• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Anyone else knows Don't Look Now (1973)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nicolas Roeg's GREAT "horror-suspense-drama-love" flick is, in my humble opinion, incredibly underrated, and I don't know any single person in real life (except for me and my girlfriend) who has watched it. Even some of my movie classes teachers haven't seen it. Anyone else here has seen it?

I think the movie has one of the best representations of a city in a movie I've seen (Venise is incredible in that flick). It has a great and daring (although a little obvious) use of the color red, and it has great acting by Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie.

The only place I've seen it mentioned (and the reason why I watched it in the first place) is in a "Great Movies" article by Roger Ebert. Really, I wasn't expecting much (Ebert sometimes loves the weirdest things), but it's one of the most unsettling, dark and effective thrillers I've seen (as far as it is from being a conventional thriller).

B000069I0A.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
 
I had a hilarious friend -- he's abandoned me and I haven't heard from him in months -- who swore this was the scariest movie he's ever seen because of the ending.
 

Nemrael

Member
I've seen it! Very good film, though not as scary as I'd thought it would be having seen it in some film magazine's list of "scariest movies ever". I liked the sense of creepiness that it had, and the way that it seemed more like a normal drama with wierd stuff happening than just a straight horror film. I liked the way everything comes together and makes sense in the end, and the ending is great of course. Nice cover for the DVD too, haven't seen that before.
 
It has a great sex scene, yes. If it can be an enticement for young teenagers to watch it, well, I'm all for publicizing it. And, Nemrael, you are perfectly right about it being something of a normal drama with horror elements. It definitely is not in the scariest movies ever made, but I think it's one of the moodiest, and most intriguing flicks I've ever seen in my short yet movie-filled life.
 
Matlock said:
Is this the movie with the midget? If so, funniest ending ever.
Don't you mean most terrifying ending ever? I mean, that little pruny lady just briskly walked up to him and cleaved his neck. It could happen to you! Or anybody! Behind you! Don't look now!
 

Matlock

Banned
No, I thought it was hilarious.

"OH MY GOD IT'S NOT MY CHILD, IT IS REALLY A SERIAL KILLER. I WILL STAND HERE FOR THREE MINUTES SO SHE CAN SHAMBLE OVER HERE AND KILL ME."
 
Matlock said:
No, I thought it was hilarious.

"OH MY GOD IT'S NOT MY CHILD, IT IS REALLY A SERIAL KILLER. I WILL STAND HERE FOR THREE MINUTES SO SHE CAN SHAMBLE OVER HERE AND KILL ME."
He was clearly stricken with fear. At that point a person's heart would stop and all you could do is helplessly watch as this tiny terror troll hacks at your suple neck.
 
Matlock said:
No, I thought it was hilarious.

"OH MY GOD IT'S NOT MY CHILD, IT IS REALLY A SERIAL KILLER. I WILL STAND HERE FOR THREE MINUTES SO SHE CAN SHAMBLE OVER HERE AND KILL ME."

What? Another dumb, teenage angst smelling, completely deprived of intelligence post by Matlock? I AM STRUCK BY SURPRISE. Now's the time to slit my throat, anyone.
 

Matlock

Banned
Insulting a silly "shock" ending that characterized early-70's horror films makes me dumb and filled with teenage angst?

Then sir, I am dumb and filled with teenage angst.
 
Because you found it silly doesn't mean it is. And the movie is much, much, much more than that ending.

Secondly, "shock endings" aren't really a characteristic of 70s horror flicks, especially not in the A-branch of horror, which mostly began in that period, with The Shining, Carrie, etc.. Don't Look Now is NOT a typical horror movie, either in its content, its depth of characters or its imagery.

The ending? It could have been anything, under that red-hooded figure. I thought it was disturbing enough to guarantee a thrill, but really, that wasn't the point of the movie. If you think the ending is supposed to explain the entire film, then you haven't watched it carefully enough.

The movie is all about foreboding, mystery, and strange things that happen in the corner of your sight. It's not about HOLY SHIT IT WAS A FREAKIN DWARF. Any real horror fan (not Scream-slasher-flick fans, or The-disturbing-but-senseless-Grudge fans) that can appreciate depth of character interaction and background story as well as fear of the unknown (which is most of the time much more frightening than a guy or a midget with a knife) should check this out.

And if you don't want to go to Venise after seeing this flick, you're blind, I think.
 

Matlock

Banned
I dunno, I felt no suspense at all during the film...although I do admit the cinematography was pretty damn nice in places.

Foreign Jackass said:
And, well, THIS would have been a lot sillier.

Exactly my point. :lol
 
I think the ending, the church scene and the scene where both characters are on different bridges were suspenseful, but yeah, it's not an incredibly suspenseful film. But, although it's written on the cover that it's a psychic thriller (something put there to bank on some horror fans cash), the movie is much more than this. It really just is a drama with an incredible sense of mystery and foreboding.

And Nicolas Roeg was a hella cool director.. dunno what became of him, though...
 
Well, anyone with both Don't Look Now and Walkabout (a masterpiece) in his credits gets high marks from me.

I guess some people don't know much about movies and like to talk a lot 'bout em.

Sure, it looks like he hasn't done a good movie in a really long time, but so has Coppola, and nobody will deny that he's (or used to be) one of the top 20 greatest directors of all time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom