Whitsbrain

4/10

Visually, "Don't Look Now" is certainly different, almost experimental. But it's so hung up on those visuals that it forgets to bring the story along with it. The film is plodding, but when it moves, it jumps around within the alleys and canals of Venice. It's disorienting to say the least and maybe the location is part of the director's game. This isn't a scary movie. There are a number of moments when we get a glimpse of a red-coated, ghostly figure that resembles what John (Donald Sutherland) and Laura's (Julie Christie) daughter was wearing when she died. It feels a bit like a predecessor to many of today's Horror movies that feature a scary little girl. There aren't many moments of horror or tension, except for the early death of the girl. Outside of that, Religion is flirted with but it doesn't play any substantial role in the plot. Julie Christie's joy upon hearing details about her daughter from a blind but psychic woman is a standout moment. She lights up a movie that to this point had been dreary as Hell. She's gorgeous and I had a hard time with Sutherland being paired with her. He's no fun to watch in this movie and the love-making scene with Christie doesn't help. The director goes absolutely Austin Powers in the scene, strategically hiding Sutherland's naughty bits a number of times. Funny is what it is. The ending was a total letdown. It's sort of makes sense and it's a twist, but it's too much of stretch.

SkinnyFilmBuff

4/10

Like most younger audiences, older movies have a disadvantage in trying to win me over. Filmmaking styles/techniques evolve, tastes change, fresh stories become stale, and of course special effects improve by leaps and bounds. Despite all this, I still enjoy giving old movies a chance and finding a 50+ year old movie that overcomes these hurdles is always incredible. Unfortunately, this movie is not one of those. There was nothing wrong with it technically - it was very watchable - but the style and story were just odd. So many scenes felt random and unnecessary, with odd interactions and characters that never rise to the level of a B- or C-plot, but for some reason get attention anyway. Most screenwriting advice is to have every scene be critical to the story, but that certainly isn't the case here. Perhaps they were trying to build mystery with red herrings and non sequiturs, but it ended up feeling more aimless. The performances at times hit a naturalistic quality that I liked, but it wasn't enough to save a story that I wasn't invested in. Add to that a head-scratching ending and the end result is a big misfire - too weird and art house for me.

talisencrw

0/10

Note-perfect direction, pacing, script and performances make this one of the eeriest, creepiest and unique horror films I have ever seen, and from Roeg's very strong run of films. Perhaps the finest 'reveal' of all time, in fact. In short, a 'must-see' film, and if you enjoy beautifully-shot psychological horror, it's definitely worth a purchase in the finest quality print available, and re-watches...hopefully once every Halloween season, in fact.

Milo_Jeeder

0/10

I honestly had a great enthusiasm towards this film before I watched it and I really longed for a film that would mainly offer a sinister atmosphere for the most part. I had read so many great things about "Don't Look Now" and the plot, the locations and the characters looked compelling enough to me to give this movie a chance and be prepared to enjoy an over and done masterpiece. Frankly, I am aware that most people who like this film, are probably going to think I'm terribly brainless because I was somehow disappointed by it, but I would much rather speaking my mind and giving my honest opinion. The main reason why this film turned into a disappointment to me, was mostly the fact that there were quite a lot of scenes that worked as a sleeping pill to me. I think I have seen a decent share of horror films that offer big moments of silence and so-called clever symbolism and subtle details that somehow help to build a solid story. However, in "Don't Look Now", I felt a bit overwhelmed by the excessive amount of pointless sequences (and I'm pretty sure they ARE pointless) and images that in the end are reduced to nothing whatsoever. I felt like most of these puzzling and unsolved details, were Nicolas Roeg's way to mystify the audience with discourteous methods and filling blanks to make the movie longer and by some means more "interesting" to look at. Nevertheless, opposite to what those chaotic sequences were meant to incite, I felt somehow underestimated and ripped off. This film could have offered the same story and lots of bright symbolism, without the requirement of bombing the audience with tedious states of affair. I'm very supportive of ambiguity in horror films, when help to create a sinister atmosphere, at least. As an example, I'd probably mention Lucio Fulci, whose films are mostly criticized by the great quantity of nonsensical scenes. However, in Mr. Fulci's case, I think the puzzling aspect of his films, at least contribute in a great deal, to develop a terrifying atmosphere. So to make it short and clear, what I condemn the most about "Don't Look Now", is its offensive and underestimating ambiguity that leads to nothing at all and simply leaves the audience doubting about their own intelligence. Too bad this film cheats the audience with so many pointless oscillations, because the story itself is not bad at all and the characters look darkly beautiful enough to make a frightening horror film, like the two old sisters, for example. The locations were probably one of the most appealing elements in "Don't Look Now" and probably one of the main reasons why I agreed to watch the movie until it was finished instead of just leaving it incomplete. I am not one of those horror fans who expect a big "EUREKA!" moment during the last minutes of a film, I can guarantee that. However, I do not appreciate feeling mocked after a movie is finished. I'm sure this comment will be voted as NOT useful several times by people who support this film and think I'm just an airhead who didn't get it, but that's all right… I can live with that ;) (My five stars, mostly are due to the locations and a couple of eerie moments that made the whole thing endurable somehow).

CinemaSerf

0/10

"John" (Donald Sutherland) and wife "Laura" (Julie Christie) are living in Venice where they encounter two elderly sisters - "Heather" (Hilary Manson) and "Wendy" (Clelia Matania). The former of those enigmatic ladies claims to be able to see an apparition of their recently deceased daughter. "Laura" is engaged, "John" less so - but as the story develops we begin to appreciate that the drowned girl has left demons for both parents to deal with - some more substantial than others! Sutherland is on good form here. His character has some depth to it as we realise that he has yet to fully come to terms with his loss and his grief. Christie also delivers well as she takes a different route to dealing with her stresses and the story balances their needs of each other and for closure. As the mystery deepens, the apparitions become more real and - well what is real and what is not? Nicholas Roeg has also worked hard to create an engaging sense of menace. A lack of special and visual effects but the use of the converted chapel in which "John" works, works well as does a powerful score from accomplished horror genre composer Pino Donaggio all creating an enveloping sense of... yikes! Then there's the love scene - pretty risqué for the time and photographed in a much more graphic (though still stylised) fashion that does illustrate well the fact that couple are lovers still, despite their trauma. The pace can be a bit sluggish at times, but this is still a curiously stimulating film that doesn't really conform to any template that I've seen. It is a thriller as much as a horror and the characterisations are much more substantial - plenty for them and us to get our teeth into. Venice looks great too!