Don't Look Now

Rating:
Summary: Pure psychological fear
Review: This film had a shattering impact on me when I first saw it in the theater in its first run in 1974. I was in a jittery state for several weeks, and had many dreams and nightmares influenced by it. "The Exorcist" had come out at the same time, a well-made but conventional horror film. "Don't Look Now" is far from conventional and much more deeply frightening if one is receptive to its elusive mood. It has an avant garde editing and directorial style by the sophisticated English cinematographer-turned-director, Nicholas Roeg, whose other films include the experimental "Performance" with Mick Jagger, the brilliantly photographed "Walkabout" set in the Australian outback, and the surreal "Man Who Fell to Earth" starring David Bowie.

Roeg's intimate, first-hand knowledge of cinematography influences the manner in which the supernatural is suggested, with simple yet unsettling shots of ordinary but sinister objects, vague streetcorners, deep shadows, or fleeting figures disappearing behind buildings. Despite the main setting in picturesque Venice, the realism of the style ties these eerie images to everyday experience.

The entire film in a sense is an attempt at re-defining what the supernatural really is. Not slimy zombies or ghosts in white shrouds but strange coincidences in otherwise ordinary images - tiles of a mosaic being shattered by a footstep, or a pane of glass being broken by a bicycle wheel. These little unexplained connections between events accumulate over the course of the film, and then are all brought together in the powerful and terrifying finale.

Pino Donnagio's music score adds immeasureably to the atmosphere, and later caused Brian de Palm to use the composer for the scores of "Carrie," "Blowout" and "Dressed to Kill." This morose but romantic Italian is one of the few film composers able to supply a music score as vivid as the great Bernard Herrmann.

Donald Sutherland brings his method realism to a fine pitch in the role of the psychic yet skeptical modern man - a disbelieving soul who is nevertheless restoring an ancient church. And the delicate, fragile beauty and understated yet deeply felt acting of Julie Christie is perfect for the role of his loving but grief-stricken wife.

Quite simply there has never been another film like this one. Though Shyamalan's "Sixth Sense" is a noble attempt at creating a similar intense and weird atmosphere, there will probably never be another. It is truly a unique creation and certainly one of the finest films about the supernatural ever made.

The DVD has few extras, but is an excellent transfer, extremely crisp and clear. Probably one doesn't need extras with this film, because it is a deliberate and inexplicable cinematic enigma. In a day when dumbed-down films beat one over the head with their often idiotic plots, it is immensely refreshing and inspiring to see such a work of subtle cinematic art as "Don't Look Now."

Rating:
Summary: One of my favorite movies
Review: When I first saw this movie in the theater, I was so captivated by it that I went back the next day and saw it again. (It was so overwhelming that I couldn't think of anything else, anyway.) I just dug around in my files, and (miraculously!) found the review I wrote December 31, 1973. It was long, but here are parts of it:

I started with a description of du Maurier's original story (it wasn't a novel): "An English couple vacationing in Venice meets up with two Scottish women, twins, one blind and 'psychic.' She tells them--or the wife, Laura, as the husband wants nothing to do with them--that their recently-drowned daughter is with the couple, that she is happy and wants them to be happy, and that they should leave Venice because there is 'danger.' A telegram from England that their son is sick sends Laura back on the first plane, with John to follow by train. But before he leaves he sees Laura and the twins boating down the Grand Canal, and certain that the twins have done something to his wife he starts searching the sinking city for them. That's as far as I'll take this synopsis.

"The film is practically a textbook exampke of how to turn a printed story into a movie. For instance, the telegram from England is turned into a phone call. Beyond that, there is a care taken with the characters that du Maurier did not bother with: The minor characters are, all of them (with one necessary exception that I won't go into here, and the sisters--not twins--who remain enigmatic), are more than one-dimensional. No-one is there only for his plot purposes. Everyone with a part bigger than a walk-on has a little scene in which he gets to show us a little about himslef that isn't necessary for us to know, but which fleshes out his personality. The major change is to make John not a vacationer; he is in Venice not to relax but to work.

"I could go on and on about the film: the acting (Donald Sutherland is great, Julie Christie the best I've seen her), the photography (rich and beautiful; Venice is strikingly, almost attractively, ugly), the music, everything. I highly recommend this movie."

