth film), tries to persuade Julia to move out of her new house, but she, for some obscure reason, and despite feeling that something is watching her there, decides to stay. Ultimately, Julia does a bit of amateur sleuthing and brings to light the 30-year-old tragedy that had resulted in her home's being the haunted abode that it is today; appropriately enough, the film's promotional poster showed a little blonde girl under the tagline "She had no one to play with for thirty years." But the spectre that haunts Julia's abode, as we see, is not merely a passive one, and before long, everyone in Julia's orbit begins to suffer some pretty horrendous demises...
"The Haunting of Julia," it must be said, is never all that frightening (unlike, say, the "dream" sequence in "Rosemary's Baby") and never even that grippingly suspenseful (as was surely the case in "See No Evil"); it is certainly never more horrifying than in that very first scene, when Kate chokes out her life while Julia stands by trembling in traumatic shock. And yet, the film does manage to offer up any number of eerie little moments. Among these: the gruesome fate of Magnus, as he explores Julia's apartment unannounced; Julia's repeated sightings of a little blonde girl outdoors; Julia's visit to Mrs. Rudge, a previous owner of her current home, and played by British actress Cathleen Nesbitt, here pushing 90 years old; and, of course, that shocking final scene, which has apparently been the cause of both debate and head-scratching puzzlement for many years now. As to that final stunning image, the viewer must wonder whether what happens to Julia at the tail end of the film was a deliberate act on her part, OR whether it was something that she merely allowed to happen to her, for reasons of her own. I tend to feel that the latter is the case here, that the ghosts in her household were indeed very real, and that Julia was happy at the end to be ... but perhaps I have already said too much. It is certainly not a happy ending, objectively speaking, and yet, for Julia, who knows?
The film, it must be added, looks just marvelous, and makes good use of its offbeat London locales. British director Richard Loncraine helms his picture with an eye toward maximum freakish effect, despite having not much in the way of objective frights to work with, while British screenwriter Harry Bromley Davenport, I would imagine, has done a fair job of adapting Straub's original (I'm only guessing here, actually, not having read that book). The picture's lensing, by Australian DOP Peter Hannan, looks just fine, but perhaps best of all is the film's wonderfully haunting score by Colin Towns, a fittingly childlike melody that might put some in mind, again, of the similar air to be found in "Rosemary's Baby." This earworm of a melody insinuates itself into the film and does go far in generating a creepy miasma. In his role of Magnus, Dullea, 41 here, is just fine, bringing a nasty edge to this greedy and overbearing character. Dullea, of course, was riding high at this point, having appeared in some true classics of the 1960s and early '70s, such as "David and Lisa" (1962), "Bunny Lake Is Missing" (1965), "The Fox" (1967), "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968), and the cult horror classic "Black Christmas" (1974). But this really is Mia's picture all the way, and she is just terrific in it, as she was in her other two horror outings. She is just ideal for these kinds of films, her gentle and doelike demeanor contrasting nicely with the terrible events that she is forced to endure. It is a pity that she did not do more of these kinds of films back when; she might have become one of the great "scream queens" of all time. Mia had been only 23 when she essayed the role of Rosemary Woodhouse back in 1968, and here, at 32, she comes across as a bit more womanly, although decidedly just as soft and fragile. She is the single best reason for making it a point to see this unusual horror experience one day.
Now, having said all that, I must confess that I really wanted to like "The Haunting of Julia" more than I did, and it is proving very difficult for me to understand just why I didn't have more fun with it. The script is a good one, the acting as professional as can be, the direction and cinematography and music everything that one could want, and yet ... somehow, the end result just doesn't add up to the sum of its many fine parts. Perhaps it is the fact that the film is just never scary enough, that its ending is ambiguous, and that its several homicides are never really all that shocking. When the scariest things about a horror movie are a botched tracheostomy (that is not even shown on screen, although I hear that this scene is more graphically depicted in other prints) and the bizarre look on a 90-year-old woman's mug, you know that something has gone amiss. This viewer has never been one to require blood and grue to satisfy a lust for cinematic kicks, but it would be nice to experience an occasional cold shiver down the spine during affairs such as this, and sad to say, "The Haunting of Julia" will provide those frissons for only the most inexperienced of viewers. I'm certainly not sorry to have seen it, especially to revel in another one of Mia Farrow's marvelous horror performances, but it really does come in third best among Mia's frightful offerings.
