407 reviews
Laura Baxter (Julie Christie) and John Baxter (Donald Sutherland) suffer a tragedy when their daughter drowns. Later, the couple is in Venice where John is restoring a church. They encounter elderly sisters, Heather and Wendy. Heather is a blind psychic and sees their dead daughter.
This is a slow burn. It's an artsy gothic horror. There are two great actors here. John is flailing around. I notice it from his near accident at the church. He's contorting himself out of shape to grab the rope. The movie feels like it's contorting itself out of shape. It's uncomfortably eerie. The movie, Venice itself, and the characters are all oddly unreal. There is an uncontrolled feel to their actions. It's a slow descend into a kind of madness.
This is a slow burn. It's an artsy gothic horror. There are two great actors here. John is flailing around. I notice it from his near accident at the church. He's contorting himself out of shape to grab the rope. The movie feels like it's contorting itself out of shape. It's uncomfortably eerie. The movie, Venice itself, and the characters are all oddly unreal. There is an uncontrolled feel to their actions. It's a slow descend into a kind of madness.
- SnoopyStyle
- Oct 29, 2022
- Permalink
Don't Look Now is based on a Daphne Du Maurier story. She also wrote Rebecca. The movie version was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and won the Best Picture Oscar.
Don't Look Now is often held as an example of how a movie adaptation can be refreshingly different from the source material.
Director Nicolas Roeg was not a traditional director preferring to push the envelope. The movie is known making Venice look Gothic and menacing. As well as the tender lovemaking scene between Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland. It was regarded as rather graphic for the time.
Laura Baxter (Christie) and John Baxter (Donald Sutherland) are devastated when their daughter Christine accidentally drowns in a pond outside their home. She was wearing a shiny plastic red raincoat at the time.
John had some kind of second sight that she was in danger but was too late to save her.
Some time later, with their other son in Boarding school. Laura and John are in Venice. He is involved in a project to restore a church.
Laura has a chance encounter with two sisters, Heather and Wendy. Heather is blind but has psychic abilities. One of them is that Christine is communicating with her and that John might be in danger is they stay in Venice.
John dismisses the sisters but this is a Venice where a serial killer is on the loose. John is also having visions of someone in a red cape.
What begins as a film about family loss and grieving. It slowly but suddenly morphs into a psychic supernatural thriller that leans into horror.
You sense that John might be going mad as he has visions of Laura when he knows she has left Venice for England. He also dismisses his own supernatural abilities, his own sense that bad luck seems to follow him.
There is a subplot that Roeg introduces where John along with others could be the suspected killer. The ending is creepy and both horrific.
Apparently Du Maurier liked the adaptation of this story. Roeg introduces a lot of symbolism in the film. Hence why when the figure in the red cape turns around it is startling.
As a footnote when Joel Schumacher made Flatliners. The Kiefer Sutherland character had visions of a figure in red.
Don't Look Now is often held as an example of how a movie adaptation can be refreshingly different from the source material.
Director Nicolas Roeg was not a traditional director preferring to push the envelope. The movie is known making Venice look Gothic and menacing. As well as the tender lovemaking scene between Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland. It was regarded as rather graphic for the time.
Laura Baxter (Christie) and John Baxter (Donald Sutherland) are devastated when their daughter Christine accidentally drowns in a pond outside their home. She was wearing a shiny plastic red raincoat at the time.
John had some kind of second sight that she was in danger but was too late to save her.
Some time later, with their other son in Boarding school. Laura and John are in Venice. He is involved in a project to restore a church.
Laura has a chance encounter with two sisters, Heather and Wendy. Heather is blind but has psychic abilities. One of them is that Christine is communicating with her and that John might be in danger is they stay in Venice.
John dismisses the sisters but this is a Venice where a serial killer is on the loose. John is also having visions of someone in a red cape.
What begins as a film about family loss and grieving. It slowly but suddenly morphs into a psychic supernatural thriller that leans into horror.
You sense that John might be going mad as he has visions of Laura when he knows she has left Venice for England. He also dismisses his own supernatural abilities, his own sense that bad luck seems to follow him.
There is a subplot that Roeg introduces where John along with others could be the suspected killer. The ending is creepy and both horrific.
