Don't Look Now (1973) User Reviews (391)

Don't Look Now

[Prismark10 · 8/10 · 28 October 2022]

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.

uncomfortable horror

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 30 October 2022]

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.

Clutching at Strawberries...

[Xstal · 7/10 · 18 October 2023]

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.

Shocking Red December

[primodanielelori · 10/10 · 13 October 2007]

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.

Surreal and mind-bending

[Danny_G13 · 20 December 2003]

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.

And Don't Lose Focus...

[TheFearmakers · 7/10 · 23 November 2020]

Never let your young daughter play outside, around water, and if she plays with dolls, why a windup military man with a gas mask?

That aside, caution is the pulse to Nicolas Roeg's strange thriller DON'T LOOK NOW taking place in Venice where marrieds Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie deal with their daughter's prologue-drowning a few years prior...

And while Christie is always scene-stealing, the mainline is Sutherland's John Baxter, restoring the antique ruins of a Catholic church and, while most likely an Atheist, he cares more about the significance of Catholic art than priest Massimo Serato...

The best scenes involve Sutherland's dark, brooding journey into the ancient city of channels surrounding by gorgeous, dilapidated buildings, and inside, the famous overlong sex scene between the couple gets in the way, seeming like Roeg finishing an unrealized student film than what he (and she) is really going after...

Julie Christie's haunted Laura is more in touch with her deceased child because of a creepy yet gentle, blue-eyed Hilary Mason, a blind seer led around by a talky sister, but Sutherland's as aloof to that concept as the priest is to the restoration...

Meanwhile, the second half gets into a Neo Noir investigation with baby-faced detective Renato Scarpa...

But the memorable scene is buried till the end, and you'll know where THE BROOD children came from after witnessing the most nightmarish of nightmarish female demon dwarfs in an eclectic, arthouse horror that, while all over the place textually, does have a destination... just as long as you know who to follow. And what's following them.

A Venice Of Horrors

[mrharrypaulson · 10/10 · 4 May 2017]

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.

Puah!

[tuco73 · 6/10 · 18 June 2004]

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.

Chilling and mysterious

[MichaelCarmichaelsCar · 9/10 · 4 January 2005]

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.

Death, grief, sex, confusion, murder...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 7 December 2005]

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 ****

I wish I'd followed the title's advice.

[e5capeveloc1ty · 1/10 · 24 March 2015]

Over the years The Criterion Collection has restored and presented many of cinema's greatest treasures. Thanks to their meticulous care, thousands of the film world's greatest achievements have gotten the care and attention they so richly deserve. On the other hand, they've also reissued stuff like Don't Look Now.

This movie is almost universally beloved by critics and Serious Film Viewers. When I was a film student, if they'd showed this to us I'm sure I would have gone right along with the party line and proclaimed this to be a masterpiece. But I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now. I don't have to call something profound because it's slow. I can call it yawn-inducing and poorly paced.

The basic plot here is that John and Laura lost their little girl Christine to a drowning and now they're in Venice while John helps with a church restoration. One day Laura meets two sisters, one of whom - - a blind woman with second sight -- says she can see Christine sitting with John and Laura, and that the daughter is happy. She also says Christine bears a warning for her parents: leave Venice at once. John doesn't believe it and he stays, much to his detriment.

Now, I could attempt to expand on that synopsis but there would be no point because there is no further plot, unless you count John's endless meandering through foggy alleyways. Does cinematographer Anthony Richmond make empty Venice look great in the film? Absolutely. Does the occasional splash of the color red on Christine's raincoat and blood on a photographic slide have a striking effect when it appears? Sure it does. Is there a famous sex scene between Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie? Apparently, but unless you're into watching two bony skeletons clack together, it's not going to do much for you.

Roger Ebert once said, "It is the film's visual style, acting, and mood that evoke its uncanny power" and his sentiment is echoed by a lot of other reviews I've read about this movie. But without a decent script, it's simply style over substance. This film has a reputation for being terrifying, or at the very least chilling. I adore films with those descriptors but this never even came close. As always, I can only speak for my own personal experience and would never discount anyone else's opinions on art. Aside from the decent cinematography and a tremendous performance by Donald Sutherland's mustache, this film really failed for me on every other level.

Fear, as an art form.

[mocpacific · 10/10 · 1 September 2005]

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.

A little bit confusing.

[rainking_es · 6/10 · 17 May 2008]

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

Yes, this movie is a cure for insomnia!

[dmkay · 3/10 · 4 August 2003]

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.

The Beauty Of Horror

[marcelbenoitdeux · 10/10 · 23 March 2022]

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.

One of the great mysteries. How was it forgotten?