"The Haunting of Julia," as it is known today, originally debuted in 1977 at Spain's San Sebastian International Film Festival sporting the perhaps more apropos title "Full Circle." The British-Canadian coproduction would then open the following year in those two countries but never played in the U. S. until 1981, when distributors apparently felt that by changing the film's title to "The Haunting of Julia," more box office dollars would be the result. The film was the first to be based on a book by Peter Straub - in this case his 1975 novel "Julia" - featured some A-list talent in front of the cameras and some sophisticated filmmaking talent behind them, certainly provided its fair share of creepy moments, and yet, for all that, would appear to be a somewhat forgotten and overlooked film today. Yes, it surely pales in comparison to the Roman Polanski film of 1968 - but then again, not too many horror films can hope to approach the greatness that is "Rosemary's Baby" - and is not even as nerve racking as Mia's underrated suspenser of 1971, but still has some interesting bits to offer to the discriminating horror fan looking for something offbeat.
In the film, Mia Farrow - looking precisely as she did in "Rosemary's Baby," short hair and all - plays the part of Julia Lofting, an American wife living in London. Julia has a pretty, blonde, 8-year-old daughter named Kate, as well as a handsome husband, Magnus (Cleveland-born actor Keir Dullea), with whom, we later learn, she does not get along. Tragedy strikes the Lofting household one morning when Kate chokes on her food while eating breakfast and begins to suffocate. Julia performs an emergency tracheostomy in order to save her daughter's life, resulting in Kate's unfortunate death. Julia, needless to say, is devastated by the tragedy, and spends some months in a hospital recovering from the shock of it. Once released, she decides to move into a fashionable Victorian townhouse and separate from her husband, and the viewer really can't blame her, as Magnus does come off as something of a cold-blooded fish, only interested in Julia for her money, and the fully furnished home that Julia moves into is certainly a stunner. But once ensconced therein, strange things begin to transpire to poor Julia. A heater in the building keeps turning on and off by itself. She repeatedly imagines seeing Kate outdoors, in playgrounds and elsewhere. A séance that she allows her sister-in-law Lily (British actress Jill Bennett, whose earlier horror credentials include 1965's "The Skull" and "The Nanny," and who would go on to appear, four years later, in the 007 blowout "For Your Eyes Only") to conduct in her living room results in the medium's panicked sighting of both a ghostly little girl and a spectral little boy in the home. Julia's only true friend, an antiques dealer named Mark Berkeley (the Scottish actor Tom Conti, here in his fourth film), tries to persuade Julia to move out of her new house, but she, for some obscure reason, and despite feeling that something is watching her there, decides to stay. Ultimately, Julia does a bit of amateur sleuthing and brings to light the 30-year-old tragedy that had resulted in her home's being the haunted abode that it is today; appropriately enough, the film's promotional poster showed a little blonde girl under the tagline "She had no one to play with for thirty years." But the spectre that haunts Julia's abode, as we see, is not merely a passive one, and before long, everyone in Julia's orbit begins to suffer some pretty horrendous demises...
"The Haunting of Julia," it must be said, is never all that frightening (unlike, say, the "dream" sequence in "Rosemary's Baby") and never even that grippingly suspenseful (as was surely the case in "See No Evil"); it is certainly never more horrifying than in that very first scene, when Kate chokes out her life while Julia stands by trembling in traumatic shock. And yet, the film does manage to offer up any number of eerie little moments. Among these: the gruesome fate of Magnus, as he explores Julia's apartment unannounced; Julia's repeated sightings of a little blonde girl outdoors; Julia's visit to Mrs. Rudge, a previous owner of her current home, and played by British actress Cathleen Nesbitt, here pushing 90 years old; and, of course, that shocking final scene, which has apparently been the cause of both debate and head-scratching puzzlement for many years now. As to that final stunning image, the viewer must wonder whether what happens to Julia at the tail end of the film was a deliberate act on her part, OR whether it was something that she merely allowed to happen to her, for reasons of her own. I tend to feel that the latter is the case here, that the ghosts in her household were indeed very real, and that Julia was happy at the end to be ... but perhaps I have already said too much. It is certainly not a happy ending, objectively speaking, and yet, for Julia, who knows?
