Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating, Perplexing, but beautifully shot 70's thriller
Review: We've all seen it before: the 'horror' movie where someone's lost a loved one, suddenly their ghost starts popping up, and the desperate search to get to the bottom of it ensues. Director Nicholas Roeg took a story somewhat like that, based on a short story by Rebecca author Daphne DuMaurier, and successfully proved that it doesn't always have to be like that. Don't Look Now is a nearly-forgotten film from the 70's by a nearly-forgotten director (I believe this is the only one of his handful of great films that's on DVD), and after watching the film, I realize it's a shame. As Don't Look Now opens, we see a placid little pond, and disjointed, dreamy editing and cinematography that combine to form an unsettling scene of two kids playing. A young boy is riding around on his bike, and a little girl in a red mackintosh is frolicking around. We then see the parents of the children, John and Laura Baxter (Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie), sitting comfortably inside by the fire. Something is wrong, though. The film's editing style eerily merges the slowly mouting events outside with the warmth of the interior. The boy's bike hits some glass and John's drink crashes on the table. Before we know it, the Baxter's daughter has plunged into the pond and the Baxters are left with a dead daughter. Fast-forward to some unknown time in the near future, and the Baxters are in Venice, where John is restoring a church that he quite quickly discovers is an architectural fraud. One day in a restaurant, Laura is encounted by a mysterious, psychic, blind woman who assures her that her daughter is 'happy.' Laura tells her husband this, but John is a staunch non-believer in things of the sort, and in a tender, wonderfully-edited scene, the Baxters make love. The love scene in Don't Look Now is notorious for those familiar with it. Being quite graphic, it was trimmed a bit for an R rating in the US, but even by today's standards, it's quite surprising. There's a catch, though - Roeg's film intercuts their frenzied sex with a scene of them dressing afterwards and leaving for dinner (most notably paid tribute to in Steven Soderbergh's Out of Sight, much tamer, but edited in a similar fashion). Why? It is at once the most frustrating, and greatest, thing about Don't Look Now. The film contains a numerous amount of plot strands: a mysterious figure in a red coat (who may or may not be the ghost of the Baxter's daughter) begins to appear around Venice, dead bodies are being found in the canals, the killer's on the loose, and the blind prophet continually warns of John's pending danger. What connects them all? Well, one can't really be sure until the end of the film, and that's where Don't Look Now nearly stumbles. In Roger Ebert's review of the film, he comments on how successfully the movie builds up tension and how disappointing the film's climax is, but I felt the opposite. Not that much happens in the movie until its final, bloody, climax. What is important, though, is that every little thing that happens in the film has something to do, in some creepy, abstract way with the film's finale. I found myself immensely frustrated by the middle stretch of the movie, because not much makes sense for a while. Don't worry, though, because director Roeg doesn't offer some neat tie-up of all the loose ends of the film; he simply offers a suggestion to the viewer. The question is: is the suggestion he offers good enough to redeem the complete puzzle that the movie is before it? I'm going to go with 'yes,' for the film doesn't ground itself firmly in reality, thereby allowing some slack in how lucid the ending must be. In fact, it seems somewhat like a dream the whole way through (don't worry, I don't think it is). What is the point of Don't Look Now, and why should you watch it? Well, Don't Look Now proves that there may be more 'future' in our present than we think... All of the plot strands seem to occur at odd, disjointed times in the film, and it's up to us to decide what's important. Yes, we do find out who the killer is, but don't expect some easy resolution in the perplexing amalgam that the film is. In fact, Roeg lets two plot strands of the movie converge in its conclusion. I was immensely impressed by Don't Look Now, for the device of 'who's the killer' is actually put to some interesting use. I think I know what the movie suggests, but there's so much there that it requires a second viewing. If not a second, you should at least give it one, but be prepared to be confused .
Rating: 
Summary: Blind Venetian Channels............
Review: The senseless and [accidental?] death of a child. Guilt?
Dim, underlit streets and waterways of Venice. Visions of a small child wearing a hooded red raincoat....... Steamy sex.....A serial killer........A blind psychic.....warnings....and a very sharp straight razor, or two.....and lover's do learn..... A deliciously dark and brooding concept by auteur Nicholas Roeg ["Bad Timing"]of Daphne Du Maurier's vision of grieving parents Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland, recovering in Venice after the death of their only daughter. AND this movie has one of the best love-scenes ever recorded on film - excellent - not gratuitous or offensive. VENICE, though, is the Star of this work. Forget any Summer Holiday memories you might still have of this wonderous dreamcity, she really comes to life during the winter! To say more about the plot would be to betray the work, but if you like experiences along the lines of "The Innocents", perhaps even the original "Haunting" - see this one. "Don't Look Now" is kind of the flip-side of Kate Hepburn's "Sunmmertime", even "Lover's Must Learn". It's an odd kaleidoscopic view of the city and its post midnight pulse - but be warned - stay in your hotel room - don't venture out on your own, especially after dark...........those Venetian walkways are still so dimly lit, never quite know what you might find in a doorway, or in the canals for that matter]. A companion-piece? The later "Comfort of Strangers" - equally disturbing, but a great double-bill!