I recommended seeing the movie without reading the story first--or at all--"except in this case: If suspense in a movie theater, where there are no commercials and you can't put the book down briefly, might cause you some anguish (I'm being serious here), read the story first so you know what to expect, and just enjoy the movie as a movie."

So, as you can see, even when I was in my early 20s I didn't find the movie slow, or nothing but symbolism, or any of the other complaints by the minority here. And seeing it again now, on this beautiful DVD, hasn't changed my opinion. It's marvelous. I find it interesting that I didn't even mention the sex scene in my review, though it certainly was then and is still now a great scene, the cross-cutting very appropriate to the characters and where they are in their lives.

My best friend then wrote me a long letter explaining to me that I was totally wrong about the film, that it was too arty and too mechanical and too long ("a two-hour toothache") and besides, it scared him too much....

I think you should risk the toothache, in case it turns out you like it as much as I do.

Rating:
Summary: Haunted my memory for years!
Review: I saw a few scenes of this film when I was a child -- just enough to terrify me for the next 25 years or so! Really, the images in this movie are just unforgettable & among the most disturbing I have experienced! That red coat! Yikes! For years I was afraid to view the whole thing. (Big Audio Dynamite used scenes from this film in one of their videos. I remember being caught off-guard by THAT one night & nearly having a stroke!) I eventually watched the whole film. It is absolutely one of the spookiest, most atmospheric, chilling films out there! What irony that this film would be imbedded in my memory for years and years... I learned much later it was based on a work by DuMaurier, my favorite author during my teen years! I hope to be brave enough to view it again soon. (This will be tough, as I have a small daughter, and for parents this film might be a struggle.) This is a true horror classic. Just be sure to have a pillow or blanket to hide behind at times! And sleep with the lights on!

Rating:
Summary: Bravo!
Review: An excellent transfer from film to DVD. The studio really made an effort to make this 30 year old movie look good on DVD. The movie has a far greater impact now as compared to the VHS version. The sound quality is also excellent. Even though this is probably the greatest love scene ever on film, the clarity of the DVD leaves you glued to the screen through the whole movie.
Now I'm just waiting for MGM to re-release Demon Seed on DVD which also stars Julie

Rating:
Summary: Very Realistic and Haunting
Review: This very realistic film puts the viewer on the edge. It is very realistic from the point of view that after a while the viewer starts to interpret images and events from recent day to day happenings. Did you really see what you thought you saw or did I imagine it? The film slides into this world where all control you thought you had may never really have existed. This is a slow and deliberate work but questions the state of our own being. Very haunting.

Rating:
Summary: Psychic Melodrama!
Review: John (Donald Sutherland) and Laura Baxter (Julie Christie) have recently lost their daughter during some mysterious circumstances, and similar circumstances seem to repeat themselves in Venice where the Baxter's reside after the loss of their daughter. The circumstances are closely tied with a couple of older ladies, including one who is declared to be psychic. The psychic lady can see their lost daughter, however, she also senses a dark looming future drawing near. The rhetorical question is what is it that she sees, and who else sees it? Don't Look Now is an intriguing film that uses images as evidence for future events, however, the whole experience seems slow, tiresome, and repetitive.

Rating:
Summary: you can look now....
Review: for years, this cult film of early seventies has been very hard to find & now the search is over. you can own this film on dvd & what masterful copy it is! my only disappointment is there are no extras here such as interviews, commentary, or any of the extras a dvd fan is accustomed to getting but that doesn't effect my overall view of this masterwork. i fear i cannot say a whole lot more about DON'T LOOK NOW than the average reviewer here hasn't already mentioned. however, i can tell you the things about this film which have literally drawn me back time & time again. 1) i love the ever-charming actress julie christie & nearly everything she does.(maybe that is reason enough. you be the judge.) 2)the plot here is very complex, subdued & you never exactly know what you'll see next which works well here. hey, the title of the film is don't look now! the average viewer perhaps wonders when he/she should cover his eyes & when it's safe to look at the screen again. 3) venice is so beautifully photographed here even though some of the settings are rather dark & eerie at times. 4) the love scene between julie & donald is so beautiful & thoroughly believable. you almost question the fact that they were merely performing in front of the camera. 5)who can forget the ending?? what a surprise!!! did you see that coming?? hmm. rumour has it this film didn't do well when initially released possibly becasue there were so many thrillers playing in the local theatres at that time and pschological thrillers were virtually indistinguishable. this may be true but i can honestly say the atmosphere here far surpasses most of the films released around that same time. CHECK THIS ONE OUT !!

