MovieChat Forums > Don't Look Now Discussion > This movie was pure crap.

This movie was pure crap.


I'm sorry. All that hype on 'greatest scary moments' lists and me waiting for ages to see this film & then it's one of the daftest, crappiest films I've ever seen.
Seriously don't waste 2 hours of your life watching it. You'll never get them back.


"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

i agree ive just watched it god it was boring and well crap in every way

reply

I always love it when someone trashes a classic and acts like it's the same way everyone else feels. There's a REASON it's considered a classic. The editing is magnificent and the final scene is jaw-droppingly shocking especially for those whose minds have yet to be numbed by the torture and degradation that passes for much of the horror scene today.

reply

Absolute babba. The film was pants. The editing wasn't "magnificent", it was confusing, sporadic and needless.Shabby camera work. No proper linear storyline. While watching it I didnt know where the story was going, where it would end and why i wasnt fixing the puncture in my bike instead of watching this drivel. Please tell me I am a Phillistine that doesnt understand what I am on about, you obviously know more about this than me. You cant honestly tell me you merited this movie for its style above its limited enjoyability .It is utter snobbery to judge a film on reputation rather than substance.

reply

I think practically everyone who has seen the film knows more about this than you, doghammond. The film doesn't have a "proper linear storyline" because it is a non-linear story told in a purposefully non linear fashion. Do you think the editor somehow *beep* up the editing and spliced the film together in the wrong places and that's why some events are out of sequence? Do you think Nicolas Roeg, one of the world's greatest cinematographers, would tolerate "shabby" camera work on his film? Don't Look Now is merited for its unique narrative style, its clever use of associative imagery and editing, and its mournful impact on its audience. It is also utter ignorance to dismiss a film's reputation based on your own intellectual shortcomings, and you will do well to remember that since film reviewing obviously isn't your forte.

reply

Crikey haven't you put me in my place. I'm dying to know what you thought of Lesbian Vampire Killers.

reply

Crikey haven't you put me in my place. I'm dying to know what you thought of Lesbian Vampire Killers.


I agree with the other guy but that is funny.

reply

Watched the movie twice more in last 12 months and still think its babba.

reply

Dont argue with this guy Logan, he gave Machete Kills, Phantom Menace and Sucker Punch all 10/10.

Come at the king, you best not miss.

reply

Sucker Punch really 10/10? That is terrible movie. I thought it sucked. Just of the eye candy doesn't even give it a 1 start out of 10. Not saying build up movies are even better either. I could not even stand Full Circle 1977.

I am a gore watching freak!!!

If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.

reply

Mumble-Jumble

reply

I'm not going to try to persuade you that the editing was magnificent, or that you should have liked it. But I think there's a logic to it, in all of Roeg's films that employ it, and in this one in particular.

Because Roeg used it in other films, we can assume he had a good enough reason for it, even if in our view his attempt failed. I've never read anywhere why he used it, but if I had to venture a guess, I'd say it had something in common with cubism. The idea behind cubism is that when we look at an object we know, we have knowledge of the parts of the thing that we can't see at that moment. If I'm looking at the profile of someone's face, I know what's on the other side, even though I can't see it at the moment. That may seem silly, but the cubists were trying to recreate the sense we have of seeing all the sides of something in our minds. Imagine, for example, you're looking at the left side of Robert DeNiro's face, and you think, "This is the side that doesn't have the mole." Your knowledge of what's on the other side affects your viewing at that moment. (Silly example, I know, but this is a film forum, after all.)

So the cubists tried to show more than one side at the same time.

Maybe Roeg was trying to do something like that, but in a more fluid medium: film. It obviously doesn't work so well when you're watching something the first time, but it can be quite powerful during a repeated viewing. Some of his brief cuts to other scenes can be jarring because they remind you of something that will happen later. And that's saying nothing about why a particular scene might be thematically significant at a given moment and not at another.

When I first saw "Bad Timing" years ago, I was really impressed with it. When I saw it again recently, I didn't like it. There is something pretentious about Roeg's work. But it works well in "Don't Look Now".

