Video Sources 16 Views

  • Watch
  • Player
  • Player
  • Player
Don’t Look Now (1973)

Don’t Look Now (1973)

Your rating: 0
7 539 votes


what going on?


Laura and John, grieved by a terrible loss, meet in Venice, where John is in charge of the restoration of a church, two mysterious sisters, one of whom gives them a message sent from the afterlife.

IMDb Rating 7 539 votes


How can I watch free movies online?

You can watch movies absolutely free online on No hidden taxes, just enjoy your favorite movies ūüôā

Is alternative to 123movies? is a good alternative to 123movies

How can I watch movies together?

You can create an online meeting where you share your screen with friends and enjoy the variety of movies on with your close ones

What is the best free movie channel? offers best-in-class free service for watching movies online

Similar titles

The Aftermath (2019)
After the Reality (2016)
Cook Up a Storm (2017)
Marriage Story (2019)
The Grudge (2004)
Skyfall (2012)
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
It Follows (2014)
Son of God (2014)
The Remains (2016)
Loitering with Intent (2014)
Run-Off (2016)

(149) comments

  • Oliver EJuly 17, 2013Reply

    Pretty goddamn terrifying.

  • Rob JAugust 17, 2013Reply

    It can take a while to adjust to the seemingly manic cross-cut editing by Roeg in this supernatural psychodrama but stick with it: this is a classic piece of 1970s cinema. Returning to this after a gap of 20 years makes earlier readings of the film redundant (I used to hate the ending!) but there are elliptical readings available that help explain the film: there’s clearly more than one psychic in this film.

  • Jesse OAugust 24, 2013Reply

    This is the type of movie where you just can’t look at the surface and expect to enjoy it. This movie is complex, subtle, full of imagery, symbolism, motifs and themes that repeat themselves, etc. Figuring out the mystery is a large part of the fun and it’s the type of movie that DEMANDS multiple viewings to truly understand what is going on. And the movie is pretty damn great to begin with. The acting is top-notch and, believably, captures how the grief parents must feel when they lose a child. But they also involve some more supernatural aspects and seeing how those affect Laura and John in vastly different ways. Laura somehow becomes at ease with her death, whereas John is still haunted, while in Venice, by strange visions of what he believes to be his daughter. It’s a movie that’s really dense. So dense, I don’t even think I can begin to cover it here. The movie repeats many of the same themes and motifs throughout. For example the girl with the red coat is featured prominently in John’s “visions”, water and glass breaking are also featured prominently as they help to keep in mind that the Baxter’s daughter died horribly. The glass breaking is used to represent that something bad is about to happen, as glass breaks before certain events in the movie, and the water, of course, represents where the daughter drowned. So they never let you forget what has happened, and they bring it up constantly. But it’s done in very clever ways, and it doesn’t feel intrusive. I did think the movie dragged a little once Laura went to England to check on their son. One of the things that I very much liked about the film was how, at the beginning, John sees a photo that has someone wearing a coat the same color as his daughter is wearing right at that moment, and ink spills over the person. It’s red ink so it, obviously looks like blood. This worries John, who hurries out to find that his daughter has fallen into the lake. Of course this brings up questions as to why would there be blood if she drowned? This is where Venice comes into play. And this part will be SPOILERRIFIC, so you can just skip ahead to when I say the spoilers are over. The visions he’s having of what he believes to be his daughter aren’t that. He’s actually having visions of his own death and he doesn’t realize this until it’s absolutely too late. It’s an incredibly smart twist that seems unassuming, except it’s anything but. It adds a whole new layer to the film because what you thought were visions of John’s daughter, weren’t really visions. It was just that the serial murderer that had been killing people left and right, in a little subplot of the film, uses the red coat to lure the victims into a trap. John Baxter, not having fully grieved his daughter’s death yet, really does believe he’s seeing his daughter and that she’s trying to reach out to him. That makes the ending particularly bittersweet in that regard. SPOILER END. This review is already long enough and I haven’t even gotten into as much detail as I could on the film’s complexities and its themes. But this is the type of movie that can, and SHOULD, get better with repeated viewings, when you can peel back more and more layers of the mystery. The acting is top-notch, the score is cool and gives it a creepy feeling, and the editing blurs the line between what is real and what’s not. Top-notch thriller right here. It requires a little more brainpower than a lot of mainstream psychological thrillers, but it’s a film that will reward you with each viewing. Highly recommended.

  • ZACHO DAugust 27, 2013Reply

    One hell of a movie with epic shocker of a climax! An absolute must see for fans of cinema as well as horror buffs who are up for something completely different!

  • Vineeth PAugust 31, 2013Reply

    mysterious and strange thriller. the movie show how analytical mind’s can get you in trouble and make you notice things at the near end..the colour red is used very well .. extremely well directed..the tension is well built till the end..keeps you in the edge of your seats..a must watch…

  • Billy KSeptember 5, 2013Reply

    Pure Cinema. Starts off with one of the best openings to a film I’ve seen, then just keeps building the dread right up to breaking point when everything just shatters. Nicolas Roeg doing what he doe’s best. Great Performances. A real horror that gets right under that red rain mac and doesn’t let go for a second.

  • Jesse LSeptember 7, 2013Reply

    As a character piece, it’s an excellent look at a couple trying to cope with their tragedy. As a thriller or horror film, however, it tends to fall short. Darkly fascinating but not very scary.

  • Paul ASeptember 8, 2013Reply

    It was a slow moving move and i didn’t really find it all that interesting, the scenes dragged out too long as well. I thought the ending was also pretty dumb. 1 Star for the Acting and the setting (Venice) it was filmed in a beautiful location.

  • Wezul SSeptember 18, 2013Reply

    Grief leads to madness in the hypnotic streets of Venice for a couple whose child has drowned. This psychological horror builds slowly with some dizzying edits & melancholy score. However I’m not sure the final chill is worth the sometimes tedious buildup.

  • Christopher HSeptember 29, 2013Reply

    On the surface, “Don’t Look Now” is a chilling jaunt in the world of psychics and deep emotional loss, but the question that needs to be asked pertains to whether the film is actually scary or if its horror is brought on mainly by the 70’s nature of the film. Horror films like “Rosemary’s Baby” and “The Birds” are made scarier by the old-fashioned feel of the medium of old film. The grainy look and stiff performances are eerie, like looking at solemn black-and-white photos from the early 90’s where no one ever smiles. Donald Sutherland definitely provides a triumphant performance as grieving father, facing off with relocating to a foreign country after the loss of his daughter, along with a blind psychic that warns him of forthcoming danger. Not quite to the standards of Hitchcock or Polanski, Roeg does a commendable job of imitating these directors, but for the most part, simply delivers a straightforward thriller with little to no tension.

  • Dane PSeptember 30, 2013Reply

    A thriller that lacks any interesting content and after the damage has been done you get a punch in the face with one of the stupidest endings ever

  • Whit wSeptember 30, 2013Reply

    Visually, “Don’t Look Now” is certainly different, almost experimental. But it’s so hung up on those visuals that it forgets to bring the story along with it. The film is plodding, but when it moves, it jumps around within the alleys and canals of Venice. It’s disorienting to say the least and maybe the location is part of the director’s game.

    This isn’t a scary movie. There are a number of moments when we get a glimpse of a red-coated, ghostly figure that resembles what John (Donald Sutherland) and Laura’s (Julie Christie) daughter was wearing when she died. It feels a bit like a predecessor to many of today’s Horror movies that feature a scary little girl. There aren’t many moments of horror or tension, except for the early death of the girl. Outside of that, Religion is flirted with but it doesn’t play any substantial role in the plot.

    Julie Christie’s joy upon hearing details about her daughter from a blind but psychic woman is a standout moment. She lights up a movie that to this point had been dreary as Hell. She’s gorgeous and I had a hard time with Sutherland being paired with her. He’s no fun to watch in this movie and the love-making scene with Christie doesn’t help. The director goes absolutely Austin Powers in the scene, strategically hinding Sutherland’s naughty bits a number of times. Funny is what it is.

    The ending was a total letdown. It’s sort of makes sense and it’s a twist, but it’s too much of stretch.

  • Luke COctober 2, 2013Reply

    You can call it classic horror, and perhaps for some it is, but for me this was one painfully long and drawn out drama film. Granted, it does provide a spooky atmosphere and haunting yet wonderful scenes of Venice, but the one solitary thrill at the end of the film is not worth the two hours of boredom leading up to it.

  • Brett HOctober 10, 2013Reply

    I didn’t like it due to the frustratingly slow build-up and lack of interesting characters, but the film-style and way it ended really makes you appreciate it far more. There’s also a notorious sex scene that pushed the boundaries back then, and it’s quite nice. The ending is what sticks with you by far, but I feel like I need to rewatch this to fully appreciate it. Was looking for a scary horror film, and it’s definitely not.

  • Johnny TOctober 31, 2013Reply

    That dwarf in a red raincoat will fry your nerves. 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. However, for me, the film didn’t quite achieve the paranoia of Rosemary’s Baby, or the build of intensity of say The Omen, or The Exorcist. It tries for a rug-pull twist where everything falls into place for a big reveal, but it fell flat for me. Shattered glass and empty dining rooms are equally regular symbolic motifs, while Venice, deserted and wintry, is a suitably chilly setting for the enigmatic riddle. It ultimately suffers through the ambiguity it sets up, as I was left unsure as to whether the diminutive aging woman in red was the Venetian killer, or some kind of supernatural creature, as some consider her to be. I also found there to be a lull in pacing through its middle section, and my attention drifted. 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.

    VERDICT: “In The Zone” – [Mixed Reaction] These kinds of movies are usually movies that had some good things, but some bad things kept it from being amazing. This rating says buy an ex-rental or a cheap price of the DVD to own. If you consider cinema, ask for people’s opinion on the film… (Films that are rated 2.5 or 3 stars)

  • Baurushan JNovember 21, 2013Reply

    So let me get this straight- a 1973 dark arts horror classic? And this is how the story goes- A couple strangely played by Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland lose their daughter or something like that and in order to recover from that memory, they relocate to Venice. But they realise that are surrounded by death as they start seeing visions of red for some reason (I don’t know!). Maybe I’m being too harsh on it or too critical because I went into this with high expectations but this was so hyped up I just was let down. I can understand that dark arts films like these have inspired other works later on but this was really the “shit-your-pants” “censorship level” “cover-my-face” point of scary? Really? I can sit through this any day and I will never piss my pants. Don’t Look Now gets a 7.5/10 which is still above average though.

  • Ameen HDecember 1, 2013Reply

    Don’t look now. Or later. Do yourself a favour, just get another movie to look at.

  • Dermot MDecember 17, 2013Reply

    The best horror film ever made, in my opinion. But what superficially appears to be a horror film, is actually hiding a study of a married couple in mourning over a lost child. Great performances all around and contains some really chilling and frightening moments. And of course it has that famous, terrifying finale. Classic film.

  • Colin NJanuary 7, 2014Reply

    What an amazing film. I’ve truly never seen anything like. I continue to revisit it year after year not for answers but for the sheer scope and beauty of it. The way Roeg shot Venice is stunningly beautiful. The editing is razor sharp and the heart to heart performances by the co-stars are not only believeable but likeable. How many horror films can you say that about?

  • Monjit BJanuary 7, 2014Reply

    It was ok. Story was pretty similar to Talaash.

  • Robert SJanuary 10, 2014Reply

    Great acting, stupid ending of the storyline.

  • Julian HJanuary 17, 2014Reply

    I think the movie has some very freaky elements such as the sisters and the dwarf. However, the suspense that is built in the movie is overdone I feel to the point of boredom. Highlights are a good score and seeing a young fuzzy haired Sutherland in a cool bedroom scene.

  • Matthew KJanuary 24, 2014Reply

    Beautiful, yet unpleasant, thriller. Sutherland and Christie do fantastic work here, and the cinematography is excellent.

  • Marc RFebruary 20, 2014Reply

    This is less a horror film (it’s not very scary) than an elegantly constructed and atmospheric examination of grief and paranoia. The film editing, particularly in the opening and sex scene, are a masterclass in conception, theme, and execution.

  • Michael AFebruary 22, 2014Reply

    The most overrated movie. Ever.

    It’s on the Top 20 list of all-time horror movies. Watch this and it will make your Top 5 why-in-the-hell-did-I-watch-that list.

  • Lars AFebruary 24, 2014Reply

    Kind of a boring movie. There was some suspense, but there wasn’t really enough going on to keep you into the movie. Only truly horrific part was the ending. Honestly, I was severely disappointed and bored with the whole movie.

  • Lucie FMarch 12, 2014Reply

    Dica do André Barcinski. Gostei, nunca tinha visto um filme de Nicolas Roeg.

  • Macaulay GApril 14, 2014Reply


  • Michael KApril 23, 2014Reply

    Venice can be VERY scary at times. Final scene was chilling!

  • Joel AApril 25, 2014Reply

    A very tense & unusual film about a grieving couple after loosing their daughter to a water drowning accident.

    The travel to Venice to move on & also design a local monastery & then they meet a physic who is able to communicate things very especially messages from their daughter.

    A large part of the film is quite confusing but if you follow it, it unravels in time. The father begins following a young child in a red coast that leads to disastrous outcome.

  • Gary BApril 28, 2014Reply

    Hauntingly bizarre story of a couple who lose their daughter.

  • Virgilio LMay 9, 2014Reply

    just so boring, dont see what all the praise is about

  • Kristen PMay 29, 2014Reply

    An inspired performance from one of my favourites, Julie Christie. Beautiful cinematography & fine direction.

  • William WJune 15, 2014Reply

    Note-perfect direction, pacing, script and performances make this one of the eeriest, creepiest and unique horror films I have ever seen, and from Roeg’s very strong run of films. Perhaps the finest ‘reveal’ of all time, in fact.

    In short, a ‘must-see’ film, and if you enjoy beautifully-shot psychological horror, it’s definitely worth a purchase in the finest quality print available, and re-watches…hopefully once every Halloween season, in fact.

  • Peter FJuly 17, 2014Reply

    In the 40 years since the release of Don’t Look Now, the film has grown a legacy that few other films can claim. It has been called one of the most influential British films of its generation, and a brilliantly psychological subversion of the thriller format, as well as carrying a controversial theory that it had an un-simulated sex scene. It’s a film that lives up to its lofty reputation though, as Nicholas Roeg did indeed construct a film both unsettling and cerebral here, exploring a couple’s grief, and using the city of Venice as the most Freudian playground. Rich with recurring themes of precognition and gender communication, Roeg applied a fragmented editing style to the film that was almost unheard of for the day, but now has become familirized by filmmakers like Danny Boyle and Daron Aronofsky. It’s an elegant film too, even at its most shocking and violent, and despite it’s supernatural elements Don’t Look Now feels closer to arthouse than horror. The aforementioned love scene (Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie were indeed rumored to be having an affair) is still graphic by today’s standards, but it’s cut and scored in a way that makes it both beautiful and thematically necessary, and it’s easily on the short list for best movie sex scenes of all time. A masterpiece that has only grown more potent with age, as it surpasses all its imitators.

  • Mike NJuly 17, 2014Reply

    its a average story and became somewhat predictable….it was not bad it just was not amazing my opinion..its worth a look though it definitely has its upsides.

  • Jack PJuly 31, 2014Reply

    One of the worst films I ever saw.

  • Chris KAugust 5, 2014Reply

    A bit of a slow start but all,worth it in the end.

  • Dee BAugust 12, 2014Reply

    Don’t look now, (or ever), at this movie. After reviews I thought it was safe. These critics must have been paid. Boring. Boring. Boring.

  • Guilherme NAugust 27, 2014Reply

    Keeping mystery till after the end.

  • Berni ESeptember 8, 2014Reply

    I’m sure it was brilliant in 1973…

  • Panos MSeptember 16, 2014Reply

    Atmosphere of decay, grotesque figures, a really disturbing finale. And Nicolas Roeg at his finest moment giving lessons of inventive direction and editing.

  • Andre DSeptember 23, 2014Reply

    Una pel√≠cula extra√Īa, fant√°stica y er√≥tica dirigida por el extra√Īo, fant√°stico y er√≥tico Nicolas Roeg. “Don’t Look Now” es un relato enigm√°tico protagonizado por una pareja, una ni√Īa muerta, unas ancianas medium y ese enano….ese enano.

  • Carlos MSeptember 23, 2014Reply

    With a melancholy score and fabulous editing, this notably ominous and labyrinthine story about grief and acceptance uses symbols, omens and a constant sense of danger to make us share the intense confusion and disorientation experienced by its characters.

  • Jos√® MSeptember 23, 2014Reply

    Pel√≠cula de culto, m√°s que nada por las escenas sexuales entre Julie Christie y Donald Shutherland, horror al estilo bri√°nico de los 70’s.

  • Kevin RSeptember 27, 2014Reply

    They all want to know the mumbo jumbo of ectoplasm and holding hands…

    A married couple is in Venice, Italy trying to recover from the recent loss of their daughter. They visit a psychic place they come across that is run by two sisters. The two sisters tell them disturbing news that causes the wife to need some time away from her husband to get her thoughts together. Once separated, the couple mentally fall apart.

    “You must think I’m ill then.”

    Nicolas Roeg, director of Castaway, Insignificant, The Witches, Cold Heaven, Two Deaths, Eureka, and Aria, delivers Don’t Look Now. The storyline for this picture was interesting but not as compelling as similar films like The Exorcist or The Conjuring. The dialogue and horror/thriller sequences were just okay and a few scenes were awkward (especially the sex scene). The acting was pretty good and the cast includes Donald Sutherland, Julie Christie, Hilary Mason, Clelia Matania, and Massimo Serato.

    “They just want to help, that’s all…”

    This was recommended to me by Netflix and I adore old school horror flicks, especially from this era, so I gave it a shot. I was also impressed this received such high scores on RottenTomatoes; unfortunately, I felt this was pretty average and very dated. There weren’t too many horror or intense sequences. Overall, this is a slightly above average thriller that is only worth seeing once.

    “The sight of the bishop really makes me uneasy.”

    Grade: C+

  • Brandon WSeptember 28, 2014Reply

    Don’t Look Now is a great mystery film that is unpredictable from beginning to end. It also serves as a great way of knowing grief between the main characters. I didn’t think it was scary, or creepy, but it does have great suspense to know what’s going to happen. Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie are great in it even though there was a few scenes where Donald Sutherland was kind of bad. Venice looks cool and there’s some good ideas to use it for some good suspense which it does. This is not for everybody as this is a slow burning film which some viewers might get bored.

  • Eduardo LOctober 22, 2014Reply

    Original rating: 7.3/10. 10-21-2014.

  • Tim WOctober 31, 2014Reply

    This movie is full of symbolism and metaphor. Slow suspenseful uneasy build up. Kind of a supernatural mystery that leads up to a mind bending finale. Great soundtrack. Brilliant horror classic.

  • Jason MNovember 8, 2014Reply

    Well-made and artful but hardly a horror movie.

  • Andrey BNovember 9, 2014Reply

    A rare kind of movies, enigmatic and fascinating at the same time with the presence of supernatural. Also a really realistic depiction of relatioships between the marrieds.

  • Jennifer TNovember 16, 2014Reply

    I just couldn’t get into it. It was boring and very slow paced.

  • Arron RDecember 9, 2014Reply

    Utter garbage. A film that throughout I expected something to happen yet completely failed to deliver. Not a classic, not scary , not worth a watch

  • Anthony KDecember 12, 2014Reply

    Call me unsophisticated, but I thought this movie was extremely dated, boring, and completely devoid of anything scary.