Apparently Du Maurier liked the adaptation of this story. Roeg introduces a lot of symbolism in the film. Hence why when the figure in the red cape turns around it is startling.
As a footnote when Joel Schumacher made Flatliners. The Kiefer Sutherland character had visions of a figure in red.
- Prismark10
- Oct 27, 2022
- Permalink
The Italian title of this Nicolas Roeg's classic is "A Venetian Shocking Red December" yep. I had seen this film dubbed into Italian, years ago. I was taken by the look and the atmosphere I remember being unnerved but I was appalled by the acting, specially Julie Christie's - one of my favorites of all time. Yesterday I saw the film again in its original English version. My goodness, what a difference! The film is even more frightening that I remembered. The atmosphere is asphyxiating. You can actually smell the rotting stench of the most beautiful city in the world. The ending leaves you breathless and the acting, well, listening to the actors real voices is another experience altogether. The pain and sudden burst of hope in Julie Christie is moving, very moving and very unsettling. Sutherland, as usual, is magnificent. The film, other than a solid cult status, remains virtually unknown by the public at large. "Don't Look Now" is a buried treasure that is bound to be re discovered and to all my countrymen, a piece of advise: avoid dubbed movies at all cost.
- primodanielelori
- Oct 12, 2007
- Permalink
Don't Look Now was clearly ahead of its time. In 1973, psychological movies such as this were either rare, or basic. Don't Look Now attempts to go where a lot of movies had never been, which was a realm where many things never truly make sense and yet behind it all is a coherent purpose.
First of it is *not* a candidate for greatest horror film ever, though the Times would have you believe otherwise. What it *is* though is a highly confusing yet thought-provoking story which covers grief and dillusion in equal measure.
Donald Sutherland plays John Baxter, who's married to Laura, who lose a child in an accident and find their worlds turned upside-down as a result. However, thereafter the story is set in Venice where John's working on a job and Laura's accompanied him there, and where things start to get disturbing for the couple as events begin to focus on their dead daughter and paranormal themes emerge.
It *is* a strange tale, and ultimately what you get out of it is entirely up to you. It is probably from this film that the likes of David Lynch started to derive inspiration.
Overall, good, if intrinsically confusing.
First of it is *not* a candidate for greatest horror film ever, though the Times would have you believe otherwise. What it *is* though is a highly confusing yet thought-provoking story which covers grief and dillusion in equal measure.
Donald Sutherland plays John Baxter, who's married to Laura, who lose a child in an accident and find their worlds turned upside-down as a result. However, thereafter the story is set in Venice where John's working on a job and Laura's accompanied him there, and where things start to get disturbing for the couple as events begin to focus on their dead daughter and paranormal themes emerge.
It *is* a strange tale, and ultimately what you get out of it is entirely up to you. It is probably from this film that the likes of David Lynch started to derive inspiration.
Overall, good, if intrinsically confusing.
- TheFearmakers
- Nov 22, 2020
- Permalink
When a great artist, and a great artist is what Nicolas Roeg is, tells us a tale of horrors, the results are, usually, unique, overwhelming, unforgettable. "Don't Look Now" redefines the genre. I was paralyzed by fear and totally involved in the bizarre predicament of the protagonists. Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie are remarkable. A married couple enveloped in the unspeakable sadness provoked by the loss of their young daughter. Then, in Venice, among the rot, the beauty and the darkness, a ray of light. But this is not the kind of light that lets you see, no, this light is terrifying because it will persuade you to follow it. I've seen the film 9 hours ago and it's still with me...I can smell the stench of the most beautiful city in the world and I close my eyes, hoping that it's just a dream. "Don't Look Now" is a masterpiece.
- mrharrypaulson
- May 3, 2017
- Permalink
Now here's a film that may just get you thinking, the extents that some go to with abstractive linking, as a daughter is drowned, this might just make you frown, as you witness two souls, whose reality's sinking. Wandering around Venice there's a large hint of menace, two sisters suggest afterlife has a premise, a wife who believes, husband who still grieves, though to him, hocus pocus, is far too remiss. Understanding their feelings is the key to the door, through eyes that have witnessed events that have scored, a scar through their souls, left bottomless holes, a knife that has slashed at least one, to the floor.