Rating:
Summary: Not for all tastes -- but a brilliant, frightening film
Review: DON'T LOOK NOW is a film for people with a particular taste, and the unwary viewer will either be pleasantly or unpleasantly shocked. From a seemingly simple premise -- a couple trying to overcome their daughter's death, and the odd psychic they meet while staying in Venice -- director Nicholas Roeg creates a thriller/horror movie/dazzling puzzles that slowly infects your mind and then shocks you with its bizarre twists. Be warned: this isn't a movie for everyone. It relies on visual puzzles and clues and an incredible lot of misdirection for its effect. This might bore some people; it had me riveted with the first scene and held me up through the mind-bending conclusion. Like THE SIXTH SENSE, SLEUTH, THE USUAL SUSPECTS, and THE OTHERS, the film is playing a massive deception on the audience and the characters, engaing in a strange game that pays off in an incredibly satisfying (if devastating) way. Every time you think you know what kind of story you're watching, the movie starts veering in another direction, and only the finale finally makes the purpose of the plot clear. Director Roeg, a former cinematographer, crafts an eerie vision of Venice as damp, mouldy, and crumbling, and his visual compositions have a startling quality that adds to the bizarre and alienated moodof the film. Although few movies have directly copied the story of DON'T LOOK NOW, its directorial style has become the standard for such filmmakers as David Lynch, M. Night Shyamalan, and David Fincher. This is a landmark piece of work and worth viewing if you enjoy films full of mystery and intelligence (for example, the movies I listed above) and unusual visual style.
Rating:
Summary: Dark, brooding, and...frustrating...
Review: Don't Look Now (1974) certainly has a number of elements to draw in the hardened horror fan, i.e. a creepy old blind woman with ESP, vague and not so vague warnings from beyond the grave, a serial killer, but there may be surprises and even disappointment to those same fans as the film comes to an ambiguous close. Starring Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie as married couple John and Laura Baxter, director Nicolas Roeg takes the viewer on a surrealistic ride, one that certainly is open to many interpretations. The Baxter's, recently suffering the loss of their daughter are now in Venice, when John, as an architect, is working on the renovation of an old church. Laura, still trying to come to terms with the death of their daughter, finds acceptance to come from a rather strange source, that of an elderly blind woman and her sister, the blind woman having the gift of second sight. Also, she reveals John may be of a similar nature in having abilities he hasn't recognized or acknowledged. John thinks it a lot of flibberty jibberty, and thinks his wife may be still suffering over their loss. After a more intimate meeting with Laura and the two sisters, strange things begin to occur, and a spate of murders begins to plague the quiet canals of Venice. Is there a connection? What is the link between John and Laura, their recently deceased daughter, a sinister serial killer, and these two elder sisters, one with odd abilities? These questions are all answered by the end of the film, but not in as direct fashion as the casual viewer may like. Close attention and deep thought are required for thorough enjoyment to be had, as the answers are not necessarily presented in convenient, easily understandable pieces. I suspect many may be frustrated throughout the film, especially at the end, as I was, but allowing the events to roll around in my head, to soak in, I came to my own conclusions, whether they be sensical ones or not. I enjoyed this film a lot, and really liked the lovely views of Venice as the movie unfolded. It provided an excellent backdrop to the story, with amazing cinematography that really highlights sinister elements of darkened alleys, murky water, and the sometimes oppressive feel of a city doomed to a slow death by submersion. The one thing that was kind of odd was the extended love scene between Sutherland and Christie. It was done well, but it seemed to go on for quite a bit longer than necessary, in my opinion. I'm no prude, but I feel I've seen quite enough of Donald Sutherland's backside to last me for a long time. I had read that this scene was actually a last minute addition, to counteract the scenes where the two characters are in conflict. Presented here is a beautiful wide screen picture. A trailer for the film is included, but that is it for special features, unless you count subtitles. As I stated before, there is a lot of ambiguity within this movie, and sometimes that tends to work against a film, but not so here. If answers are still not forthcoming, than maybe reading the short story the film is based on, by Daphne du Maurier is in order. Cookieman108
Rating:
Summary: One of My Top 5 Favorite Films
Review: The only thing I dislike about this film is its title - DON'T LOOK NOW. It is a masterpiece in every sense. This is not just another typical, campy '70s thriller. The film has pure class and intelligence. It's a very stunning but sadly underrated piece of art. I rented the DVD and after returning it to the store, the film continued to haunt me so I decided to buy the DVD for my own collection. This film requires many, many viewings since it's so rich in details, colors, etc...Venice never looks this cold and spooky ... its maze-like structure is the perfect setting for this gloriously gothic film of psychic power and death. Pay close attention to the film's brilliant use color - red - it shows up in many different forms throughout the film. Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland are amazing.. they appear like they've been married for ages so their grieving over a dead daughter is strikingly realistic. Incredible performance by everyone, especially the unforgettable blind psychic. I will never forget the image of her eyes (like a pair of cracked ice cubes)..and call me silly, I simply adore her in shiny black slicker and grape-purple stockings. DON'T LOOK NOW is a masterpiece...but do NOT expect it to be a horror film. This is more like a psychological thriller with a very intelligent and original use of atmosphere and style, similiar to the recent film THE SIXTH SENSE. The ending is very moving.