  • Hugo GDecember 14, 2014Reply

    Pretty interesting and intriguing thriller, that truly has its creepy moments, good acting and some head scratching moments. And although it was pretty confusing for the most part, it had a very nice style of editing and cinematography.
    ~December 14, 2014~

  • Richard SDecember 25, 2014Reply

    Genuinely, oddly, unsettling.

  • The Critic (January 11, 2015Reply

    Nothing all that new or surprising of the story here, but ‘Don’t Look Now’ is a remarkable exercise in the technical aspects of filmmaking. It’s a beautifully photographed, scored and edited piece, with excellent performances from Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie as a couple trying to come to terms with the death of their young child. Hugely influential and stunning to look at, the film is notable for delivering one of the most sensually intense sex scenes ever imprinted in celluloid, including cinema’s first depiction of cunalingus.

  • Jose Luis MJanuary 21, 2015Reply

    Pel√≠cula de culto, m√°s que nada por las escenas sexuales entre Julie Christie y Donald Shutherland, horror al estilo bri√°nico de los 70’s.

  • Leena LFebruary 10, 2015Reply

    Imagine this: Youngish Donald Sutherland with a lot of curly, non white, hair, and absolutely no muscle on his body, having sex with Julie Christie of Dr. Zhivago (yes, disturbing image, I know!). Plus Venice, canals, cats, fog, murder, priest and a blind clairvoyant seeing a dead child. Somehow I was just not impressed…

  • Michael WFebruary 23, 2015Reply

    I can’t rate this film because I have no idea what it’s really about. But I am gonna tell what I thought. (which I deduced from reading a little of Roger Ebert’s review and reading about the original writer Maurier)

    After the death of you know who & they movie to Venice the scars of what happened to there daughter (because they neglected her) comes out, be it in a supernatural way, as is hinted in the film, but I suppose that could also be seen as a big metaphor for lose of a loved one in a family. But I like Ebert’s idea, because it was written by a woman who may have grown up in a time when women were not treated as equal as men, he writes that it may be a way of saying men are more skeptical and dim or faithless then woman. The blind- psychic women and the newly converted Laura try to tell him to move on and forgive himself and if he didn’t he would met his end; the ending with the creepy old red coat may have been the filmmakers attempt at showing he killed himself with John’s hallucination or imagination. I did not really enjoy this film to vague for me. Films with a twist ending; you are either on it like a fly on horseshit or not at all and the film losted my attention. (I have short attention-span) It caught me back by the end, which is why I needed to read Ebert’s review and do a little research before I go head long into writing that this film is shit because I cant pay attention. If I was to rate I would say three stars, maybe four. I definitely need to re-watch this in the near future.

  • Eduard KFebruary 24, 2015Reply

    The only horror more frightening than “Don`t look now” are some ratings and comments I read here. It`s always amazes me, that there is no boundary for stupidity.

  • Cooper MMarch 14, 2015Reply

    how did this get on my list?

  • Tommy HMarch 26, 2015Reply

    The most visually stunning movie I’ve ever seen. Some of the images are truly terrifying. The movie has highs and lows, but the highs are masterful and provides horror even a film snob could appreciate. Donald Sutherland is great, as always. He has a very sophisticated and intense screen presence.

  • Caesar BApril 4, 2015Reply

    Starts out great, and offers some terrific Venice locales, but loses steam in the second half.

  • Carlos IMay 31, 2015Reply

    Gorgeously shot film. Really sheds a new light on the atmosphere of Venice. This probably needs to be viewed a couple times to fully appreciate the work of art it is.

  • Harry WJune 11, 2015Reply

    Polarizingly indifferent to what one would expect from a horror film – I don’t really think its a thriller – Don’t Look Now is Nicolas Roeg’s take on The Birds’ Daphne du Maurier’s twisted story of grieving the death of a child in a foreign country. Plagued by (psychic?) visits from beyond the grave, Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland find themselves in a miserable warp of a game throughout the film. It’s good, but it isn’t amazing. The style in which its filmed isn’t necessarily surrealistic but its a Rosemary’s Baby-esque dream-like style that twists and turns with alot of quick cuts and interceptions of nonsense or irrelevance that make it all the much more scary, because things that don’t make sense are scary always and Roeg understand this. The sex scene is really cool as well and remarks on how controversial the seventies must of been for film, released in the same year as Friedkin’s The Exorcist and two years before The Rocky Horror Picture Show, in the same decade as 120 Days of Sodom, I Spit On Your Grave and A Clockwork Orange, reminding us we will always push boundaries like big red buttons, of course most of it is pretty tame to us now. Don’t Look Now is also relentlessly humble and unpolished throughout with muffled and dusty street corners, the romantic city of Venice is more city of devils than angels and is painted as no Happily Ever After destination. The twist ending will stay with you for a very long time and whilst some parts of the film seem slightly plotless resulting in the film seeming a tad overlong, the final√© reeks of time well spent.

  • Tim MJune 30, 2015Reply

    “Don’t Look Now” is a very effective horror film; which instead of monsters and gore uses grief, unsettling imagery, a unique melding of time, and the location of Venice itself to create a very unique, subtle form of dread in the viewer.

  • Matthew SAugust 4, 2015Reply

    Nicolas Roeg’s iconic film is a surreal horror movie about grief, guilt and love. It is about seeing and not being able to see all at once. Brilliant from every single aspect and perspective.

  • Jayakrishnan ROctober 3, 2015Reply

    Saw this on 1/10/15
    By no means a great suspense film or a frightening one either, but this horror film has the atmosphere and elements of a fine drama about a couple who just lost their child. Sutherland and Julie Christy give fine performance and the cinematography is fantastic. The music score, only if it’s there for just 10 minutes maximum, is great. But once the film is over you would mostly feel deceived because the film on the whole means nothing at all.

  • Blake POctober 15, 2015Reply

    There once was a time during which Laura (Julie Christie) and John Baxter (Donald Sutherland) were part of a blissful family, the parents of two darling little kids, the owners of a stunning country home, a prime example of a marriage gone right. But tragedy, like comedy, can enter one’s home without knocking on the front door first: upon one misty Sunday afternoon, quiet, relaxing hours are turned into precursors of horror when the Baxters’ elementary-aged daughter, Christine (Sharon Williams), attempts to fetch the ball she dropped in the backyard’s pond only to slip and, without warning, drown. The bliss is now laced with fury; the two darling little kids are now one; the country home is now a place of trauma; and the marriage, once full of laughter and effortless comfort, though still intact, is very evidently now creased around the edges.
    Some months pass, and Laura and John are now in the process of renovating a church in Venice. Grieving the loss of a child is an experience that never really ends, but the two are at the point where crying at every waking moment is no longer an option – a permanent pang has settled in their stomachs, never leaving even when moving on sounds a regrettable paradise. We can see that the Baxters are still very much in love. But it’s different, aching now. The labyrinthine design of Venice hardly lets them forget about the tumult at home.
    The tug of the past pulls even harder one day, when, during lunch, a blind psychic (Hilary Mason) and her sister (Clelia Matania) cause a fuss in the restaurant, informing Laura that the source of the ruckus was due to the former’s sighting of Christine. For the first time in what feels like years, Laura’s incessant melancholy is replaced by bittersweet joy; John isn’t so trustworthy. But when he begins experiencing strange premonitions himself, including visions of a little girl wearing a red raincoat similar to Christine’s, he is forced to decode their meaning: are they yet another stage in his relentless grief, or is there something more ominous at play?
    Nicolas Roeg’s “Don’t Look Now” is a horror film for the history books, at one moment a startling study of the effects of grief, in another a supernatural frightener that unsettles due to its lack of explanation. As viewers, we are inclined to track down missing pieces to the puzzle, especially perplexed by the twist ending that shocks just as much as it baffles. Roeg’s direction is impressively cryptic, Christie and Sutherland’s performances staggering in the way they are able to so convincingly appear as damaged people trying to recover from what made them so damaged in the first place.
    But as much as I can appreciate the tremendous work done in “Don’t Look Now,” I appear to be one of the few immune to most of it – though the ending is surely one of my favorite moments in horror history, I found myself appreciative of the tension constructed but never actually moved by it. I attempt to reach out and empathize as much as I can – yet there’s a feeling of inexplicable cold that I cannot grasp.
    But “Don’t Look Now” is too good a film to outright lambast; while I am not a member of the understandable cult that consistently announces it as one of the finest horror movies ever made, it is still a remarkable film. It turns the love scene into an art rather than a gratuity. It cements red as a recurring color of malevolence in film. It revolutionizes the plot twist. It is an important film – I just wish I could connect to it the same way so much of the population already does.

  • Sean DOctober 29, 2015Reply

    Apparently I forgot to review this when I watched it, probably because I missed the confusing ending. I don’t know, the story is so all-over the place. I don’t even know what they were trying to get at this plot. Is this a mystery drama? Is this a love story? The sex scene is so well known that people thought it was real. Well, the female actress is simply beautiful. I don’t really get it.

    Donald Sutherland seems to have this thing for constant chase sequences on foot. I felt like this had signs of a Italian Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I guess the film is touching. It starts off crazy. It has a pot of awkward ’70s piano and quick memory cuts, they get annoying. The end of the film is poorly done, it just seemed weird.

  • S KOctober 31, 2015Reply

    Had high expectations for this. Not bad but not as “impactful” as the reviews had indicated. Compare it to The Wicker Man from the same year – this comes up short.

  • Jason MNovember 10, 2015Reply

    IN A NUTSHELL it’s a story about a couple who are struggling to come to terms with the sudden loss of their daughter, and whilst away in Venice√ā¬†meet a couple of elderly women, one of whom claims to be psychic and can see their dead child. I like this movie as it’s not just about blood and guts, it makes you think. It’s more than just a horror film but a story of grieving for the loss of a loved one, and how it can affect people differently. The couple are played by Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, and the backdrop is the stunning (and when the mood in the film changes very haunting) Italian city of Venice. The old ladies they meet are as creepy as can be and you really feel the deep sorrow hanging over our protagonists. With a shock twist ending that stays with you long after viewing this one is regarded as a horror classic, if you haven’t already, get it watched.