There are two types of horror films, really. There are popcorn horror films, good for a cheap in-the-moment thrill at best, and there are serious horror films, movies that linger in the mind and in the bones. I have just watched Nicolas Roeg's 'Don't Look Now' and my spine is frozen. It's 4am, I'm alone, and I have a heightened awareness of sounds and sights I usually don't notice.
Here is a movie that's both resolved and unresolved, ultimately growing more ambiguous as it progresses and becomes more complex. After it is over and has become a complete(d) work to the eye of the viewer, the lasting impression is that of mystery. Too many films in this genre bark up the wrong tree, working to explain all of the events that unfold. By explaining nothing, by being almost abstract, questions and images will haunt the viewer indefinitely. It is what it is, and while this movie can be watched over and over, and the events that occur can be anticipated, they will forever remain an enigma. This is true cinema, purely visual and aural, without the helpful but ultimately self-defeating aid of a proxy observer; the viewer is the direct observer, and there's no filter through which the events and images develop any sort of tidy rationality.
Donald Sutherland's performance here is sober, adult, the grief of his character palpable. And in the face of this grief is a force that runs through the movie like a dark current, evoking the eternal and spookily ethereal and subterranean; less an eternity of the heavens than the eternity of a crypt. Venice is not merely the ideal location for this story, but the necessary location; it could not take place anywhere else. The unquestionable, and indeed imposing, Gothic majesty of the churches, whose interior height dwarfs their human occupants with the spiritual dread of the ancient, overlooks the canals of Venice like the wicked-faced stone gargoyles Sutherland finds himself physically embracing, while the canals that run through the city are literally the ghost of this couple's personal tragedy. Living in Venice, in light of the details surrounding their loss, seems almost a perverse choice, perhaps a masochistic one; they could be punishing themselves for their daughter's drowning by living in a flooded city.
It's not that Sutherland's character is a rational man in an irrational environment, but rather a rational man in an environment whose own secret code, which one may trust makes perfect sense to itself (like a tree in the forest that will only fall if no one is around to hear), is inaccessible and inexplicable to him, baring itself only in fragments in a way he chooses to ignore, just as you might ignore a spectral voice in the dead of night, dismissing it as a product of your imagination.
The movie's notorious love scene is jarringly explicit, yet rather than erotic, it is profoundly sad, and takes on a deeper (even creepy) resonance after the film ends. That the scene is intercut with scenes of Sutherland and Julie Christie dressing prevents the two from ever being completely naked and united; this editing choice changes the dimensions of the love scene in a way that I've never seen attempted elsewhere. At other points, Roeg inserts moments and images that carry sinister implications, none of which are ever concretely substantiated and only leave the viewer with more questions.
The film drifts along at a wandering pace. The final twenty minutes are among the most atmospheric and suspenseful twenty minutes in any film, culminating in a montage that is absolutely chilling.
'The Blair Witch Project,' made over two decades later and probably influenced by this, has similar aspirations, but finally has only a fraction of the emotional gravity.
Here is a movie that's both resolved and unresolved, ultimately growing more ambiguous as it progresses and becomes more complex. After it is over and has become a complete(d) work to the eye of the viewer, the lasting impression is that of mystery. Too many films in this genre bark up the wrong tree, working to explain all of the events that unfold. By explaining nothing, by being almost abstract, questions and images will haunt the viewer indefinitely. It is what it is, and while this movie can be watched over and over, and the events that occur can be anticipated, they will forever remain an enigma. This is true cinema, purely visual and aural, without the helpful but ultimately self-defeating aid of a proxy observer; the viewer is the direct observer, and there's no filter through which the events and images develop any sort of tidy rationality.
Donald Sutherland's performance here is sober, adult, the grief of his character palpable. And in the face of this grief is a force that runs through the movie like a dark current, evoking the eternal and spookily ethereal and subterranean; less an eternity of the heavens than the eternity of a crypt. Venice is not merely the ideal location for this story, but the necessary location; it could not take place anywhere else. The unquestionable, and indeed imposing, Gothic majesty of the churches, whose interior height dwarfs their human occupants with the spiritual dread of the ancient, overlooks the canals of Venice like the wicked-faced stone gargoyles Sutherland finds himself physically embracing, while the canals that run through the city are literally the ghost of this couple's personal tragedy. Living in Venice, in light of the details surrounding their loss, seems almost a perverse choice, perhaps a masochistic one; they could be punishing themselves for their daughter's drowning by living in a flooded city.