The film, it must be added, looks just marvelous, and makes good use of its offbeat London locales. British director Richard Loncraine helms his picture with an eye toward maximum freakish effect, despite having not much in the way of objective frights to work with, while British screenwriter Harry Bromley Davenport, I would imagine, has done a fair job of adapting Straub's original (I'm only guessing here, actually, not having read that book). The picture's lensing, by Australian DOP Peter Hannan, looks just fine, but perhaps best of all is the film's wonderfully haunting score by Colin Towns, a fittingly childlike melody that might put some in mind, again, of the similar air to be found in "Rosemary's Baby." This earworm of a melody insinuates itself into the film and does go far in generating a creepy miasma. In his role of Magnus, Dullea, 41 here, is just fine, bringing a nasty edge to this greedy and overbearing character. Dullea, of course, was riding high at this point, having appeared in some true classics of the 1960s and early '70s, such as "David and Lisa" (1962), "Bunny Lake Is Missing" (1965), "The Fox" (1967), "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968), and the cult horror classic "Black Christmas" (1974). But this really is Mia's picture all the way, and she is just terrific in it, as she was in her other two horror outings. She is just ideal for these kinds of films, her gentle and doelike demeanor contrasting nicely with the terrible events that she is forced to endure. It is a pity that she did not do more of these kinds of films back when; she might have become one of the great "scream queens" of all time. Mia had been only 23 when she essayed the role of Rosemary Woodhouse back in 1968, and here, at 32, she comes across as a bit more womanly, although decidedly just as soft and fragile. She is the single best reason for making it a point to see this unusual horror experience one day.
Now, having said all that, I must confess that I really wanted to like "The Haunting of Julia" more than I did, and it is proving very difficult for me to understand just why I didn't have more fun with it. The script is a good one, the acting as professional as can be, the direction and cinematography and music everything that one could want, and yet ... somehow, the end result just doesn't add up to the sum of its many fine parts. Perhaps it is the fact that the film is just never scary enough, that its ending is ambiguous, and that its several homicides are never really all that shocking. When the scariest things about a horror movie are a botched tracheostomy (that is not even shown on screen, although I hear that this scene is more graphically depicted in other prints) and the bizarre look on a 90-year-old woman's mug, you know that something has gone amiss. This viewer has never been one to require blood and grue to satisfy a lust for cinematic kicks, but it would be nice to experience an occasional cold shiver down the spine during affairs such as this, and sad to say, "The Haunting of Julia" will provide those frissons for only the most inexperienced of viewers. I'm certainly not sorry to have seen it, especially to revel in another one of Mia Farrow's marvelous horror performances, but it really does come in third best among Mia's frightful offerings.
the story moves very slowly
christopher-underwood6 February 2023
The film starts quietly and then very quickly it gets really terrible but unfortunately this doesn't carry on. Mia Farrow is fine but the story moves very slowly and although Tom Conti is okay he doesn't have enough to do. It was a shame that there is nothing unsettling or even creepy, although it is rather different, Seance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) is really scary and the seance in that one is stunning. I also thought that The Haunting (1963) is similar and really good and Don't Look Now (1973) a bit different but amazing and as well this one begins with the lost child. The Legend of Hell House (1973) is very good although The Changeling (1980) is another film where the house is too big for a ghost story. Whilst on other films I have to mention Secret Ceremony (1968) with Mia Farrow and Elizabeth Taylor many don't like it but it is really unnerving.