  • Rodrigo ANovember 10, 2015Reply

    With an honest naturalistic depiction of grief from Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, dream-like associative editing where past, present and future co-mingle and haunting imagery, Don’t Look Now is an entrancing experience in gothic horror.

  • Andr√© BNovember 16, 2015Reply

    Uma aula de narrativa, a partir de uma edição esmerada. Uma obra-prima do horror.

  • Jason MDecember 14, 2015Reply

    After seeing so many glowing reviews on this movie, I had to watch it for myself. Being included in so many “Best Horror Movies of All Time” lists, I figured that it would have me sitting in my chair with my head buried in a pillow. What happened however was anything but. Instead of chills, creepy feelings and that feeling of utter dread that stays with you after a particularly scary movie, I found myself confused and bewildered, wondering more if the “Horror ” in this movie was whether my head was going to explode from the random editing style and weird disjointed directing.
    I cannot see this movie as anything other than art house as Roeg’s directing has me convinced he believes he’s the most clever guy in the room. I kept waiting for the scary moments to happen, but all I got were continuous random edits that made me wonder why the hell they were ever included in the movie to begin with. It’s as if they wanted to fill time so they included whatever the hell the cinematographer’s camera landed on after he spun the thing around. Picture this is you will, Imagine an attempt at building a sense of tension by having a conversation between Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland. In this conversation, Sutherland gets angered at Christie’s belief that the two creepy old women (and they are creepy) can see his dead daughter. They talk, she tries to get him to understand, he gets angry, they talk, he gets angry again, then out of nowhere the camera close ups on a tea kettle! Why? WHY!?!?! These edits have no place in the movie and they do nothing to further the story, all they wind up doing is confusing the person watching the movie!
    I had to force myself to finish watching, and I watched the whole thing because I believed it had to get scary at some point. Nope. A few minutes left in the movie I realized I had been a patsy to one of the greatest movie cons of all time.
    Oh, and **SPOILER ALERT** having a little person be the murderer at the end was about as out there as it gets. At no point in the story does it ever allude to this uber creepy person being under suspicion! Nope, instead it was added as though at a meeting everyone realized they’d thrown together almost 100 minutes or random crap and needed an ending…Oh let’s have a “midget” be the killer! Yeah! Beautiful! Print it.
    I’m no cinephile but I like to think I know a decent movie, and this isn’t one. Steer clear of this one unless you want to scratch your head for an hour after you’ve finished watching, all the while wondering what the hell!!!!!

  • Boosh BJanuary 22, 2016Reply

    Dated suspense/horror film. The idea is there, but…it just has such a cliche 70s feel. Found myself cracking up from the get-go: the opening scene of him yelling “NOOOOOOO” while holding his dead daughter in the pond; while he was dangling from the scaffolding after almost falling to his death in the church; the quick shots of the old ladies cackling, thrown in between shots of Sutherland and his wife; the sex scene!? Oh my god, that sex scene! hahahaha!!! I DID NOT need to see Sutherland having his toes kissed. I will say that the ending and the “payoff” was cool. Just took too long to get there. And the film did have me thrown off for a while. Only after a second viewing did I realize that everything was related to his “seeing” abilities. But, like I already said, took too long to get there. This could have easily been a 90 minute feature. I guess when it first came out it was breathtaking, but then again everyone said the same about the Sixth Sense, another overrated suspense with a cheap “surprise” at the end.

  • Will LMarch 15, 2016Reply

    ‘Don’t Look Now’ is a quietly unsettling horror film with terrific performances and outstanding direction. The nonlinear storytelling gives the film a bizarre sense of chaos that enhances the mystery and strengthens the ending twist, and the atmosphere is downright spooky. This is a film that requires multiple viewings, and every single one is a treat.

  • Martin SMarch 26, 2016Reply Our Daily Free Stream: Nicolas roeg – Don’t Look Now. Der Held aus Don’t Look Now ist ein rationaler Mann, der weder an das √úbersinnliche oder ein Leben nach dem Tod glaubt. Im Verlauf des Films werden seinen √úberzeugungen in sich zusammen brechen. Der Mann wird zerst√∂rt werden. Don’t Look Now f√ľhrt ausserdem zwei Frauen ein, die eine Verbindung zum √úbersinnlichen herstellen k√∂nnen. Dagegen stehen die analytischen M√§nner, gefangen in ihrer Verweigerungshaltung: Der Polizist, der Bischof und der Architekt. Die Frauen versuchen sie zu warnen, doch – umsonst. Nicolas Roegs Horror Klassiker wirkt nicht einfach durch Angst und Schrecken. Das w√§re viel zu leicht! Roeg l√§sst uns eindringen in die Seele eines Mannes, der sich nicht mehr zu wehren weiss gegen eine Furcht die w√§chst und w√§chst… Roeg und sein Editor Graeme Clifford werfen uns daf√ľr von einem beunruhigenden Bild in das n√§chste. Fast wirkt der ganze Film dadurch wie ein Fragment. Der Himmel ist regnerisch und grau; John und Laura Baxter (Donald Sutherland und Julie Christie) befinden sich in ihrem Landhaus. W√§hrend sie drinnen vor dem Kamin sitzen, spielen draussen die Kinder. Keinen einzigen Moment lang, f√ľhlt man sich behaglich, keines der Bilder suggeriert Sicherheit! Der Vater studiert venezianische Kirchen. Die Tochter Christine, die einen leuchtend roten Regenmantel tr√§gt, spielt in der N√§he eines Teichs. Christines Ball f√§llt in den T√ľmpel und im gleichen Moment versch√ľttet der Vater sein Glas und ein blutroter Fleck breitet sich langsam √ľber dem gesamten Bild aus… Schnitt. Ein roter Regenmantel in einer venezianischen Kirche huscht vorbei. Schnitt. Draussen Christines roter Mantel im Teich. Irgendetwas bringt John dazu, aufzublicken, dann rennt er wie ein Wahnsinniger aus dem Haus. Er findet den toten K√∂rper seiner Tochter, bricht zusammen, st√∂sst einen animalischen Laut tiefster Klage aus. In dieser Szene wird nicht nur der Verlust der Baxters sp√ľrbar, hier wird der gesamte visuelle Stil des Films zusammen gefasst. Einige Einstellungen werden folgen, die wie aus der Zeit gerissen wirken, andere werden Zuk√ľnftiges vorwegnehmen. Christines Tod verfolgt das Ehepaar bis nach Venedig, dort wo John eine Kirche restauriert, wo ein Killer in Serie mordet, eine Leiche im Kanal geborgen wird und die Puppe eines Kindes am Ufer liegt. Der rote Regenmantel verbindet das schreckliche Ereignis am Teich mit dem Geschehen in Venedig: Eine kleine Figur im Regenmantel der Tochter versteckt sich vor John und fl√ľchtet. Ist es der Geist Christines? Wir werden diese kleine Figur noch √∂fter sehen und ihr roter Mantel ist das Markanteste vom ganzen Film. W√§hrend Roeg alle bilder in dunklen T√∂nen gehalten hat, wirkt das Rot wie ein Farbspritzer. Die Farbe Rot verbindet den Tod der Vergangenheit mit der Zukunft. Die Baxters haben aus Liebe geheiratet. Der Tod der Tochter aber verw√ľstet diese Ehe und zwischen beiden breitet sich stille Trauer aus. In der Toilette eines Restaurants trifft Laura auf zwei englische Schwestern, Heather (Hilary Mason) und Wendy (Clelia Matania). Die blinde Heather erz√§hlt Laura, sie h√§tte Christine beim Fr√ľhst√ľck mit ihren Eltern gesehen: “She’s happy now!”. Laura zweifelt zun√§chst, beginnt dann aber mit voller Freude an diese Vision zu glauben. In der folgenden Nacht lieben sich die Baxters zum ersten Mal seit Christines Tod wieder. Die Sex-Szene zelebriert die ganze Leidenschaft und Wahrhaftigkeit der Ehe, wobei der Schnitt sie zwischendurch bereits beim Ankleiden einblendet. Gerade lieben sie sich noch, doch bald werden sie getrennt sein. Eben waren sie noch voller Passion, im n√§chsten Moment erleben wir sie wieder in Gedanken verloren. Es ist schmerzhaft, wie der Film mit den Ebenen der Zeit umgeht und darauf beharrt, dass unsere Zukunft bereits in der Gegenwart begriffen ist. Alles wird vor√ľbergehen, selbst diese leidenschaftliche Liebe. Venedig wirkt wie eine verdammte Stadt. Die Kan√§le sind voller Ratten und es gibt kaum eine Szene, in welcher die Strassen belebt sind. Alles wirkt vereinsamt und verloren. Anthony B. Richmond filmt einen Gang durch die Stadt im Winter so, als wandele man im Traum. W√§hrend Laura den beiden Schwestern glaubt, ihre Tochter sende ihnen Botschaften, ist John nur von einem √ľberzeugt: “Our daughter is dead. Dead, dead, dead, dead, dead.” Obwohl er selbst nicht daran glaubt, wissen aber die Schwestern: John hat die Gabe, er hat das zweite Gesicht. W√ľrde man den Plot von Don’t Look Now zusammenfassen, m√ľsste man ihn als klassischen Horror bezeichnen. Der visuelle Stil, das Schauspiel, die Stimmung aber verleihen Don’t Look Now seine unheimliche Kraft! St√§ndig bef√ľrchten wir, etwas Schreckliches w√ľrde geschehen… Das ist es und nicht die Action, was Don’t Look Now ausmacht! Die Erkl√§rung all dessen? Oberfl√§chlich. Die Furcht stets greifbar. Der Film basiert auf einem Roman von Daphne Du Maurier, seine Tiefe aber bekommt er durch den Schnitt: Die “revolution√§ren” russischen Filme der 20er versuchten durch ihre Montage, einzelne Szenen miteinander zu verkn√ľpfen. Nicolas Roeg aber verkn√ľpft Szenen, die nur scheinbar zusammen geh√∂ren. Genau wie John Baxter k√∂nnen wir uns nie sicher sein, was wir sehen: Existiert es? Existiert es nicht? Diese Freiheit nehmen sich die ersten f√ľnf Nicolas Roeg Filme – seine Meisterwerke: Die Fotografie beschw√∂rt bestimmte Stimmungen, der Schnitt verst√§rkt sie sogar noch! Ganz gleich, was die rote Figur in Don’t Look Now ist oder zu sein scheint – es mutet ganz willk√ľrlich an! Das ist ein Film, der sich jeder Rationalit√§t entzieht! Dazu haben wir f√ľr euch unsere favorisierten Horror Klassiker aus den 70ern als Film List auf der Seite unserer Videothek zusammengefasst. Auf

  • Alex SApril 10, 2016Reply

    It has stood the test of time well, continuing to be scary and, for new viewers, unpredictable. However, Don’t Look Now largely succeeds on its technical brilliance combining unique editing with unsettling camerawork, making for an unforgettable experience.