It's not that Sutherland's character is a rational man in an irrational environment, but rather a rational man in an environment whose own secret code, which one may trust makes perfect sense to itself (like a tree in the forest that will only fall if no one is around to hear), is inaccessible and inexplicable to him, baring itself only in fragments in a way he chooses to ignore, just as you might ignore a spectral voice in the dead of night, dismissing it as a product of your imagination.
The movie's notorious love scene is jarringly explicit, yet rather than erotic, it is profoundly sad, and takes on a deeper (even creepy) resonance after the film ends. That the scene is intercut with scenes of Sutherland and Julie Christie dressing prevents the two from ever being completely naked and united; this editing choice changes the dimensions of the love scene in a way that I've never seen attempted elsewhere. At other points, Roeg inserts moments and images that carry sinister implications, none of which are ever concretely substantiated and only leave the viewer with more questions.
The film drifts along at a wandering pace. The final twenty minutes are among the most atmospheric and suspenseful twenty minutes in any film, culminating in a montage that is absolutely chilling.
'The Blair Witch Project,' made over two decades later and probably influenced by this, has similar aspirations, but finally has only a fraction of the emotional gravity.
- MichaelCarmichaelsCar
- Jan 3, 2005
- Permalink
Roeg uses in the best way the city of Venice, its narrow streets and its shadows in "Don't look now". Also Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie (what a wonderful woman) make a hell of a job, especially Sutherland... So, what's the matter? Everything looks set up for a nice intrigue, but the plot (as far as I can see) is totally meaningless. You don't know if you've missed some clues or if there are not such clues to be missed at all. "Don't look now" begins like a a typical drama involving the death of a young girl and for the next 70 minutes it does not happen anything remarkable... until we get to the ending sequences, where Roeg supposedly clarifies everything... not for me, Mr. Roeg!
*My rate: 5'5/10
*My rate: 5'5/10
- rainking_es
- May 16, 2008
- Permalink
- e5capeveloc1ty
- Mar 23, 2015
- Permalink
I was afraid to swallow, to make any noise. The unspeakable was all around me and I lived it up to the fullest. Nicolas Roeg plays with our instincts, with our inner voices and challenge us to take notice. Just like Donald Sutherland's character. He knows, even if his brain tells him not to be stupid. To believe is to commit intellectual suicide. Better not to look, not to listen. Sutherland and Christie are one of the most convincing modern artistic yet normal married couples in their pain in their every daily detail. Sutherland goes along with Christie's "nonsense" because he sees what the nonsense does for her. They make love for the first time since their daughter's death in a way we've never seen before on the screen and, probably, never will again. Based on a Daphne Du Maurier's book, Nicolas Roeg has orchestrated a chilling work of art. For film lovers all over the world, if you haven't seen it, do, preferably in the dark with someone you know and love.
- mocpacific
- Aug 31, 2005
- Permalink
First establishment: don't even consider watching this film when you're tired and/or trying to conquer sleep
because you'll lose. The terror in Don't Look Now is strictly psychological and whether it's a masterpiece or not all depends on the viewer's state of mind. It could become one of the most superbly chilling films you'll ever see, but at the same time you could say it's very overrated and not that compelling at all.
Second establishment: the settings, scenery and locations couldn't possibly be better. Don't Look Now is almost entirely set in Venice, Italy which is the most appropriate décor to tell a paranormal tale. The story completely depends on the dark alleys, ancients cathedrals and typical waters where it's shot at. Donald Sutherland and his wife Julie Christie settled in Venice to slowly forget the death of their young daughter. While Sutherland is restoring a cathedral, his wife is approached by a blind, psychic lady who claims to be in contact with the couple deceased daughter. This spiritual woman comes with a warning but she can only foresee a tragedy not forestall it! Nicolas Roeg is a brilliant cinematographer and he can create a hardly bearable tension without showing shocking images. The drama and sentiment in Don't Look Now is well-represented, of course, since it handles about the worst thing parents can go through Witnessing and living with the dead of their own child. The supernatural methods that Roeg implements are unique and it's almost impossible to discover them all in one single viewing. Perfect example of that is Sutherlands walk in the dark alley, where all the ominous elements of the little girl's dead are repeated That's pretty brilliant but you don't realize it right away. Some of the storytelling require a wide attention-span and I'll fairly admit that the film is overall long and pretty boring at times. Even the explicit (and infamous) sex sequence is way too long. Donald Sutherland is a class A actor, even though his haircut never looked so ridiculous. Julie Christie is a loveable wife and very convincing as the heart-broken mother.