Eerie and mysterious terror movie about a grief-stricken young woman who moves to a haunted house
ma-cortes14 March 2021
A ghost tale based on a story by novelist Peter Straub, containing thrills , chills , creepy events and plot twists . Central character is an unsettling , deranged woman : Mia Farrow whose daughter is suddenly dead by an apple choking . Then, the disturbing mother separates her husband : Keir Dullea and to overcome her loss , she moves to a weird mansion where happens strange happenings. As it results to be a haunted house and later on, things go awry . There she is slowly destroyed by the ghost of an evil long-dead child . She had no one to play for thirty years...!
The narrative of this frightening movie juggles ambiguously throwing up the classic issue of haunted house and adding the scary kid threatening the starring . The film takes parts here and there of other films as "The Turn of the Screw" , "Don't Look Now", "Amytiville" , and "Rosemary's Baby" , concerning terror plots , as well as mingling usual themes as dead children , corrupted innocence , introversion, possession , guilt , haunted house, etc ...Mia Farrow gives an acceptable acting by showing a fragile air of neurotic self-possession due to her child has recently dead . She is well accompanied by a good cast with plenty of prestigious British actors and familiar faces, such as : Keir Dullea , Tom Conti, Jill Bennett, Robin Gammell , Edward Hardwicke , Peter Sallis, Mary Morris, Nigel Havers, Sophie Ward, Cathleen Nesbitt , among others .
It displays a softly chilling and eerie musical score by Colin Towns . Equally, a dark and sinister cinematography by Peter Hannah. The motion picture was slowly but decently directed by Richard Loncraine . Richard is a good Brit craftsman with a long career from the Seventies, being his film debut : Flame and directing movies of all kinds of genres with penchant for dramas , such as : Finding your feet, 5 flights up, Firewall, Wimbledon, Richard III , Brimstone and Treacle, The missionary, among others. Rating : 6/10. Acceptable terror movie, but neither notable, not extraordinary, but passable. The film will appear to horror genre aficionados and Mia Farrow fans.
The narrative of this frightening movie juggles ambiguously throwing up the classic issue of haunted house and adding the scary kid threatening the starring . The film takes parts here and there of other films as "The Turn of the Screw" , "Don't Look Now", "Amytiville" , and "Rosemary's Baby" , concerning terror plots , as well as mingling usual themes as dead children , corrupted innocence , introversion, possession , guilt , haunted house, etc ...Mia Farrow gives an acceptable acting by showing a fragile air of neurotic self-possession due to her child has recently dead . She is well accompanied by a good cast with plenty of prestigious British actors and familiar faces, such as : Keir Dullea , Tom Conti, Jill Bennett, Robin Gammell , Edward Hardwicke , Peter Sallis, Mary Morris, Nigel Havers, Sophie Ward, Cathleen Nesbitt , among others .
It displays a softly chilling and eerie musical score by Colin Towns . Equally, a dark and sinister cinematography by Peter Hannah. The motion picture was slowly but decently directed by Richard Loncraine . Richard is a good Brit craftsman with a long career from the Seventies, being his film debut : Flame and directing movies of all kinds of genres with penchant for dramas , such as : Finding your feet, 5 flights up, Firewall, Wimbledon, Richard III , Brimstone and Treacle, The missionary, among others. Rating : 6/10. Acceptable terror movie, but neither notable, not extraordinary, but passable. The film will appear to horror genre aficionados and Mia Farrow fans.
Ambiguous Ghost Story
claudio_carvalho24 March 2023
In London, while having breakfast with her parents Julia (Mia Farrow) and Magnus Lofting (Keir Dullea), the girl Kate (Sophie Ward) chokes with a fruit and dies. The grieving Julia has a breakdown and moves to an institution. When she is released, she leaves her husband and buys and moves to an apartment. However, she does not look for a psychiatrist as recommended by the doctor, and her friend Mark Berkeley (Tom Conti), who is an antique dealer, tries to help her. Julia has the feeling that Kate is watching her. Meanwhile, Magnus, who lives with her fortune, unsuccessfully wants that Julia returns to their house. When Julia meets Magnus' sister Lily Lofting (Jill Bennett), she asks her to not give her address to Magnus. Soon Lily asks Julia to have a séance at her home, and she allows. The medium, Mrs. Flood (Anna Wing), contacts a girl and is scary with the ghost. But Julia believes it is Kate and seeks out answers.