  • Charles PApril 13, 2016Reply

    Mr. Sutherland and Ms. Christie convey the profound heartache their characters feel, even as the slow-burning tension becomes more and more frightening and the images become more and more nightmarish.

  • Anders AMay 26, 2016Reply

    A haunting spirits chasing the couple from the spiritworld. Set in the rustic Venice, shadowing their perception of reality. Death is knocking on the door.

  • Renee LMay 27, 2016Reply

    What a great movie. Its setting in Venice is a perfect for creating a sense of the claustrophobia of mourning. Everything is shabby and worn, but also beautiful – water is always threatening to overwhelm. All characters are placed under suspicion – no one is trustworthy, even those who seem to be trying to help. The ending – wow. I did not see it coming. Even the sex scene is rich, disturbing, and strange. There is nothing unusual about it except for the flute accompaniment – and this usual-ness, in its sweaty, animal entirety, is unsettling but life-affirming, leaving the viewer compromised and longing for resolution.

  • Issac LJune 17, 2016Reply

    8.3/10, my review:

  • Michelle SJuly 24, 2016Reply

    While I wasn’t completely blown away by this movie, I can understand why it has such a huge following among the film buffs. The directing and cinematography was perfection. There wasn’t a single throwaway shot. Look up “visual storytelling” in the dictionary, you might find this as an example. The acting was phenomenal and the twist was superb. While this movie had some visually startling things, the majority of the creepiness had to do with the mood. From the first 5 minutes, you get this feeing that something bad is going to happen. And after the initial tragedy, the feeling doesn’t go away, and as the movie progresses, the mood grows more and more paranoid and confusing and you’re waiting for something bad to happen.
    I’m not in love with this movie, not through any fault of its own, but just because it was ultimately not my kind of movie.
    3.5/5 stars

  • Victor BAugust 8, 2016Reply

    Just read the critics’ consensus, it says absolutely everything you need to know about the movie.

  • Tor MAugust 19, 2016Reply

    My first Nicolas Roeg film I believe, but I have some others on my list. This is a film that’s pretty hard to put into a genre, but with the dramatic beginning, with a drowning child things turn scarier and even thrilling.

    The grieving parents has left England and stay in Venice after the incident. When the mother, portrayed by the beautiful Julie Christie get in touch with some creepy twins that say they can connect with their lost one. The father, portrayed by Donald Sutherland, does not believe in this mumbo jumbo so we get some conflict here as well.

    The production is neat. Editing and clipping, images that overlap the screen. Some sounds and freaky stuff appear often. It’s a original way of creating something scary.
    It reminds me of something Polanski could have done or even the amazing “Possession” from Andrzej Zulawski at times. Emotional film, not as scary today as it was in the 70’s I’m sure, but it’s got some creepyness. A very graphic, well shot sex scene added hype, and for that matter the rest of the film is also well shot.

    A psychological film that are bound to stay with you for a while.

    7.5 out of 10 gondolas.

  • Dan PSeptember 15, 2016Reply

    Story/Screenplay: (2/5) Really a choppy story. Events that you’d think would merit time were rushed. There’s lots of fluff here, and too much wasted time. Boring.

    Duration/Tempo: (2.5/5) At 1 hour and 50 minutes, it’s an average length movie that felt about the same.

    Cast & Crew: (2/5) A badly dated film with relatively poor direction and editing. Felt like it was done on a shoestring budget. Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland did not look good in this film.

    Summary: (2/5) The story and cast were poor and the film didn’t end quick enough. A strong thumbs down.

  • Sylvester KSeptember 22, 2016Reply

    Don’t Look Now is an adaptation of Du Maurier’s short story of the same name. Many elements were changed to emphasise the grief of characters, the colourful symbolism was greatly used build up suspense and the twist was fantastic. One of the best British cinema in the 70s.

  • Logan MOctober 10, 2016Reply

    “Don’t Look Now” is a psychological thriller unlike many that have been made or ever will. It’s a haunting film about two parents who experience a devastating loss, then find themselves trapped by their own dread.

  • Ola GOctober 17, 2016Reply

    Some time after the drowning of their young daughter, Christine (Sharon Williams), in a tragic accident at their English country home, John Baxter (Donald Sutherland) and his grief-stricken wife, Laura (Julie Christie), take a trip to Venice after John accepts a commission from a bishop (Massimo Serato) to restore an ancient church. Laura encounters two elderly sisters, Heather (Hilary Mason) and Wendy (Clelia Matania), at a restaurant where she and John are dining; Heather claims to be psychic and-despite being blind-informs Laura she is able to “see” the Baxters’ deceased daughter. Shaken, Laura returns to her table, where she faints. Laura is taken to the hospital, where she later tells John what Heather told her. John is sceptical but pleasantly surprised by the positive change in Laura’s demeanour. Soon enough John experience mysterious sightings…

    At the time of its initial release, Don’t Look Now was generally well received by critics, although some criticised it for being “arty and mechanical”. Jay Cocks for Time, wrote that “Don’t Look Now is such a rich, complex and subtle experience that it demands more than one viewing”, while Variety commented that the film’s visual flourishes made it “much more than merely a well-made psycho-horror thriller”. Pauline Kael writing for The New Yorker was more reserved in her praise, considering the film to be “the fanciest, most carefully assembled enigma yet put on the screen” but that there was a “distasteful clamminess about the picture”, while Gordon Gow of Films and Filming felt that it fell short of the aspirations of Nicolas Roeg’s previous two films, Performance and Walkabout, but it was nevertheless a thriller of some depth. Vincent Canby, reviewer for The New York Times, on the other hand, criticised the film for a lack of suspense which he put down to a twist that comes halfway through rather than at the end, and at which point it “stops being suspenseful and becomes an elegant travelogue that treats us to second-sightseeing in Venice”. British critics were especially enthusiastic about Nicolas Roeg’s direction. In the view of Tom Milne of Monthly Film Bulletin, Roeg’s combined work on Performance, Walkabout and Don’t Look Now put him “right up at the top as film-maker”. George Melly similarly wrote in The Observer that Roeg had joined “that handful of names whose appearance at the end of the credit titles automatically creates a sense of anticipation”. Penelope Houston for Sight & Sound also found much to appreciate in Roeg’s direction: “Roeg deploys subtle powers of direction and Hitchcockian misdirection.” American critics were similarly impressed with Roeg’s work on the film. Jay Cocks regarded Don’t Look Now to be Roeg’s best work by far and that Roeg was one of “those rare talents that can effect a new way of seeing”. Cocks also felt that the film was a marked improvement on the novella, noting that a reading “makes one appreciate Roeg and Screenwriters [Allan] Scott and [Chris] Bryant all the more. Film and story share certain basic elements of plot and an ending of cruel surprise. The story is detached, almost cursory. Roeg and his collaborators have constructed an intricate, intense speculation about levels of perception and reality.” Roger Ebert in his review for the Chicago Sun-Times commented that Roeg is “a genius at filling his frame with threatening forms and compositions”, while Pauline Kael labelled him “chillingly chic” in hers. Even Vincent Canby, whose opinion of the film was negative overall, praised Roeg for being able to “maintain a sense of menace long after the screenplay has any right to expect it”. Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland also received praise for their performances. Variety considered Sutherland to be at his most subdued but also at his most effective, while Christie does her “best work in ages”. Cocks felt that thanks to their superb performances the film had a “rigorous psychological truth and an emotional timbre” that most other films in the supernatural genre lacked. Canby considered the “sincerity of the actors” to be one of the better aspects of the film, while Kael found Christie especially suited to the part, observing she has the “anxious face of a modern tragic muse”. Roeg’s use of Venice was praised too, with Roger Ebert finding that he “uses Venice as well as she’s ever been used in a movie”, and Canby also noted Venice is used to great effect: “He gets a great performance from Venice, which is all wintery grays, blues and blacks, the color of the pigeons that are always underfoot.” Variety also found much to admire about the editing, writing that it is “careful and painstaking (the classically brilliant and erotic love-making scene is merely one of several examples) and plays a vital role in setting the film’s mood”. Daphne du Maurier was pleased with the adaptation of her story, and wrote to Nicolas Roeg to congratulate him for capturing the essence of John and Laura’s relationship. The film was not received well by Venetians, particularly the councillors who were afraid it would scare away tourists. At the 27th British Academy Film Awards, Anthony B. Richmond won for Best Cinematography, and Don’t Look Now received further nominations in the Best Film, Direction, Actor, Actress, Sound Track and Film Editing categories. It was also nominated in the Best Motion Picture category at the 1974 Edgar Allan Poe Awards.