Second establishment: the settings, scenery and locations couldn't possibly be better. Don't Look Now is almost entirely set in Venice, Italy which is the most appropriate décor to tell a paranormal tale. The story completely depends on the dark alleys, ancients cathedrals and typical waters where it's shot at. Donald Sutherland and his wife Julie Christie settled in Venice to slowly forget the death of their young daughter. While Sutherland is restoring a cathedral, his wife is approached by a blind, psychic lady who claims to be in contact with the couple deceased daughter. This spiritual woman comes with a warning but she can only foresee a tragedy not forestall it! Nicolas Roeg is a brilliant cinematographer and he can create a hardly bearable tension without showing shocking images. The drama and sentiment in Don't Look Now is well-represented, of course, since it handles about the worst thing parents can go through Witnessing and living with the dead of their own child. The supernatural methods that Roeg implements are unique and it's almost impossible to discover them all in one single viewing. Perfect example of that is Sutherlands walk in the dark alley, where all the ominous elements of the little girl's dead are repeated That's pretty brilliant but you don't realize it right away. Some of the storytelling require a wide attention-span and I'll fairly admit that the film is overall long and pretty boring at times. Even the explicit (and infamous) sex sequence is way too long. Donald Sutherland is a class A actor, even though his haircut never looked so ridiculous. Julie Christie is a loveable wife and very convincing as the heart-broken mother.
Man, I thought I'd seen some boring overrated movies before, like Polanski's "Repulsion," but this one must be the worst. After a nice opening scene, "Don't Look Now" proceeds to show some characters, who are mostly uninteresting, walk around and have little day-to-day type problems, have a little sex, blah blah blah. Oh trust me, there's no story at all. And there's not a trace of suspense or surprise until the very end, which comes out of left field and is very silly.
This is the kind of movie where normal, everyday events are supposed to be scary merely because a stinger was added to the musical score. If you watch it with the sound off, I guarantee you will fall asleep in minutes!
The other really annoying habit of this movie is its tendency to show something innocuous, like a broach, and zoom in on it as if this is something important that we're supposed to be interested in. In every single case it turns out to be completely irrelevant. As a result, the viewer is actually conditioned to ignore the movie's details...if the director won't play fair by giving these scenes a payoff, why bother paying attention at all? Overall, the only emotion this film can create is confusion and a deep, deep desire to shut the damn thing off half-way through. 3 out of 10.
This is the kind of movie where normal, everyday events are supposed to be scary merely because a stinger was added to the musical score. If you watch it with the sound off, I guarantee you will fall asleep in minutes!
The other really annoying habit of this movie is its tendency to show something innocuous, like a broach, and zoom in on it as if this is something important that we're supposed to be interested in. In every single case it turns out to be completely irrelevant. As a result, the viewer is actually conditioned to ignore the movie's details...if the director won't play fair by giving these scenes a payoff, why bother paying attention at all? Overall, the only emotion this film can create is confusion and a deep, deep desire to shut the damn thing off half-way through. 3 out of 10.
I shouldn't be surprised that a 49 year old movie can survive the passage of time with such power. But it is, surprising. It may be the privilege of certain films by great artists that, in their day, came and went, almost unnoticed. I'm discovering more and more films with that particular peculiarity. I saw Don't Look Now for the first time when I was 18. It terrified me, it gave me a sleepless night and at the same time it fascinated me. I had a similar reaction last night when I saw it again 27 years after my first time. Love it, terrified me and fascinated me. Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland are superlative in daring, truly daring performances. Nicolas Roeg a true master.
