In HINDSIGHT this movie is brilliant.

That's something many of its critics don't get. The bulk of the film seems to be largely irrelevant and not going anywhere, but the ending casts the preceding events in a different light. The second viewing is much more rewarding because you can watch and appreciate all the pieces dropping into place. The film completely reverses conventional story-telling narrative by setting up the story at the end of the film rather than at the start.

It's a bold approach to film-making, because it requires the audience to drop their established preconceptions of how films should be made. It requires an open mind, and I think also a love of film to appreciate the beauty of how the medium is exploited. I didn't enjoy it on my first viewing either, and I had to overcome my own ignorance before I could see how truly marvelous the film is.

I don't know about you but in HINDSIGHT that finale doesn't seem half as horrifying as when you first see it, at least not for me. Just how scary can an elderly female dwarf with a knife really be, as a killer? The fact that the dwarf has even managed to kill anyone is slightly laughable putting all that into context.

I just watched the movie and, having some time to digest it, agree with you word for word. I found the movie, leading up to the ending, "boring." But the ending makes up for it, makes it all make sense. When the dwarf kills him, it shows how futile his wife's wishes for him to leave were, since it was his fate to die, symbolically and figuratively punctuated by locking his wife out with the locked gate.

I wasn't confused by the movie so much as bewildered. I knew it was a puzzle going in, but I think I was too distracted to concentrate on it fully. Now I know I need to see it again and to really pay attention as the pieces fall into place along the way. I didn't dislike it, and I didn't not "get it," I just think some movies are better the second time around, even if there's a surprise or twist ending.

In his 30th anniversary review Roger Ebert suggests that M. Night Shyamalan has borrowed a page or two from Nicholas Roeg, substituting fear and dread for dense, structured plotting. I would agree with that. Over the years I have come to see that a movie does not have to have a strong plot to be effective. The editing of this movie is labyrinthine, but the plot really isn't. But it's the editing that people remember and what makes this movie work so well. The soundtrack is to me an odd jumble; I didn't think it had the requisite amount of suspense and dread; it didn't "build" for me. Other people may think otherwise and that's OK.

Pauline Kael wrote almost 5,000 words about the movie for The New Yorker. She didn't know whether she loved Don't Look Now or hated it: "The movie is a masterpiece. It's also trash." In my book it's neither, but it's a good, atmospheric suspense thriller that I will enjoy even more with a second viewing.

I'm glad other people recognize and appreciate films that "destroy a pace", as I like to call it. Films that seem to be heading one direction and pull you in a totally unexpected, shocking one instead. Some other movies that do this are SLEEPAWAY CAMP, PHASE IV, and KISS ME DEADLY. The endings totally blind side you and they're freaky as hell!

I just watched the German dub of this. I didn't find it boring. Just rather amusing: an English couple talking to each other (and many of the other characters) in German?

My reaction to this film seems so atypical compared to everyone else's. I saw it one night when it was brand new, and loved it so much that I went back the next day and paid to see it again. I followed it all, even though I didn't pick up all the details I have since then. But the many people who find it dull and/or incomprehensible -- no, not my experience at all. I was captivated from the start by these two people, the tragedy they suffered, and their attempts to put their lives back together. I was fascinated by every shot of Venice, so different from the travelogues. And while I generally dislike stories about psychics and psychic events, I was totally invested in this one.

Even without taking account of the symbolism, I thought it all made perfect sense from a story viewpoint. I wrote a lengthy rave review after the second viewing, much of it talking about how well the story worked.

I loved it then, and watched it again last year with just as much pleasure. Definitely one of my all-time faves.

No one has ever fallen asleep because a movie was bad. You fell asleep because you were tired. This case was just an unusually clear demonstration of that.


I like pretty, dark-haired women and breakfast food.