    “Don¬īt Look Now” has been on my to see list for a long time and I have seen it being praised in movie magazines such as Total Film which I read and enjoy. The film carries partly conventional layers of a horror movie but also unconventional layers of a psychological thriller. The main focus is on the effects of grief, and the effect it has on a relationship. The film is a puzzle and as well a puzzle that maintains partly unsolved in the end. The longer the running time the more ambiguous and complex the film becomes. On one hand you feel “What the hell did I just see?” when the film is over and at the same time the abstractness, questions and powerful images will haunt you afterwards. It¬īs not a rational film and it¬īs disturbing in many ways. The innovative editing style, and its use of recurring motifs and themes with flashbacks and flashforwards creates an alteration of the viewer’s perception. The imagery with familiar objects, patterns and colours pushes the viewer to maintain an associative mindset during the film. What is rational and what is irrational? What is fragments of John¬īs imagination and what is not? Donald Sutherland carries his characters grief like a dark and spooky cloak while Julie Christie¬īs Laura has a more ambiguous balance to hers. Both does a fine job and I must personally say that I thought that Julie Christie is marvelous in this film. She is just magnificent and beautiful. Radiant, lovely, sexy and sensual. A magic actress and woman. The movie’s notorious love scene is explicit, but not so erotic. The scene is intercut with scenes showing them dressing which changes the whole scene itself. An interesting editing choice. It makes sense that the story uses Venice as the location considering the importance of water in the film and I do like how Roeg has used the city. The Gothic majesty of the city and the canals create a ghostlike feeling that adds to the story. The movie manages to really build up tension and suspense, but the climax is disappointing in my point of view. Roeg tries to sum it up, but it still confuses and there¬īs no real conclusion. I reckon it¬īs a unique film, but not really my cup of tea in the end as the genre itself is not a favourite one.

  • Facebook UFebruary 6, 2017Reply

    Phenomenal editing. Some of the best I’ve ever seen, the matching and intercutting between parallel events is perfect. Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie are great, as are almost all of the supporting characters. My only issue with the performances, as well as basically the entire movie as a whole, comes with the technology used at the time. Dubbing isn’t always properly timed, and some voiceover lines are cheasy. There are also some things in shots that I guess weren’t caught in the viewfinder, noteably a corpse blinking. Those issues didn’t ruin my viewing experience though, not even close. Still an excellent film.

    I should note that, aside from a few moments, I really wasn’t all that scared. Even in the scariest moments, I wasn’t all that scared. I don’t say this as a negative, necessarily. I just felt I should mention this as feedback for those of you planning on watching it and hoping it’ll be utterly terrifying.

  • Lewis EMarch 4, 2017Reply

    (1.5 stars)
    Been languishing on my watch-list for ages after seeing it on IGN’s list of top horror films. ‘Don’t Look Now’ deals with the concept of grief in an unique manner and would be useful for an English class who can study the abundance of imagery and symbolism. As a piece of entertainment, it is so dreary and uneventful that you wished you followed the instructions of the title.

  • Andy SMarch 24, 2017Reply

    You can’t work on a church unless you believe in god. What’s so ironic and funny, in a sort of really really dark way, is that his daughter dies drowning in water and then all of a sudden he’s living in a city that’s encompassed by nothing but water – the guy just can’t catch a break.

    Don’t Look Now is one of those few really special movies that comes only once in a while. This movie shook me to my core and had me thinking about a lot of things even after the movie was over. I could probably even say that I like it more than Kubrick’s The Shining, if we’re talking about Horror movies.

    I will definitely be revisiting this movie again and again.

  • Knox MApril 14, 2017Reply

    A devastating, emotionally intense film, which relies not on story but on its own internal logic.

  • Bheema DJuly 17, 2017Reply

    Don’t Look Now has the worst parts of indie dramas and indie horrors. It is far too focused on symbolism & visual mechanics to actually bother giving an emotional experience to anybody who doesn’t thoroughly understand film, but also contains an incredibly predictable and stale plot. It’s so focused on being smart that it forgot not to be dumb.

  • David LAugust 25, 2017Reply

    Don’t Look Now utilizes its Venetian setting to amazing horror effect with wonderfully shot and superbly explored narrow streets and canals while also benefiting from an interesting editing technique and great ominous atmosphere. The performances from Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie are excellent, the film is so well crafted across the board and its mystery is beautifully crafted and ending on a high note with such an effective, creepy twist.

  • Andrew OOctober 30, 2017Reply

    The beautiful imagery and emotional story are almost enough to make you forget that it ends with a dude getting shanked to death by a really ugly dwarf.

  • delysid dNovember 12, 2017Reply

    this is a cool movie there is so many funny scenes in the film. my favorite part is when he almost dies falling from a platform. i would like to show this scene at a working at heights class as an example of what not to do, not being tied off, on a poorly made wooden platform. i guess they didnt have the best safety standards in italy in the 70s

  • Michael BDecember 5, 2017Reply

    A film of dread from Nicolas Roeg. Similar in that respect to “Vertigo”.
    Fantastic cinematography (as always) from the ex-cameraman. Julie Christie is most affecting in this role.
    Unsettling, hypnotic, more a mystery than horror.

  • Louise PJanuary 26, 2018Reply

    Superbly made and disturbing. Highly recommended.

  • sam nFebruary 28, 2018Reply

    A decent film but i did find myself a bit bored. I thought some of the scenes were a bit over dramatic, and wasn’t that satisfied with the conclusion.

  • David LApril 7, 2018Reply

    Other than the Venice locale, just about everything was bad – horrible acting (thanks for the supposedly luminous Julie Christie) and the typical soft-porn inserts in these 70’s horror movies. Couldn’t wait for the film to end.

  • Fong KMay 20, 2018Reply

    Adapted from a short story by Daphne du Maurier about a couple’s ghastly encounters after their daughter’s drowning tragedy, Nicholas Roeg’s horror pi√®ce de r√©sistance is less an occult hair-raiser than an exercise in film grammar with off-kilter editing and recurring motifs of the colour red, reflections and water.

  • Ryan BJuly 2, 2018Reply

    A film where the eye races over every corner of the screen searching for clues just as the protagonist searches through the cold and eerie streets of Venice. Slow zooms seem to magnify situations that are shrouded in mystery. Eliptical editing provides the viewer with one of the greatest sex scenes of all cinema – where “time seems to be biting itself in the ass”

    The ending is notoriously odd, but maybe there was no other way to end such a gorgeous film than with a scene coated in luscious red the 1970’s were so good at filming…

  • Riff JJuly 24, 2018Reply

    A very slow burn… at times way too slow. The scares dont hold up well over time (ie the atmosphere, cinematography, etc). Can see how this might have been scary back then, but unfortunately now it’s only a drama. The ending is very good though.

  • Stefano CAugust 2, 2018Reply

    So… For me the best part of the movie was something a critic spoiled in one of the reviews, and I can’t say what it is, obviously. But I think that even if I didn’t know that part, I wouldn’t like “Don’t look now” that much. Mostly because is not my cup of tea. Mostly it uses symbolism, and I was not really into follow them, or caring for them. Again: ending would have been great, if…….

  • Oliver WOctober 6, 2018Reply

    An eerie horror classic with a disturbing ending and an insightful undertone of the effects of grief amid clever foreshadowing and shaky cinematography to evoke a sense of disorientation the main characters are facing.

  • Peter ROctober 27, 2018Reply

    What an absolute waste of time.
    Only worth seeing if you’re wanting to see Venezia in the ’70s.
    Absolutely nothing here in terms of story. You’ll regret it. … watch paint dry.

  • Sam JNovember 7, 2018Reply

    This film was almost good.

  • Frank SNovember 11, 2018Reply

    One of the most boring movies ever. It is slow and ponderous. It could never be made today.

  • AnonymousNovember 11, 2018Reply

    Amazing story and a shocking ending make this movie stand out from others of it’s kind.

  • AnonymousNovember 13, 2018Reply

    A devastating story for sure, but I just didn‚Äôt find it enjoyable in the slightest. The characters were not developed well, the story was overly convoluted, and everything moved so fast. Could have been great…should have been

  • Braiden ONovember 22, 2018Reply

    Although sort of slow and confusing at times, Don’t Look Now is a very well crafted drama/horror film that showcases some great camerawork, acting, and a complex and intriguing story.

  • Joan P RNovember 24, 2018Reply

    A wonderful horror film that keeps growing in stature over the years. Clever plot, haunting moments of premonition and recall, and a compelling synergy between the two leads, Julie Christie and Jonathan Sunderland, including one of the best sex scenes in film ever. The production is economical but very effective, and Venice in the early 1970s looks refreshingly alive and spontaneous. Las week I saw the film again, loving every second, and today I spent the afternoon trying to accuire get a better quality DVD or Blue-Ray, because earlier transfers were poor, especially the sound quality. Alas, it seems the Criterion version, the one worth having, is not yet available in Europe. Upon returning home, disappointed, I learnt that Roeg has died.

  • Godwin GNovember 25, 2018Reply

    I was just bored the entire time. There’s not a trace of horror or suspense in here.

  • Andrew ZDecember 28, 2018Reply

    An all-time favourite of mine, just wonderfully balanced between style and emotion. And that score! Sure, there are elements that haven’t aged well, but they tend for me to be elements that intended to be jarring anyway (the ending being a case in point) so don’t take me out of the atmosphere created. Love it!

  • Fiona CJanuary 9, 2019Reply

    Ok. Dated. A bit slow.

  • will dJanuary 11, 2019Reply

    Very solid. Extra points for the location.

  • AnonymousFebruary 28, 2019Reply

    Unsettling, at times deeply disturbing horror masterclass from the legendary Nicolas Roeg.

  • Dan PAugust 17, 2019Reply

    Don’t waste your time with this historical stinker. And what is with the critic rating of 97%? Really? This is a PRIME example of where Rotten Tomatoes breaks down as a usefull tool–embarrassing!

    My wife and I decided to give this one a go, mostly due to the rating and were HUGELY dissapointed. I can see why when it came out it might have garnered some praise, but from a modern viewing this film does not hold up. The story starts with promise but meanders, amost relentlessly, to a ridiculous (almost offensive) conclusion whispering the quesiton: Should some films be removed from the historical catalogue? You be the judge, but don’t say you weren’t warned. ps, the sex scene is awkward and over-hyped.