- marcelbenoitdeux
- Mar 22, 2022
- Permalink
VENICE, ITALY has never been more appealing. After watching this I want to get up and go there right now. The movie is about a couple who lost their child in England, and are now in Venice while the husband is restoring an ancient church. Filmed entirely on location during the winter, and NOT in the schmoozy tourist areas, there is a psychic to tells the wife she can see their daughter and she is happy, which starts leading the film in one direction. Then the father starts seeing out of the corner of his eye a little girl wearing a red rain slicker, just like the one his daughter was wearing when she drowned, which goes in another direction, all the while in the background there are whisperings of a serial killer on the loose. How do any of these things have anything to do with each other? I wont say, but it's a classy thriller with a "6'Th sense" level shocker of an ending i DID NOT SEE COMING! but again, more than anything, Venice is the stare here. Over cast and wet. You can see everyone's breath. it's just a couple degreees away from snow. the walls are cracked and crumpling and the fog is real, not from a studio machine. There is an aura of mystery and romance that is indescribable in every scene. No discovery chanell or travel chanell special can sell you on this city better than this film
- ericfield1985
- Mar 2, 2013
- Permalink
- Tender-Flesh
- Dec 18, 2009
- Permalink
People want and expect different things from movies. What engages and captivates one person can just as easily displease and repulse another (see Titanic). Sometimes, a film simply doesn't register beyond the viewer's walk/drive home (this criminal offense is not exclusively a phenomenon of the 1990s in spite of the last decade's distinct dearth of memorable films). Don't Look Now, however, is a film which cannot fail to last long in the mind.
It is easy to love the film for its rare depth of character, its beautiful yet disturbing plot, the stunning Venice setting, the tender and original love scene or just for Donald Sutherland's never-rivalled wig! I am sure, however, that people find it easy to fault the film because it doesn't neatly tie up loose ends, because it is dark and depressing (the film's extensive reach encompasses death, loss, murder, blindness, religion and dwarfism) and because film-making conventions are abandoned.
The source material of Du Maurier's short story provides only a meagre framework onto which screenwriters Scott and Bryant have fleshed a stunning adaptation. Roeg's visual and emotional style of directing has never been so perfectly showcased as in Don't Look Now. How many more times can film-makers and advertisers steal (or "pay homage to") Roeg's ingenious work? Julie Christie is luminous and pulls the viewer with her through Laura's painful journey after the film's shocking opening. Sutherland's performance is stellar as well. His character, John, is like a Hitchcockian fall-guy with real personality and depth. You are swept along through the canals and narrow avenues with him as Pino Donaggio's stirring music both chills and lulls.
Films made in the tone of Don't Look Now are so rare these days. I am not an old fuddy-duddy who complains that "they don't make 'em like they used to" but am simply a slightly disillusioned film fan who wishes there were just a few more film-makers willing to take chances and not follow the dull formulaic line. What was the last film that stayed with you long after you saw it? It always sounds like a cliche when some obsessed fan tells you a film haunted them for days but Don't Look Now has a curious effect on the viewer. Its intensity grows. Different parts of the film mull around in your mind. You don't think about individual 'scenes' from the film either, you think about the situations, the people, the feelings. All of which is testament to the roundly drawn characterisation and elegant (yet not contrived) structure of the film.
If you haven't seen Don't Look Now before then you have a treat awaiting you. If you have seen it - see it again and marvel at a profound, eery, haunting, moving and beautiful film. If it disappoints you that films of such indelible and recurring substance like this are thin on the ground (Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver and The Conversation had similar effects on me) then do not hesitate to picket the next showing of....(OUT OF RESPECT TO IMDB'S CONTENT GUIDELINES I WON'T NAME TITLE OF MORONIC HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTERS AND THE LIKE)!
It is easy to love the film for its rare depth of character, its beautiful yet disturbing plot, the stunning Venice setting, the tender and original love scene or just for Donald Sutherland's never-rivalled wig! I am sure, however, that people find it easy to fault the film because it doesn't neatly tie up loose ends, because it is dark and depressing (the film's extensive reach encompasses death, loss, murder, blindness, religion and dwarfism) and because film-making conventions are abandoned.