[Richard-82 · 3 December 1998]

"Don't Look Now" was released at about the time of "The Excorcist". There is otherwise no basis for comparison between these movies. While the Excorcist hits us in the face with the equivalent of a special effects rubber chicken, "Don't Look Now" manages to get under your skin from the very first scene, and gradually, elegantly insinuates itself into a place where your childhood and adult fears dwell and steep. Its setting in Venice is both beautiful and menacing. Something terrible is always just around the corner from our conscious mind. It is also troubling, and, as only a good movie can, leaves more questions unanswered than resolved. Without a doubt, it contains one of the most beautiful loves scenes ever filmed, showing scenes of Christie and Sutherland in genuinely erotic (by '70's standards) lovemaking, mixed with scenes of the couple as they dress and prepare for their day, the following morning. Director Nicolas Roeg is a forgotten Master.

SUPERnatural!

[Coventry · 7/10 · 28 March 2004]

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.

The zenith of movie-making

[LukeS · 10/10 · 17 December 1998]

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)!

The masterpiece as is so often claimed?

[poolandrews · 6/10 · 25 December 2009]

Don't Look Now starts in England where architect John Baxter (Donald Sutherland) is moments too late to save his young daughter Christine (Sharon Williams) from drowning in a pond on his country estate, both he & his wife Laura (Julkie Christie) are devastated & decide to move to Venice in Italy to get away from England & the memories where John has been hired to restore a Church. While eating out in a restaurant Laura meets two elderly sisters named Wendy (Clelia Matania) & Heather (Hilary Mason) who claims to be psychic & is able to talk with & see Laura's dead daughter Christine, Laura begins to believe the sisters & feels better knowing that Christine is able to communicate with her but when John finds out he is sceptical & wants nothing to do with the sisters...

This English Italian co-production was directed by Nicolas Roeg & the script was based on the short ghost story Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier & the script takes that basic idea & stretches it out over 110 minutes with variable results. Don't Look Now is often held up as some artistic masterpiece packed with depth, meaning & symbolism as well as a twist ending that in my opinion is alright but hardly the genuine surprise shocker than many might have you believe while other's describe Don't Look Now as a boring mess that people read far too much into & interpret even the littlest thing as having some great meaning. To me the truth lies somewhere between the opinions as I appreciate Don't Look Now as a decent & often absorbing ghost story it didn't knock my socks off & it did bore me a bit which is the ultimate sin a film can commit as far as I am concerned. The majority of the film fells like a calm drama where everything is normal & two grieving people are just trying to get on with their lives, there's the sub-plot about the psychic sister but largely it's pretty unremarkable stuff until the hour mark where the supernatural elements kick in more & all the set-ups that Roeg has staged & planted start to come to fruition but it's still sedately paced by anyone's standards & then there's that twist ending which is sort of gruesome in a dark way which then does try to tie everything together in a series of flashbacks that sort of work but isn't entirely satisfying. Don't Look Now goes from tedium to mystery to gripping drama to horror & almost everything between without ever really grabbing me, sure I liked it & it tells a decent ghost story with a decent twist ending but I wanted to describe it as brilliant & not just decent.

Roeg really lets fly with the imagery here as it's absolutely everywhere, from the broken glass of the mirror at the start to the broken glass of the glasses on the table Laura knocks over to the broken glass at the end to the symbolism of the water Christine drowned in as they move to Venice which is obviously a city built around water, the water in glasses Laura breaks, the rain whenever we go back to England & the like & then there's the shiny red plastic mac which also becomes a major part of the films imagery. Don't Look now is the sort of film some could sit down & analyze for like hours, every scene or every moment could have an alternate meaning or some sort of hidden depth, personally I think life is too short for that & while there is obvious symbolism here it gets dull fairly quickly. There's no real gore in it although the twist ending does feature a little blood & there's a pretty steamy sex scene here too. Don't Look now is undeniably well shot with nice cinematography & the tight, narrow streets & canals of Venice almost become a character in their own right.

With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 this has good production values & is well made, shot on location in both England & Italy. The acting is alright, Sutherland is OK but not brilliant while Julie Christie at least looks great.

Don't Look Now is a film that is a personal experience, how much you get out of it will depend entirely on how you take to Roeg's symbolism & the often sedately paced nature of the story which just has either Suntherland or Christie run around Venice for extended periods not doing that much. I liked it, I could see where it was coming from & it's fairly absorbing but I wouldn't call it the masterpiece many seem to. The IMDb lists a Don't Look Now (2011) remake as in production & I'll be amazed if it's anything like the original if it ever gets made.

A classic in every sense of the word.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 10/10 · 18 January 2005]

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/

Convoluted

[baunacholi-86159 · 6/10 · 3 September 2020]

Don't look now - a classic? A masterpiece? Or overrated and grown into something bigger than its name? For my taste it drags too long and puts too much symbolism into each and every shot. Some scenes are intense and beautiful others felt wooden and over the top. In any case it's not a movie u simply watch to be entertained with but it's most certainly also not a movie u simply wipe away - It might stick with u for some time... for the good or the bad.