  • Thiam PAugust 24, 2019Reply

    Unnerving and groundbreaking, it’s only let down by disorientating editing and a premise difficult to follow.

  • AnonymousSeptember 18, 2019Reply

    Beautifully filmed, 70’s edited and a story that doesn’t hold up. A classic of its time which unfortunately suffers compared to modern day film making and pacing

  • Millo TSeptember 21, 2019Reply

    Between 2.5 and 3. It starts promising, and the good main actors help, but it becomes a little pointless as it advances, with the end only somehow saving the situation.

  • Javier JOctober 12, 2019Reply

    Movie is really bad. Way too slow. Wastes too much time to show a sex scene, which should have been taken out. Too much enphasis on the church, I wanna watch a movie , not about the church… and the old woman acting sucks. all in all bad movie.

  • Cole WOctober 13, 2019Reply

    Finely directed and acted, and has compelling themes on grief that weren’t usually seen in thrillers back in the day, though I think it could’ve been executed better and the movie is pretty slow-paced and was almost hard for me to stay interested for most of the movie. But I don’t want to give the movie a 3/5 because RT considers that a rotten rating and I don’t think this is a rotten movie. Overall, I think the movie’s worth a watch, but if you’re not into slowburns, this might not be for you.

  • Matthew DOctober 17, 2019Reply

    A mesmerizing horror story brought to life with creative editing.

    Nicolas Roeg’s psychological horror drama Don’t Look Now (1973) is a touching romance drama about grief centered around a ghost story within a surreal horror concept. Daphne du Maurier’s short story is adapted to perfection within Don’t Look Now as we get a high concept of psychic sixth sense premonitions from a man who loses his daughter. Her writing, as well as writer Allan Scott and Chris Bryant, bears a striking verisimilitude to real life grieving. The themes of coping and love are resonant and mature in Don’t Look Now. The film begins and ends in tragedy with the middle portion building romance, suspense, paranoia, and intrigue.

    Roeg finely crafts his Gothic neo-noir direction with very particular diversions and hints with clever visual storytelling. You will not see the outstanding and horrifying ending coming, but Roeg gives you all the clues to figure it out. Don’t Look Now is honestly Nicolas Roeg’s finest film as director. Anthony B. Richmond shoots Don’t Look Now like a paranoid thriller with the sensibilities of a period drama. Thus, he focuses in on the poignant character drama to allure and seduce audiences into a sense of comfort, so that the horrors sequences are all the more sudden and shocking. Roeg and Richmond shot a dreamy drama and shatter all hope with visceral horror.

    Notably, Don’t Look Now features incredibly innovative and creative editing from Graeme Clifford. A majority of the storytelling elements in Don’t Look Now are perceived from his transitions, jump cuts, and image matching. Clifford edits Don’t Look Now like he’s painting an art piece rather than simply transitioning scenes. The editing is so refreshing and ingenious that it rivals the editing in Rosemary’s Baby, Lawrence of Arabia, JFK, or Raging Bull. You’ll be astonished and unavoidably drawn in by Graeme Clifford’s editing. His choices of spreading the red in a photography to anticipate a child’s death through her red coat is genius. His masterwork is during the sex scene as he tastefully splices together a married couple passionately making love with them getting dressed afterwards and admiring each other. It’s touching and classy making for a timeless love scene. Don’t Look Now uses fractured editing like Roeg and Clifford are forcing the audience to gaze upon broken glass and it’s awe inspiring filmmaking.

    Donald Sutherland is sensitive, thoughtful, paranoid, fearful, devastating, and moving throughout Don’t Look Now. He’s intriguing as a father named John Baxter coping with his daughter’s death, while working as an art restorer. He is hilarious in his passive dealings with his wife, yet endearing and romantic as he tries to woo her back to him. His frustrated rant at his wife is some of the most realistic acting I have ever seen. Sutherland acts realistically with a keen eye for knowing looks, startled looks, hurt looks, and furious looks. His face delivers subtle acting all while sporting a cool mustache. Nuanced acting like Sutherland’s is always impressive and Don’t Look Now is no exception. His Italian accent and speaking is impressive all its own. The sex scene in Don’t Look Now rivals Blue Is the Warmest Colour for the most sincerely passionate love making ever captured on film. Sutherland delivers what may be his finest acting of his career within Roeg’s Don’t Look Now.

    Julie Christie likewise gives what I consider her best acting and she was in Doctor Zhivago. Christie is sincere and endearing as a mother named Laura Baxter who lost her daughter. She is sympathetic and likable as she finds hope in how to continue on with life. Her acting during the love making scene with Sutherland is truly passionate and gorgeously expressive. You actually feel her character has grown to live with her loss. I found her optimism and excitement over the prospect of communicating with her dead daughter both saddening and sympathetic. Don’t Look Now does a wonderful job of finding her character’s heart and motivation so that you empathize with her actions and perspective. The ending allows Julie Christie to just scream and release all her emotions and it is devastating.

    The Venice setting in Don’t Look Now is practically its own character. Long dark alleyways and wavy water tunnels tilt your head and blow your mind with unease and romance alike. It’s a beautiful city to gaze upon throughout Don’t Look Now as you are increasingly isolated and unsettled by Venice’s empty streets during the Winter season devoid of tourists. The constant flow of water and striking uses of read are notable directorial choices from Roeg that keep you thinking about Venice all the time while watching Don’t Look Now. Roeg picked the perfect locale for his ghost story alright.

    I must mention Pino Donaggio’s lovely classical score. It sounds so authentically Venecian and organic. The opening cautious piano piece gives you an initial sense of safety, then unease. The outstanding music for the love sequence is brilliantly composed. Donaggio’s piano, flute, and acoustic guitar and bass work is fantastically mesmerizing. The high strings orchestral pieces that play while Sutherland runs down the streets during the search and finale sequences are inspired. Don’t Look Now has some of the most ravishing and lush scoring of any film.

    Lastly, the supporting actors and actresses are really effectively utilized in Don’t Look Now. Hilary Mason and Clelia Matania are two elderly ladies, Heather and Wendy respectively, that capture your attention every second they are on screen and hold you in terrible suspense. Massimo Serato is doing a fascinating character study on his priest character Bishop Barbarrigo. He’s the ideal Red Herring for Don’t Look Now as Serato is so interesting to watch act that you never think twice about suspecting him. Renato Scarpa is apt as the suspicious Inspector Longhi that you are always curious about when he’s looking at something. Then, there’s the hilariously expressive hotel manager Leopoldo Trieste, who is funny just due to his frantic hand gestures and vocal intonation without having to know a word of what he is saying in Italian. Finally, the Dwarf played by Adelina Poerio is so frightening that I will never get her face out of my mind. She is so creepy and playful that you are all the more shocked when you see her.

    In conclusion, Don’t Look Now is like a masterclass in precise and emotional filmmaking that elevates a fantastic horror story into a classic film. Roeg should be proud of Don’t Look Now. Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie are so captivating and endearing that they should consider their best acting to be within Don’t Look Now.

  • Wayne KNovember 6, 2019Reply

    Despite featuring a winning combo of Donald Sutherland & Julie Christie, as well as a potentially illuminating premise of grief and loss, Don’t Look Now has aged badly, very badly. Remember when critics lambasted Ron Howard’s Inferno for being nothing more than people running in and out of rooms? This film is the same thing, but on the streets of Venice, and yet is hailed as a masterpiece. The film mistakes inserting clips from later in the movie as foreshadowing, and confuses bad editing with being mysterious and atmospheric. The movie is supposed to be about a couple dealing with the loss of a child, but they show few signs of mourning of even sadness. Their other child, a potentially interesting character, never appears on screen, and most of the movie is spent watching the male lead go about his architecture job, and that’s just as much fun as it sounds. The over-hyped sex scene looks tame by modern standards, and contributes nothing to the feeling of the film. The ending is terrible, coming out of nowhere and having nothing to do with the overall story. I sat in disbelief as the credits began to roll, wondering how such a lauded film could have left so little impact, and how such incoherent nonsense could be receive so much praise.

  • Saliha YDecember 11, 2019Reply

    #1 Julie Christie & Donald Sutherland

    There is nothing more satisfying and enjoyable than seeing sex translate well on screen. After watching many actors lock crotches and dance the dance, finding that one scene that stands out above the others is actually quite a hard task! How many times have we seen the classic throw down and mechanical navel fucking that happens so often in modern cinema?

    Sex is our reason for living. We are entitled as humans to watch and enjoy the most base driving force of our reptilian brains. So seeing sex realistically portrayed in a film tickles my pink and gives reason for breathing.

    The sex scene I would like to talk about today is the delicious tryst between Laura and John Baxter played by Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland in Nick Roegs 1973 classic ‚ÄėDon’t Look Now’. Our 4.5 minutes of heaven opens up with our married couple laying about, half-clothed on a messy Venetian hotel bed. John, naked, sitting upright while Laura is beautiful and languid, laying perpendicular to her husband. While they chit-chat in that private and knowing way couples do, John casts a very appreciative glance up and down Lauras body and goddamn if its not the sexiest thing I have ever seen. Pure ownership here, John loves and wants his woman.

    Moving alongside her to read the magazine in front of her he clasps her hand and moves his fingers lightly over her skin. Laura in a slow and tantalizing motion trails her fingers down the side of his long body (oh how I love a tall skinny man!) ever so slightly teasing him, merely inches away from his cock. From then, our sexual encounter begins.

    Johns head nuzzling her stomach, pushing away her flimsy blouse that all of a sudden is too much in the way. What adds a further dimension to this sex-scene is at this point we cut away from their lovemaking and Roeg cleverly shows us both Laura and John putting their clothes on. Laura’s smooth tanned legs as she slips on her black panties, John putting on a tie, and we realise that we are viewing their memory of the sex that has just finished.