"Full Circle", a.k.a. "The Haunting of Julia", is an ambiguous ghost story developed in slow pace. The flawed plot has characters that vanish, like Lilly and Magnus (nobody misses and seeks him out?). The killing spree is ambiguous, and is not clear that the evil ghost of Olivia does exist or it is a vision of the disturbed Julia. Is Julia possessed by Olivia and commits the crime spree? Or is she disturbed and killing her acquaintances and herself? The performances are excellent, highlighting Mia Farrow, but the screenplay could be better. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Demônio com Cara de Anjo" ("Devil with Angel Face")
"Full Circle", a.k.a. "The Haunting of Julia", is an ambiguous ghost story developed in slow pace. The flawed plot has characters that vanish, like Lilly and Magnus (nobody misses and seeks him out?). The killing spree is ambiguous, and is not clear that the evil ghost of Olivia does exist or it is a vision of the disturbed Julia. Is Julia possessed by Olivia and commits the crime spree? Or is she disturbed and killing her acquaintances and herself? The performances are excellent, highlighting Mia Farrow, but the screenplay could be better. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Demônio com Cara de Anjo" ("Devil with Angel Face")
Sluggish and ultimately disjointed
fullheadofsteam16 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This movie can better be found under the title "Full Circle". First and foremost, it must be put into perfect perspective: it was released years AFTER the blockbuster "The Exorcist". Such perspective should provide the reasonable expectation of suspense and supernatural horror, and this movie falls so far short as to have deserved the shelving it got -- those reviews that hail it as great and thankfully resurrected from the vaults of overlooked films are off base, because this movie deserved to have been forgotten. Why? First and foremost is the painfully sluggish pace, as it moves so slowly as to border on absolute boredom and disinterest. Second, the unexplainably disengaged characters, most of whom are dispatched (as in killed) with unexplained relationship to, and peculiarly disconnected from the opening sequence and start of the movie. Third, there is really nothing frightening in the movie, just oddity at best. I wasn't scared once, not even once. The brilliant actor Keir Dullea was relegated to a character of no importance and so was completely wasted in this film. Then there is the element of story/script credibility, which comes into question when a character is killed in unoccupied house, after which days and weeks go by with no discerned stench of the dead body. Frightening? Hah! Far from it, and the ending was ultimately anti-climactic, and thereby unsatisfying.
The greatest ghost movie EVER! MUCH better than the book.
rubellan8 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** In recent years I have realised that ghost stories are my absolute favorite, if done from a mature point of view. Browsing through movies to rent one day, I ran across "The haunting of Julia". I rented it based on the fact that it was a ghost story, and it had Mia Farrow in it (which probably meant it wasn't going to be a teen motivated film). What a treat this turned out to be. If you judge a movie based on blood and guts, or CGI effects, you won't care for this. This film is a much more cerebral movie, which requires multiple viewings to take it in fully. SPOILER WARNING: First off I must state that one of the main attractions of this movie is the gorgeous soundtrack. Very pretty piano and early synthesizer pieces that fit as perfectly to the film as possible. Always conveying the proper mood, it will definately put a lump in your throat. I found the soundtrack existed on an import CD, which I snapped up. Sadly it is missing some of the most memorable compositions, and arrangements from the movie, but it is still a treasure to have. The story is about Julia Lofting, who loses her daughter early in the film, and spends the rest of the movie trying to make up for it in some way. After her daughter's death by choking, Julia spends time recovering in the hospital. When it's time to leave she spontaneously ditches her husband and rents a big scary place by herself. We are eventually informed that Julia's husband is a scum, using her only for her money. This is his reason for trying to win her back. Julia's grief is overwhelming, and you really feel for her. Things begin happening in the house, though subtley. A radiator always seems to be on, even when Julia makes sure it is off when she leaves the room. She hears subtle sounds, and assumes it's her husband trying to start trouble. We are then introduced to Mark. He is an antique dealer, and a real friend to Julia. One of the subtle effects of the film is that sounds that are generally loud and obvious are pushed back to barely be heard. Doors slamming, glass breaking, bells ringing. Though the events are taking place right on screen, the sounds are very distant. It adds an amazingly eerie effect. Early in the film there is a seance held at Julia's home. This was by the request of Lily, the