Rating: 
Summary: Chilling? Erotic? Please...
Review: I don't know what kind of spell these other reviewers are under, or maybe they're just nostalgic for a movie they haven't seen in years. I was excited to see this film, as The Man Who Fell To Earth is one of my favorites. But this film is slow moving, with a thin plot stretched over an hour and a half. Chilling is certainly not a word I would use, unless you count the way they try to make Donald Sutherland into a sex symbol (eeeeww). What's sad about the whole thing is that you've got all the elements for a great suspense/horror film - a dead child, psychic abilities, strange ocurrences, unexplained accidents - but they never gel into a cohesive plot, nor do they frighten you or cause you to feel any suspense. Even at it's low price, I'd give this one a pass if I were you and check out a real example of 70's suspense/horror, such as the Tenant or Coma. These movies never fail to satisfy!
Rating:
Summary: Beware if nudgets ub red raubciats!
Review: .
This film will give you reason to be afraid of midgets in red raincoats for the rest of your life! For reference to the above, I recommend the film "Unconditional Love", which revisits the "midget in a red raincoat" for yet another scary thrill!
Rating:
Summary: Sets High Standards.
Review: 'Don't Look Now' starts wonderfully well; there's something there right in the beginning that's genuinely disturbing: the young girl in red playing about the pool's edges, her reflection upside down in the water. That sequence set the tone, and I made sure to keep watching the film to the end. Then there's Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland (there's a long love-scene involving these two, nicely portrayed by the way, as far as I can/may judge), and a fine set of secondary characters. Now, personally, I'm interested in the supernatural; so Don't Look Now was worth watching for me, to begin with. It could be somewhat slow and vague for certain people, but if you're drawn to more subtlety than to what (generally) floods the market at this moment, you won't regret any time spent in this film. And indeed, besides the subject of this review, 1973 also unleashed 'The Exorcist' (as many know, a classic of the macabre). The Exorcist might have overshadowed Don't Look Now (I think I'm allowed to remove 'might have'). Alas, DLN deserves more attention, and I hope it'll get just that.
Rating:
Summary: Not for everyone
Review: From my earliest involvement with horror films, or at least when I began learning about different directors and different approaches to the genre, I kept hearing great things about Nicholas Roeg's "Don't Look Now," a 1974 adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's story of the same name. "You just have to see this film," gushed many of my associates. When questioned further about plot, acting, and the like, all of them without exception just reiterated that it is a great, creepy yarn every horror fan should watch at least once. Since I couldn't find the film on VHS--this was before the proliferation of DVD--I briefly toyed with the idea of reading the book. Amazingly, I couldn't find a copy of du Maurier's story. I completely forgot about "Don't Look Now" until I stumbled over it recently during a DVD excursion. Hearing those accolades echoing in my head, I picked up a copy and headed home with high expectations. After watching the movie, I have to say that it was an extremely rewarding experience as well as a confusing one. Roeg's shocker doesn't lend itself easily to the sort of superficial viewing one indulges in when watching a typical horror film. Instead, this movie is a cerebral jaunt through the eerie worlds of psychic abilities, murder, and grief. Don't go into this one expecting a "Friday the 13th" sequel. John and Laura Baxter (played by Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, respectively) suffer an immense tragedy when their young daughter drowns in a pond at their house in England. The couple is obviously devastated by this incident, and in an effort to move beyond their grief John accepts a job in Italy refurbishing an ancient church. After leaving their other child in school in England, the Baxters move to the oppressive, claustrophobic atmosphere of watery Venice. Things turn towards the bizarre very quickly upon their arrival: Laura suffers some sort of fainting fit in a restaurant resulting in a meeting with two extremely odd sisters who profess to have psychic powers. The two spinsters, one of whom is blind, take an immediate interest in John, perhaps recognizing in him some of the same supernatural abilities that they claim to possess. John scoffs at these claims even as he recognizes that his wife comes to revere the two because the women claim knowledge about their deceased daughter. As if this isn't odd enough, murder victims start turning up in the city canals, John nearly dies in an accident at the church, and a miniscule figure clad in the same attire their daughter wore when she died keeps popping up in the streets. When John starts seeing things that have no logical explanation, and as the two sister's pronouncements about an imminent danger become shriller, "Don't Look Now" assumes an even creepier mood. What does it all mean? I don't know, but Roeg's film