    We cut back again to the bedroom dance, John pulling Laura onto his lap with fervour and a glorious moment of what could be actual penetration. It is hard to believe that both Donald and Julie did not have sex in this scene, and it is still a talking point about whether they did or not! The movement of Laura as she straddles her husband, her boyish and athletic figure grinding on John while they kiss feverishly. At one point his arm is very awkwardly around her neck and shoulders during heated movements, another element of realism to this. Who said sex was easy?

    We cut away again and see Laura staring at herself in the bathroom mirror while John picks his suit jacket. As she buttons up her cardigan, the tip of her tongue protrudes very slightly as she watches herself quite obviously reveling in the memory of her husbands tongue exploring between her legs.

    We are back now to sweat soaked bed-sheets, our lean and sinewy John moving between his wife’s thighs, back muscles contracting and relaxing in wonderful masculine movements. We see them both, wet mouths half open with nearly pained expressions as they both finally arrive crashing into each other breathless and exhausted. Lauras arm over her forehead while John sidles close in that lovely post-coital rest. Cutting back again to Laura in the bathroom, fully dressed, and smelling the sheets where their effort and essence still lies, she then drops them in the washbasket.

    This is a beautiful 4.5 minutes. It is an honest sex scene with a couple who have been through so much trauma that the film reveals right at the start, and how they quite literally fuck the pain away for a brief window.

    9/10 : convincing grief fuck.

  • Brad KDecember 23, 2019Reply

    Yet another highly atmospheric film from the mid 70s Don’t look now is quite rightfully considered a cult favorite of horror cinema. Nicolas Roeg’s nighmarish and atmospheric 1973 classic, takes the viewer on a winding, unpredictable trip that starts as a meditation on grief and ends as a supernatural thriller. It’s a stark, tragic melodrama that veers off into Twilight Zone territory. Surprisingly, while this marriage of unequals might sound preposterous, it works effectively as brought to the screen by Roeg, thanks in no small part to the distinctive way in which the film has been edited. Although it would be unfair to say that Don’t Look Now was assembled on the cutting room table, a key aspect of its power came to being there. . Aside from Sutherland’s hairstyle, little of Don’t Look Now feels dated. It works effectively as a period piece and, because of Roeg’s atypical style, it retains a freshness and grittiness that allows it to work for a new generation of film-goers.

  • Alexsis DDecember 25, 2019Reply

    This movie is really bad, I thought that I would like it I didn’t. Boring, slow I don’t really remember anything worth while to talk about besides there is a creepy old lady small person who they are chasing they think it is a small child. I believe they think it is their kid in a raincoat, Donald S. points and yells and makes a face of horror the end, only part worth remembering.

  • Samuel MMarch 15, 2020Reply

    Extra√Ī√≠simo giallo, que esta estructurado de una forma enrevesada y no facil de “leer” durante casi toda la pel√≠cula, aunque consigue cerrarse de forma interesante y por supuesto alocada.

    Las interpretaciones estan bastante bien, sobretodo Sutherland, aunque la dirección es algo torpe, tanto a nivel actoral como fotográfico.

    Pero es una de esas cintas que no te abandonan una vez la terminas.

  • Scott DApril 12, 2020Reply

    I love the mention of “Ontario”. Well made piece of suspense.

  • Toribio RMay 8, 2020Reply

    I don’t see much of the grief that the movie purports to show, and Julie Christie’s overacting mess doesn’t help its case. There is gloominess, sure, tension, very much so, but the movie just feels disjointed in what it attempts to portray on screen and what actually is being delivered. And contrary to popular opinion, the central mystery and the ending just feels random, as if the movie was contorted to fit the ending instead of actually building up to the climax in a believable way.

  • James OMay 9, 2020Reply

    Another piece of boring classic cinema. Starts encouragingly but about two thirds through it starts to get increasingly dreary and the conclusion is really disappointingly executed.

  • Keeley MMay 14, 2020Reply

    An incredibly boring movie. It starts off promisingly enough but then nothing happens until the very end, which is anticlimactic and not really worth it.
    What makes it worse is that there is no background sound at all.
    Even if two characters are talking in a crowded area all that can be heard is them speaking. No background noises, no crowds, nothing.
    I also found the sounds very echoey and harsh, however I appreciate that this is probably due to the age of the movie.

  • Declan JMay 14, 2020Reply

    Don’t Look Now is a strange, quirky and often confusing film. It’s clear here that the minimal source material of Du Maurier’s original short story didn’t translate to a full length feature. As well the lead actors seem not to know what type of emotion they should be feeling. There is a clear miss match between the somber mood of the circumstances, and the performances. There is an implication in the script of suffering, grief and searching for answers but the oddly jovial performances of the lead actors leave the film stripped of any emotional depth. This together with a well done but distracting love scene, and the Director’s clear interest in aesthetic over casting direction leaves this film feeling wedged between Italian holiday drama and oddball thriller.

  • Isaiah YMay 26, 2020Reply

    Great lead performances and great direction makes Nicolas Roeg’s magnum opus a must-watch horror movie.

  • S KJune 2, 2020Reply

    Based on a short story by Daphne DuMaurier, Don’t Look Now¬†is a clever and chilling film in which “things are not what they seem.” After the death of their child, John and Laura Baxter (Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie) travel to Venice where they meet two odd sisters. One is blind and claims to be psychic who can “see” their deceased child. She tells Laura that John also has “the gift” of psychic ability. Explaining much more would spoil¬†this jarring, twisty, and unpredictable thriller.

    Reasons to¬†watch Don’t Look Now:

    THE LOVEMAKING SCENE, decades later, is still unmatched in its poetry. Shots of the naked couple are very clearly the actors, not body doubles. This is not a sex scene, but an extended moment of tenderness meant to show us the deeply rooted love shared by these two. Although that would have been beautiful enough, the shots are intercut with shots of them dressing in the afterglow. We believe them as a couple still in love after many years. We now feel invested in whatever happens to them.

    THE¬†DIRECTING, CINEMATOGRAPHY, EDITING, ACTING, AND SCORE. Director Nicholas Roeg (who started as a cinematographer) found professionals at the top of their game and then got out of their way. While some films are great because one “auteur” took the reins, Don’t Look Now shows that sometimes talented people who trust each other will make a film that is far greater than the sum of its parts.¬†

    THE ENDING will rattle you. While it’s a twist ending to end all twist endings, it also springs¬†from¬† an emotional core that¬†makes the twist well-earned–rather than the type of contrived twist that would become common years later. It neatly¬†brings together disparate, unresolved elements in a most unexpected and heartfelt way.

  • Jeremy SJuly 15, 2020Reply

    Entertaining not that scary

  • Daniel MAugust 18, 2020Reply

    Fantastic opening, but sadly it’s all downhill from there as we lose the scary duality of blood and red. Watching a child die slowly and the parents ignore it as we writhe in agony akin to what Lars Von Trier did in “AntiChrist” years later and the imagery is absolutely brilliant how that smudge on the photo is the girl’s corpse being held — loved that. But hated the rest of it because I found it boring, predictable, and nonsensical. I never felt emotion during the film, but the opening at least tried instead of going for cheap random murder at the end because it fits moreso than the character has motive to do so (which she doesn’t, it’s just a cheap scare that doesn’t work). At least it builds dread with the tone and lack of scares, along with whiplash inducing disjointed editing. 5.5/10

  • Werner DAugust 23, 2020Reply

    I’s almost as old as I am but I didn’t see it until recently. It’s well written and acted and had a really nice athmosphere to it. will watch it again ūüôā

  • Leonardo SSeptember 14, 2020Reply

    13.09.2020 ———

  • Raphael CSeptember 16, 2020Reply

    It’s the kind of 70’s drama that just can’t capture my attention. I couldn’t get into its atmosphere. The cinematography is gorgeous and the story is interesting though.

  • John KOctober 6, 2020Reply

    It’s was the worst movie I ever seen and the ending and a rip off to insult anyone with a brain

  • Suzanne MOctober 12, 2020Reply

    Really one of the best classic horror movies of all time. It’s a slow burn, and if you just be want a series of jump scares, this is not the movie for you (well, most of the time). I loved its exploration of grief, what it does (and does not do) to the mind, and how different people handle grief so very differently. It’s also very much a ghost story, and a thriller. The movie is beautifully filmed on location in Venice and England. Be forewarned, you will see Donald Sutherland totally nude, so don’t watch with the kids.

  • William LNovember 15, 2020Reply

    It may be giving the film too much credit to say that it offered an entirely new definition for the horror genre, but in a world that was still not very far removed from endless sequels of Universal monster movies and Hitchcock’s very distinctive style, Don’t Look Now stands as a major accomplishment in the establishment of a far more cerebral and thought-provoking style of fear (alongside films such as Rosemary’s Baby). Clever editing and well-placed visuals offer distinctive premonitions as to the future events of the film while also plunging the viewer deep into states of confusion upon first viewing, caught up in the whirlwind of grief that Christie and Sutherland’s characters each contend with, though in far different ways. It is not a horror film in the conventional sense, which may be responsible for the divide between the film’s popular and critical reception, but it remains a captivating and potent thriller that deftly blends the supernatural with all too-familiar human suffering. (4.5/5)

  • Andy MNovember 20, 2020Reply

    If you ever wondered what a gratuitous sex scene looks like, this film has one. But beyond that (which really is a negative here) this is a beautiful picture to look at. There is a great use of visual clues and diversions, light and dark and dimness. The sounds are also intriguing and textured with echoes and silence. Venice seems like a carnival maze with tiny streets coiling into dead-ends or opening up on unexpected spaces.

  • AnonymousDecember 10, 2020Reply

    Atmospheric. Well filmed. Slightly bizarre, in a 60s-70s British way (not quite like the Wicker Man, but something of that style). Venice is a character as much as anyone. Works well in its creepy, slow-burn way. Probably worth a second viewing to interpret Donald Sutherland‚Äôs ‚Äúgift‚ÄĚ more.

Leave a comment

Name *
Add a display name
Email *
Your email address will not be published