sister of Julia's husband Magnus, who is also interested in Julia's cash, but who also genuinely likes Julia. This is apparently a little hobby of Lily's, to have these weekly sessions with mediums. This week she and her friends are using a silly old woman Mrs. Fludd. During the seance Mrs. Fludd begins to panic. When she is shaken back to reality, she informs Julia to leave the house. She's vague but she mentions a child. Julia begins to assume it may be her daughter the old woman saw. It is the dialog during this whole scene, from the minute Mrs. Fludd enters the building, that really tells you what will eventually happen. "Spirits can't do anything in the material world. They need someone to do it through". Julia begins an obsession with the spirit she believes is in her house. Eventually she finds out the spirit is of a girl named Olivia, who resembles her daughter. This girl was quite evil. She had all the neighborhood children under her control, and could even encourage them to kill. You never really get a good look at Olivia until the end. Before that we see her from the back, or miliseconds of her as she moves off screen. The movie is generally considered slow, but it really does unfold at a good pace. It's just not an action film and requires a bit of thinking. The atmosphere is amazing. Julia continues to try to find out the truth about Olivia, and anyone that threatens to hold her back eventually ends up dead. The details are gradually realised by research and visits to people associated with Olivia, leading to the final details when Julia tracks down Olivia's mother at an institution. Even after Julia knows that Olivia is evil, she just wants to help her. The end of the movie is the most stunning, and terrifying, I have ever seen. I have never been affected so much by a film. After the story is completed by Olivia's mother, and all necessary people have been killed, Julia heads back to her home, at night in the rain, in tears. It is at this point that one of the most gorgeous and simple pieces of music plays that always chokes me up. When she arrives at home, Olivia finally appears to her. Julia follows Olivia down the stairs. Olivia is sitting on the floor with a toy that Julia brought, which was her daughters. A monkey that claps cymbals together when wound up. Julia moves slowly to a large chair in the middle of the room. She looks at Olivia and picks up the toy. She holds her arms out to the girl and says "come?" Olivia slowly gets up, and with a blank stare moves towards Julia. In an effective artsy touch, all the surrounding lights are gradually dimmed, leaving just Julia and the chair illuminated. You never see Olivia and Julia connect. Julia just sits back and says "Everything's right now. Stay with me". At this point the camera slowly goes behind the chair. You hear a small metallic noise. The sound of the monkey's cymbals. When the camera emerges from the other side of the chair, Julia is is leaning back staring to the side. As the the camera continues it's turn, blood is slowly revealed pouring out of Julia's neck. The music, direction, acting, everything in this scene is absolutely perfect. I get chills everytime I see it, and it was the best possible ending there could be. You really feel for this character, and her constant desire to help, but when the spirit cuts her throat with her daughters toy (which is revealed early on to be sharp), it's absolutely devastating! It's awful to say it's the perfect ending, considering how dreadful it is, but it made the movie infinitely more effective than if she just revealed the secrets and the spirit was released. What I learned from this movie is that Olivia cannot do things in the physical way, as Mrs. Fludd stated. She eventually began to possess Julia, and used her to carry out the killings. This is never blatantly revealed, but gradually hinted at subtley throughout the film, and when you realize that Julia essentially cuts her own neck, it's quite effective. I was so impressed by this film that I had to read the book, even though I'm not much of a book reader. I was terribly disappointed. The book made Julia sound like a looney running around yelling THERE'S GHOSTS IN MY HOUSE! Mark was originally the brother of Julia's husband, and a bit of a rebel. He and Julia also had an affair. If any of that silliness was in the movie, it would have ruined things. Julia was much too distraught to think about sex. I really disliked the book, and thought the screenwriter did an amazing job with the changes. The movie was filmed in the 2.35 aspect ratio, and the 2 different VHS editions that have been released are awful pan and scan editions. This movie is desperately needing a WIDESCREEN DVD release, remastered in stereo, with an isolated soundtrack. That would be incredible!
spooky Mia
SnoopyStyle25 October 2022
Julia Lofting (Mia Farrow) is struggling after a tragedy. Her daughter chocked to death. Her desperate intervention failed to save her. Her wealthy husband Magnus is unhelpful. She leaves him and buys her own posh London house. Mark Berkeley (Tom Conti) is her friend. She fears harassment from Magnus, but the house is actually haunted.