The source material of Du Maurier's short story provides only a meagre framework onto which screenwriters Scott and Bryant have fleshed a stunning adaptation. Roeg's visual and emotional style of directing has never been so perfectly showcased as in Don't Look Now. How many more times can film-makers and advertisers steal (or "pay homage to") Roeg's ingenious work? Julie Christie is luminous and pulls the viewer with her through Laura's painful journey after the film's shocking opening. Sutherland's performance is stellar as well. His character, John, is like a Hitchcockian fall-guy with real personality and depth. You are swept along through the canals and narrow avenues with him as Pino Donaggio's stirring music both chills and lulls.
Films made in the tone of Don't Look Now are so rare these days. I am not an old fuddy-duddy who complains that "they don't make 'em like they used to" but am simply a slightly disillusioned film fan who wishes there were just a few more film-makers willing to take chances and not follow the dull formulaic line. What was the last film that stayed with you long after you saw it? It always sounds like a cliche when some obsessed fan tells you a film haunted them for days but Don't Look Now has a curious effect on the viewer. Its intensity grows. Different parts of the film mull around in your mind. You don't think about individual 'scenes' from the film either, you think about the situations, the people, the feelings. All of which is testament to the roundly drawn characterisation and elegant (yet not contrived) structure of the film.
If you haven't seen Don't Look Now before then you have a treat awaiting you. If you have seen it - see it again and marvel at a profound, eery, haunting, moving and beautiful film. If it disappoints you that films of such indelible and recurring substance like this are thin on the ground (Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver and The Conversation had similar effects on me) then do not hesitate to picket the next showing of....(OUT OF RESPECT TO IMDB'S CONTENT GUIDELINES I WON'T NAME TITLE OF MORONIC HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTERS AND THE LIKE)!
Ok, let me tell you first of all that here in England, where I am now, this movie is considered some sort of classic... highly recommended from critics and people I know, and recently re-issued on cinemas (probably restored) as an outstanding movie of British cinema history... Well, on these premises I can only say it was a complete disappointment! On the other hand, if you consider it as an unknown B movie (as it probably is for the rest of the world), it would easily rank among the good ones. I mean that it is not bad at all, there is an excellent (as usual) Donald Sutherland, a good score, some interesting scenes, Venice looks beautiful (is this a special merit by the director??), but the story is not so great, the famous erotic scene is nowadays quite conventional and anyway not so necessary to the movie, and the thrill or suspence is not that great at all... have you ever seen any Italian giallo? If not, try Argento, Bava, Fulci... at their best, you will surely find more suspence, skills and enjoyment.
I think it is bad luck that "Don't Look Now" was released in the same year as "The Exorcist", or else this might be a better known and more appreciated one of a kind masterpiece.
"Don't Look Now" is an horror movie but not one like you would expect it to be. It isn't a movie that scares you with some scene's, it is a movie that gets into you and just won't let go and builds up a nightmare like tension. The atmosphere is fantastic and gives the movie a haunting feeling. Venice really works as the perfect backdrop for this movie. The best movie set in Venice ever? Even though there aren't any scary sequences in the movie, the ending is really horrifying, it really freaked me out the first time I saw it, I think 5 years ago. On my second viewing, not too long ago I was prepared for the ending but it still was a very scary thing to watch!
The storytelling might seem slow but it works perfect for the movie and its tension. There are some brilliant moments in the movie that all come together once the ending approaches. The editing and cinematography are perfect, as are the performances by the cast.
And what is a decent comment without mentioning the famous love scene? Ah yes, the love scene, it really is one of the best love scene's ever. It is brilliantly filmed and even more brilliantly edited. Quite Stylish, as is the entire movie.
This classic masterpiece certainly deserves more recognition!
10/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
"Don't Look Now" is an horror movie but not one like you would expect it to be. It isn't a movie that scares you with some scene's, it is a movie that gets into you and just won't let go and builds up a nightmare like tension. The atmosphere is fantastic and gives the movie a haunting feeling. Venice really works as the perfect backdrop for this movie. The best movie set in Venice ever? Even though there aren't any scary sequences in the movie, the ending is really horrifying, it really freaked me out the first time I saw it, I think 5 years ago. On my second viewing, not too long ago I was prepared for the ending but it still was a very scary thing to watch!
The storytelling might seem slow but it works perfect for the movie and its tension. There are some brilliant moments in the movie that all come together once the ending approaches. The editing and cinematography are perfect, as are the performances by the cast.