Sutherland's character is given a glimpse of a future scene when he's at home, a warning that his daughter is going to drown, but he does nothing. He has a gift which he refuses to recognise, and in fact he ridicules it in others (the two women in Venice). Throughout the film he is given glimpses of scenes from the future, always as warnings, such as his own funeral. The jarring editing here is actually part of the story. I haven't seen the film for years, but I remember thinking that the father's demise comes as punishment for refusing this gift, and for wanting proof (of the identity of the girl in the red raincoat).

While "Bad Timing" probably has more reputation than substance, as you say, I think "Don't Look Back" is a whole other case. And that's because the style and substance are working together nicely.

reply

Very interesting ideas. One thing I think I noticed, the photo of the person in the red hood in the church we all assumed was their daughter. But her coat was patent leather. Much later in the film, we see the photograph again, and it's clearly made of cloth - the same as the "old woman's." It's possible that it wasn't his daughter's death he was seeing (and which he thought he was seeing), it was his own.

reply

I agree. I liked it.

reply

I agree, its an amazing film. I think people who dislike it are looking for modern day gorno/torture porn. Part of the confusion is the fact that it's commonly classed as a horror film when it really is an expertly executed thriller !

reply

I think people who dislike it are looking for modern day gorno/torture porn.


No. People are looking for something with a story that doesn't drag or have a laughably bad twist.

~~~
"I'm not used to being out in months that don't begin with 'O'."
-The Ringmaster, Dark Harbor

reply

I don't want to come across as someone who trashes classic movies because I am of the opinion that horror movies of the 80s and 90s were far better than we get today. Gore and Torture as in most of the horror movies today are not my taste as I prefer atmospheric tension.

Having said that I must agree with the OP on his/her observation. I just finished watching this movie and I was dumbstruck as to how this movie can be perceived as worthy of it's 7.6 rating. I didn't feel the tension once during this film. I watched "The Others" last week and that was honestly creepy and didn't have a single drop of blood or gore.

I kept waiting and waiting till the last 10 minutes for this movie to gain some momentum but eventually nothing happened. The second half was mostly about the man searching for his wife. The only frightening scene was at the very end when the little girl turned around and had the face of an old women. Then she just hit the man with a knife and pink colored blood came oozing out. A couple of haphazard flashback scenes after that which didn't make much sense to me. What I gathered was that what the man saw earlier (his wife on the boat with those 2 women) was a glimpse of his future. The old women said earlier that the man was in danger in Venice and so the prophecy did indeed come true. But other than that nothing much was there to be honest. The scary elements and the atmospheric tension was missing.

Only three things can come out of it the way I see it:
1) Either I didn't really get what the film was about. It's probably beyond me. May be chock full of symbolism which didn't seem obvious to me.
2) Or I watch too many horror movies which is partially true.
3) Or this movie is really crappy

Since I have a deep appreciation of old movies of the recent past which are considered classics, I would love to be proved wrong if only somebody can come up a plausible explanation what made this movie so great or horrific in the first place.

reply

I wouldn't argue that the movie as a whole is "horrific", but the finale is. I just think the film is a must see for it's masterful use of non-linear editing and it's atmospheric setting.

reply

OMG! Your problem is, that you totally overanalyse the whole thing, today people are used to having to have easy solutions, "answers" to everything, INSTEAD of appreciating the acting, the atmosphere, the pure genious of the film.
Its like watching Hithcocks movies, of course its NOT as "scary" as it once was, and trust me, it was scary at the time!..thats just the nature of scary movies (not all of course, but most of them) and secondly, the whole movie is about that you dont have any control over life and death, and its about that there are no simple answers and life is a mystery. Maybe you agree, or you dont...

I cant stand those "true to life" crappy Hollywood movies, which pretend to be anything else than money making machines, Hollywood stinks, and this is a truly great movie-and i was scared of dwarfs in red raincoats for 10 years after of course because i saw it when i was younger, scary movies are linked to your age. Im from Denmark i apologize for the spelling, i do my best.

Peace out.

reply

[deleted]

"The only frightening scene was at the very end when the little girl turned around and had the face of an old women."

Er, this was absolutely not the case.