Mia Farrow is just spooky in her pixie cut. It's nine years after Rosemary. She has the same haunted frailty. I would like more ghost action and earlier. The girl doesn't appear until the end. As it stands, it's more a personal internal character study than a horror movie. It's atmospheric, but it's never scary. It is odd that the film didn't get its American release until years later. It's very 70's.
Mia Farrow is just spooky in her pixie cut. It's nine years after Rosemary. She has the same haunted frailty. I would like more ghost action and earlier. The girl doesn't appear until the end. As it stands, it's more a personal internal character study than a horror movie. It's atmospheric, but it's never scary. It is odd that the film didn't get its American release until years later. It's very 70's.
Dull ghost horror
The_Void2 June 2008
If I had to describe The Haunting of Julia in one word, the word I would choose is 'boring'. The film is of the slow build variety, but that isn't the problem in itself - the problem is that there is never enough going on to keep the audience wanting to see what happens next, and therefore the film does drag on far too often. The story is rather derivative of many other films and focuses on a woman who has moved to London after losing her child. However, in her new home she is haunted by the ghost of another child. Mia Farrow takes the lead role and while she is undoubtedly an excellent actress; she isn't able to elevate this drab material much above the bottom of the barrel. The film could be said to be 'horror' because of the ghostly plot, but aside from a séance sequence, there aren't many shocks and scares and I'd say it's more of a supernatural drama. The Haunting of Julia does not benefit from an interesting atmosphere either, as while some attempt is made to build one with a musical score; it never really comes off. Overall, I'm not surprised at all that this film is not better known and gathering dust on an old video shelf is really where it belongs. I would not recommend anyone going out of their way for this!
Truly haunting
nomo152115 March 2007
I rated this film tonight, but its ranking is deceptive as far as age groups go. I first saw this film as "The Haunting of Julia" when I was a teen and we first got cable. It's stayed with me since, and a recent re-viewing only affirmed my memories. The storyline was adequate, and Farrow delivers a terrific performance, but what struck me most initially (and remains true after watching it again), is the film's atmosphere. Julia's unease seeps into every frame of the movie. "The Haunting of Julia" features that undercurrent of melancholy (or pessimism, depending on your point of view) that weaves itself into so many 1970s horror films, such as "Don't Look Now"). And, as others have pointed out, although the plot line may be confusing at points, the cumulative effect of the film results in a payoff. then ending, by the way, is amazing. It has a true lingering effect; after all, it remained with me for twenty years.
Creepy but not a classic - for a reason
helenmcguin12 April 2020
I never heard of this movie until seeing it on online a few years back. After first watching I thought 'why is this not touted as one of the horror classics?' because the first watch truely frightened me. After downloading the film and watching it a few more times, there are scenes that still chill me to the bone, but the whole screenplay doesn't add up. There are too many plotholes & long unnecessary scenes as well. I've now discarded my copy. It's funny that some movies hold up after multiple re-watches (The Exorcist is one) but others just can't take the scrutiny.
Like watching a snail crawl over a leaf in slow motion
Pale-47 March 2002
Veddy British, veddy dull horror film. Mia Farrow is a very frail, timid woman who moves to a very large, built to be haunted house after her daughter dies and, surprise, it turns out to be haunted by a young blond girl who (gasp) looks just like her daughter!! The acting is bland and one note save for Tom Conti as Mia's brother-in-law and a bit part by Robin Gammell as a drunk with a "very big secret". The score is atrocious. The cinematography is gorgeous but it certainly doesn't help any. The book that it's based on "Julia" by Peter Straub is only slightly more interesting. For a good old fashioned ghost story from the same era, rent "The Changeling" with George C. Scott.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
