I'm sorry. All that hype on 'greatest scary moments' lists and me waiting for ages to see this film & then it's one of the daftest, crappiest films I've ever seen.
Seriously don't waste 2 hours of your life watching it. You'll never get them back.
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."
I agree. People can say a thousand times that "you do not understand the movie!" ... That does not help. I have watched so many movies in my life, that I know a few things about what is actually a great movie. And there's plenty of great movies from the 70's too. This was not one of them.
I can somewhat understand that some people think this is a beautiful movie, just because they think that Roeg is great, and so on. He has made some great movies. Sadly, I think "Don't look now" was one of them.
Maybe they made this movie because they wanted to do something different, and I applaud that. It's good to think outside the box. If you know what you are doing, that is.
I think they could have done so much more out of this movie. I loved the movie "Suspiria", because of the colors they had used in it. In " Don't look now", they did not manage to bring the city to life. It felt cold and lifeless. Maybe they wanted it that way ... But I think most people would have preferred a little more colors. Venice is a beautiful place, why did they not try to show that?
I also think that the sex scene was dull. Why not let people see the whole sex scene, and see them getting dressed afterwards? A scene like that should be beautiful. Not make you wonder what the latest fashion in the 70's was ...
I could go on and on about this, and several people would say I do not know what I am talking about. Let me ask then ... How many movies have YOU seen, if you feel you can judge someone who has seen thousands of movies, and actually know what good taste is? I know what is working in a movie. Nothing was working in this one. Way too confusing, at least for us "ordinary" people ... But guess what. The world is full of those people. Get used to it ...
Moron. Venice was supposed to look dank, unpleasant and creepy in this film 🤦🏻♂️
Why should the sex scene and aftermath be edited chronologically? Nic Roeg is deliberately playing with time 🤦🏻♂️
If you’re going to criticise a classic then at least admit to being a moron first. Give some context. Show some self-awareness.
I had seen it before the "greatest scary moments" on Bravo but I had to laugh when John Landis said "WHAT? It was a dwarf in a rain coat??!!"
I had the same exact reaction, like WHAT?
http://werewolvesbeatingadeadhorse.blogspot.com/
This movie is a masterpiece. Haters can suck a mooses's cock.
shareagree this was a waste of my time
*beep* horrible piece of crap movie, 0 scary moments and the ending was a joke, even a 5 year old could make something more interesting than that. what the hell is this rating all about? you're a dumbass if you rated this more than 1 star.
No, the film wasted its time on you. As you mentioned, a film made by a clueless 5 year old would be more beffitting a creature like you.
I saw it for the first time 26 years ago in Film School and was really impacted by the innovative direction by Nicolas Roeg. There's an underlying feeling of foreboding he captures so well with his framing and character development. It definitely hasn't aged as well as other 70s horro classics but I still hold it as one of the most suspenseful and disturbing horror movies ever to be made.
share
<< [I] was really impacted by the innovative direction by Nicolas Roeg. There's an underlying feeling of foreboding he captures so well with his framing and character development. >>
Yes, I agree it is beautifully directed. And Sutherland and Christie are two of the top professionals of their era; very suggestive and emotional in a way that's completely naturalistic. And whether it's because they were really romantically involved during the shooting, or whatever, they realistically come across as a couple here, who have a shared history.
I have never heard the film described as "terrorizing" or anything...and anyone who expects that has been mislead. It's celebrated for being eerie, atmospheric and suggestive. Like the strange, fairy tale city of Venice itself is.
This might have something to do with the literary source material, which I haven't read, BTW. Daphne du Maurier (who also wrote the story Hitchcock's THE BIRDS is based on) isn't of the slasher genre. She was cultured and educated...and British. Her thing was SUGGESTION. And mystery.
.
The only redeeming value was seeing Julie Christie Naked. I was shocked at how bad Sutherland acted in most of the movie. There was a serious lack of grief for a couple who lost a child (and seemingly ignored their remaining young son until he too hurt himself)....I thought he was a girl, up until the phone call. I was thinking, "what son?". What kid carries around a pair of clamps to remove broken glass from a tire? Why didn't he just take it back to the house?
shareI love this movie. It is completely opposite of standard horror movies from then up to today. Nicolas Roeg really captures a spooky atmosphere of dirty and soulless Venice (that's how I felt when I went there as a child) but in a dream-like manner. There's a certain disjointedness to the characters and the film editing that make you feel uneasy throughout.
It certainly not a movie for everyone, but I'm okay with that.
Agreed.
share