Rating:
Summary: Artsy-fartsy fluff
Review: There is nothing to "get" in this movie because it doesn't make any sense. I've read reviews about how great this slow-paced, dull movie is - but no one seems to be able to explain why. I keep hearing about the wonderful symbolism, but no one seems able to explain what exactly that symbolism is. Easily put, this movie has no point. There is no coherent symbolism. Anyone who claims they understand this movie is a phony or an unemployed film studies major. You know the type. Please don't waste your time watching this farce like I did. Now excuse me while I go stamp "sucker" on my forehead.

Rating:
Summary: Dearth in Venice
Review: A 90 minute film (at best) that drags on and on with trite direction and irritating editing.
Donald Sutherland plays one unlucky restorator in Venice. Planks of wood fling themselves at him as well as kitchen utensils. I'm surprised he dared even touch the food. Mind you, his wife knocked over the table, so he's sort of lucky after all. Or is he? (DAN!DAN!) This is what happens when you hang around off season. Does all human life really vanish at that time of the year? In one funny scene, Sutherland is followed by a detective and fails to spot him in a crowd of, er...well, pigeons. Later, he, his wife and a tourist from Middle Earth all chase each other around in a Keystone Cops manner that gets the giggles going. God knows, we needed the laughs. In one truly boring scene Sutherland explains himself to an enigmatic official which Roeg decided to bore us with all over again in 'Bad Timing'. The cameraman zooms into Sutherland on the couch. Why? I don't know. In the Seventies they always seemed to hit the zoom at the earliest opportunity. Frankly, I miss it. So does Micheal Winner, I bet.
Meanwhile, everyone in the neighbourhood including the priest seems to be psychic. Is it the coffee? Perhaps years of evolution in Venice has given everyone a sixth sense after falling into the drink one time too many. Perhaps that is why the tourist from Middle Earth is so disgruntled. He couldn't quite make the gap on to the Gondoler and has been stuck in Venice ever since. And there's like nobody, and I mean NOBODY to talk to off season except two crazy old ladies and a nutty landlord. Wouldn't you be a little miffed?
Then there is the much vaunted sex scene. Just why is Donald Sutherland scrabbling down the back of Julie Christie, has he lost a comb? Suddenly he starts getting very amorous with her foot. This man has major problems. Why do they suddenly bounce off the bed and start battering at the wardrobe in a mad jumble? Is this why the love scene has dressing footage interposed? It all means something. And you have plenty of time never to work it out.
The allegedly scary ending might have been more effective if the director hadn't decided to keep flashbacking the image, reducing it's impact. Might I suggest the diminutive chappie mail himself home in a box and stop taking it all out on other people? Don't look now, here comes the Gnome Service.

Rating:
Summary: A Thriller Worth a Look
Review: One of the few films I've seen where a sex scene is actually justified, "Don't Look Now" is also an eerily effective, if quiet thriller that features topnotch acting by stars Christie and Sutherland. The two play grieving parents who are haunted psychologically--and, apparently, spiritually--by the drowning death of their daughter. Adapted from a novel, it is a refreshingly literate film that unfolds in an unhurried, yet palpably brooding manner interspersed with scenes of genuine affection between its stars; the aforementioned sex scene is graphic even by today's standards, yet emotionally and thematically honest. (Sutherland and Christie, looking especially lovely, are completely believable as two married people, but more importantly as two people in love.) Still, effective as they are, scenes like these sometimes clash with the film's more Gothic sensibilities about the paranormal, and combined with the muted, 70s-style cinematography, make it feel unintentionally disjointed. Adults will find the deliberate pace and sometimes jumpy editing intriguing, but anyone looking for a cheap scare should look elsewhere.