Don't Waste Your Time Looking Now Or Ever

[Clownbird · 2/10 · 1 January 2007]

Horrible muddled adaptation of a compelling short story. Donald Sutherland plays John Baxter who restores old Venetian churches or something like that. Julie Christie plays his wife. Both of them are actually pretty good and close to how Du Maurier wrote the original characters. But soon enough we're subjected to a bizarre, extended sex scene that is inter-cut with footage of the couple getting dressed. Not only does this make absolutely no sense, we also have to look at Donald Sutherland's bony ass for six or seven minutes. There's other strange scenes and confusing red herrings thrown in that really do nothing to advance the story, including a slightly sinister Catholic bishop who wasn't in the original source material. The religious imagery and aspects to this film keep suggesting that it's about to turn into something like The Omen, but it never does, which is a shame, because even an Omen rip-off would have been more welcome than this thing. The director would have done better to follow the original story a bit closer - if you haven't read it, you'll be lost watching this mess and you'll have to be content with enjoying on-location footage of early 1970s Venice, Italy, which is one of this film's few redeeming qualities.

My brief review of the film

[sol- · 10/10 · 8 January 2005]

An exquisitely haunting, very memorable drama, this is a uniquely directed, well acted and superbly photographed film of searching for what feels to be missing, and the tragic results that can occur. The Italian setting provides the film with a strong sense of the Gothic but also an ominous sense of otherness. In a foreign land with different customs, culture and architecture, the characters feel lost, but yet the mysterious, unknown element of the new setting provides a sense of hope. The director has used a number of tricks to emphasise certain details. These may have no meaning at the time, but their re-occurrence throughout the film adds to the haunting atmosphere. The film also has this amazing power to make almost anything seem foreboding and sinister. There is an undeniable musty B-grade feel to the film, but there is so much else to admire here, that it does not detract at all from the viewing experience. It is an intriguing, gripping and powerful watch.

Probably For Patient Viewers Only

[evetilly · 6/10 · 10 April 2020]

Don't Look Now might not be a movie for everyone. Less patient viewers will be put off by the slow, deliberate pacing and lack of actual scares, but powering through it will still make you appreciate you saw it even if it doesn't totally land with you.

There are many little tiny scenes that could have easily been trimmed here and there, but the performances of Sutherland and Christie as grieving parents are so great, Roeg's atmosphere is so thick, and Donaggio's lush score is so beautiful that you can forgive just about anything.

The ending is still a sucker punch to this day and one of the most haunting sequences ever filmed. It's so good that it can almost make you forget about any pacing issues. It most definitely makes it worth seeing along with an incredibly frank sex scene between Sutherland and Christie that's still shocking in its explicitness and tenderness.

You will suffer two hours of no plot for one halfway-decent final scene.

[coldwaterpdh · 3/10 · 1 January 2009]

Where do I start? After reading some reviews on here, I was excited to see this flick. Some great things have been said on here for sure. After completing "Don't Look Now," one can only assume these things were written by four year olds. Unless you find mindless dialog, pointless scenes and under-developed characters entertaining, you will not be impressed by this slice of mediocre 70's crap.

I actually laughed at the ending, which, to those of us who have seen far superior films like "Profondo Rosso," "Don't Torture a Duckling" and "The House With Laughing Windows" will seem like an episode of "Full House." So a dwarf hacks Donald Sutherland once in the neck and he dies. Frankly, he probably deserved it for subjecting the viewers to his flaccid, pale, awkward body in a prolonged, painful sex scene with co-star Julie Christie. Easily the scariest part of the film right there.

I was bothered by the 'plot' in "Don't Look Now," and I use the term plot very loosely because there just isn't much of one. I'll sum it up for you: Donald Sutherland and wife lose child in drowning accident. They go to Venice so Sutherland can restore a church. Some boring stuff happens for almost two hours then the Sutherland gets hacked one time by a dwarf in a red coat that looks similar to the one his daughter was wearing. In the end, my reaction was WHO CARES? I wanna know about that ugly little dwarf, dammit! That would have made for a much better flick than what I just sat through! Don't bother watching this if you haven't seen the 1970's Italian horror films of Argento, Fulci, Sergio Martino and Aldo Lado first. This one attempts to rob from those films but does so very poorly. To those of us who are seasoned giallo vets, this will prove to be a maddening, over-hyped, jumbled mess that cannot hold a candle to the real thing.

Scary? Only if you're crazy and don't find a nude Donald Sutherland incredibly HOT.

3 out of 10, kids.