And what is a decent comment without mentioning the famous love scene? Ah yes, the love scene, it really is one of the best love scene's ever. It is brilliantly filmed and even more brilliantly edited. Quite Stylish, as is the entire movie.
This classic masterpiece certainly deserves more recognition!
10/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
- Boba_Fett1138
- Jan 17, 2005
- Permalink
Nicolas Roeg drama, patchily intense without being really absorbing, has married couple Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie grieving the death of their daughter; when a strange psychic tells them the deceased child is trying to contact them from beyond, Sutherland becomes obsessed with finding the truth. After a fascinating opening, this psychological thriller gets more and more murky, leading to a wet climax in Venice, Italy that leaves the viewer feeling high and dry. Roeg enjoys frenzied story loops, curious cuts and editing techniques, but he doesn't have a trace of humor--good, dark or otherwise--and the heaviness of the film is more memorable than the story (which is anti-climactic) or the performances. **1/2 from ****
- moonspinner55
- Dec 6, 2005
- Permalink
- coldwaterpdh
- Dec 31, 2008
- Permalink
- martinpersson97
- Jul 4, 2023
- Permalink
This agreeable film that has a strong cult following deals with an architect called John Baxter : Donald Sutherland , and his wife Laura : Julie Christie, who suffer a terrible shock when their young daughter is drowned at an unfortunate accident . Just after they travel an off-season , dank Venice in an attempt to forget the distress and put the drowning little daughter behind them. Along the way Laura becomes involved with two odd sisters , one of whom is a blind psychic woman and claims she can help them contact their daughter . But while working on a church restoration , John begins to have psychic visions which are encouraged by the pair of strange sisters : Mason , Matania .
This is an overlong psychological creepyfest with surreal magic , suspense , tension , intrigue , intense acting , fine camera work , and a chilling finale . Adding some strong and steamy love scenes that caused huge scandal by the time and became the object of much gossip . Being based on the supernatural novel by Daphne Du Maurier , taking parts here and there of its plot , including the surprising climax . Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie give fine interpretations , making this movie a must-see . They are well accompanied by a good support cast , mainly Italian actors , as Massimo Serato, Renato Escarpa , Leopoldo Trieste and Hilary Mason.
Gorgeous cinematography showing splendidly streets , bridges , canals , corridors from Venice , and beautifully photographed by Anthony B. Richmond . This nice motion picture was competently directed by Nicolas Roeg , but being slow-moving and packs some flaws , as well as inescrutable scenes . Roeg was a prestigious cameraman who made a few good movies as "Castaway" , "Eureka", "Performance" , "Insignificance" and his most known films : "Man who fell to Earth" , along with this "Don't Look Now" . Rating : 6.5/10 , attractive film , being stunning to watch , though if you demand a logical plot with an equally adequate conclusion, you will find this movie irritating. However , if you let its fantastic and enthralling magic seduce you , you'll understand why it has been deemed a Cult Movie . Well worth seeing .
This is an overlong psychological creepyfest with surreal magic , suspense , tension , intrigue , intense acting , fine camera work , and a chilling finale . Adding some strong and steamy love scenes that caused huge scandal by the time and became the object of much gossip . Being based on the supernatural novel by Daphne Du Maurier , taking parts here and there of its plot , including the surprising climax . Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie give fine interpretations , making this movie a must-see . They are well accompanied by a good support cast , mainly Italian actors , as Massimo Serato, Renato Escarpa , Leopoldo Trieste and Hilary Mason.
Gorgeous cinematography showing splendidly streets , bridges , canals , corridors from Venice , and beautifully photographed by Anthony B. Richmond . This nice motion picture was competently directed by Nicolas Roeg , but being slow-moving and packs some flaws , as well as inescrutable scenes . Roeg was a prestigious cameraman who made a few good movies as "Castaway" , "Eureka", "Performance" , "Insignificance" and his most known films : "Man who fell to Earth" , along with this "Don't Look Now" . Rating : 6.5/10 , attractive film , being stunning to watch , though if you demand a logical plot with an equally adequate conclusion, you will find this movie irritating. However , if you let its fantastic and enthralling magic seduce you , you'll understand why it has been deemed a Cult Movie . Well worth seeing .
- jenny-borst
- Nov 10, 2006
- Permalink