sure has plenty of great camera work, good performances from its two leads, and a conclusion that is sure to shock the viewer in a way few movies can. Due to the glacial pace of most of the film and the confusing plot threads, I started to pay attention to some of the great scenes. The accident in the cathedral was wonderfully filmed, as were some of the unusual sightings John witnesses towards the end of the film. Of course, you don't know what they mean while you are watching them--you have to wait until the end to put those particular jigsaw pieces into their proper position--but they still convey an unshakable sense that something really wrong is going on. The nightmares unfold against the dreary backdrop of Venice, a town that tourists regularly crow about but a place that appears here as the height of sinister deeds. Buildings stand like mountains of despair, corpses fill the waterways, and the narrow alleyways often remind the Baxters of the daughter they lost whenever they see that little figure in the red coat running about. And that conclusion! Well, try and avoid reading about it in reviews until you see the movie lest you lose the chilling effect. Much has been made about the love scene between Sutherland and Christie. All I can say about this is that it is more and less than what people say about it. Roeg artfully and tastefully captures on film what was probably a quite explicit scene for the time. I cannot say I am all that impressed with seeing this much of Donald Sutherland. Watching him reach for a cabinet in "Animal House" wearing only a sweater did much to scar my young mind, so witnessing even more of Donald here induced nightmares for some time afterwards. As for Julie Christie, I can state with all my heart that she really needed to put on a few pounds. Some like to engage in a debate about "did they or didn't they?" with this scene, an argument that is completely useless and probably moot since Sutherland later claimed he was ill with a major cold when they shot the sequence. I did like how Roeg contrasted the couple's passion with rather mundane shots of the two getting ready to go out for dinner. Regrettably, the DVD only comes with a trailer. Fans of this greatly admired film would surely appreciate a commentary from Roeg, Sutherland, and Christie. You would think getting the three together to talk about the film wouldn't present any difficulties, but such is the way of DVD. Overall, "Don't Look Now" succeeds wildly in creating bleak atmosphere, a few intriguing scenes, and a grand conclusion. The molasses-like pacing and confusing plot will probably put many off, especially in this day of rapid fire editing and gory special effects. The movie remains an oddity appreciated by film buffs but neglected by the masses.
Rating:
Summary: A landmark in film editing!
Review: Dont look now is a very important film because it changed the way films would be edited forever. There are several key sequences where the editing is beautifully mastered to create wonderful montages not seen since Tarkovsky - the initial child drowning accident, the love making scene shot in reverse and the shock ending. This is a wholly creative film from start to finish. The director has paid remarkable attention to the direction of colors. If you think that Spielberg was original with his girl in the red coat, then you are mistaken. This is where that vision began. The majority of the film takes place in Venice but the director has chosen to roam the more obscure and backward waterways and tunnels. The film is layered with such beautiful simplicity that is should be the goal of every film student to study this material to no end. The premise basically revolves around a personal family tragedy of a young couple, John and Laura Baxters, played by Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, (a magnificent match) who are trying to come to terms with the death of their daughter. Laura finds a blind clairvoyant and her sister by accident in a restaurant who claim that the dead daughter is trying to warn them of some great danger. Slowly Laura starts to crackup as John becomes increasingly angered by her belief in an supernatural afterlife and the warnings given by the medium. The ending manages to shock every time. This film is not for everybody. The production values are minimal and most of the film was shot from the hip on a shoe-string budget. However the realism that this film conjures up is steaks and bounds ahead of most psychological horror films of its kind. The story is somewhat slow, but emotionally it packs a hell of punch. There are several background elements to the film including a bizarre series of multiple murders, missing persons and events back in England that seem almost connected to the couples genuinely heartfelt struggle to come to terms with bereavement. Essentially this film is every parents nightmare come true and the horror of the loss of a child is very strongly presented and does disturb. This is a bleak, raw and alarming art house film with many moments that will cause the viewer some distress. The connection between the onlooker and the leading protagonists has an impact that will leave you reeling emotionally long after the film has ended. A classic masterpiece of emotional and psychological horror.
|