It's quite true that it is difficult to embrace the necessary nuances, but if you re - watch the film you'll hopefully see the clues which show you who was involved in this scene, why they were involved and the symbolic and physical significance.

reply

First of all...Thanks for the spoiler alert you loser. Secondly...You're an idiot...That is all...

That Is One Nutty Hospital!

reply

1. spoilers for a film that came out in 1973! please.

2. secondly why not watch a film before you come to these boards lest you get spoiled?

reply

It doesn't matter when it came out, whether it was last week or fifty years ago. If you haven't seen it then it can be spoiled.

reply

Just replying on the back end...
Finished my first watch on a blind buy of Criterion blu ray. Some notes I took.... I think people consider it horror because of the loss of the child and the feelings that both parents have to deal with afterwards. There was definite tension with the editing and music that provided it. It's not totally coherent, but the pieces fall together as the film progresses. The middle was a little slow, but I think the tension starts building as Julie Christie leaves and Sutherland is up on the scaffold.
The scenes in which we are in dark alleys, barely light, and that little red jacket runs by and cuts a corner seems to me pretty creepy. Cinematography was absolutely fantastic. I'm a camera nerd, and felt the film was incredible in this aspect. I'm assuming Roeg didn't have a lot of money to make this, so the specifics of what was needed in the shots and editing is very artistic.
It's not a favorite, but I respect it for what it is. 7/10 (Julie Christie looked mad hot naked)

reply

You obviously had the wrong kind of expectations. Don't Look Now, is a totally unique film and also a piece of art. Don't label it horror, don't label it at all. Just let it be. If you watched it expecting a slasher you obviously were going to be disappointed. It isn't, it's only considered a horror film because of the supernatural elements there, and the shock ending, which came out way before slasher movies became an industry of their own. I for one think it has one of the greatest endings of all time. Everytime I watch this movie, I find myself wishing I could go back in time and see it for the first time all over again.

reply

I'm liking hearing other people's opinions and I think I like hearing this one most. Now that you mentioned it, I did kind of go into it expecting a slasher. I'm still not saying I enjoyed the movie on any other level and I still can't say it was one of my favourites but hey... maybe I just didn't get it...


"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

reply

I'm going to add I really liked the film, and the editing really was something. But the real reason for this message is that you've just inspired me to go listen to Tom Waits.

reply

The big reveal at the ending was marvelous. It was scary, disturbing, and just all around my favorite part of the movie. Now I understand that it didn't have much of a linear storyline but it just felt like things didn't fit. That being said, I can appreciate it's artistry. It's a well-made movie.

reply

I think 'Don't Look Now' is a technically accomplished movie (except for Donald Sutherland's red flourescent blood)so in that sense I liked it a lot, the editing, the directing,etc. The thing is narratively it didn't do much for me, in the end I was left disappointed at how the story unravelled. I found it pretty much pointless even though I understood how all the elements connected.
Also the score wasn't very appealing, specially in the love scene, I wasn't a fan of the music playing. In the end it's all a matter of personal taste, I suppose.

*beep* funny...people...they all got their own peculiarities, their own way of living.

reply


@Skylab: Hahaha. "Donald Sutherland's red flourescent blood". I think I smell a band name!

"I never dreamed that any mere physical experience could be so stimulating!" -The African Queen

reply

Ditto. I also saw this movie on the "list", and was excited to watch it. It was boring, not scary, and a total waste of time!

A true friend stabs you in the front.

reply

Really, people are stupid if they buy this crap. I'm with you. The editing is crazy, the acting amateurish (a few expressions are all these actors can produce), and the plot silly. The protagnoists do not demand sympathy, and the so-called surprise ending as silly as it gets.

reply

[deleted]

"Don't waste 2 hours of your life watching it. You'll never get them back."

You'll never get any two hours of your life back, rendering your comment completely without merit. Seriously people, don't waste your WHOLE life regurgitating cliches.

reply

Also don't waste your time worrying about pretentious gobbledygook from posers who think they are enlightened cinema elitists. Not one of you clowns have explained what is so great about "Don't Look Now" except to parrot "it's a classic so it has to be great". I saw the film in HD on a 55 inch flatscreen and the cinematography was a washed out mess and the audio was annoying as hell with the clippity clop sounds effects.

Kudos to the guy with the cubist theory. At least he's actually figured out something to appreciate about it. The rest of you keep trying to fit in.

reply

"Not one of you clowns have explained what is so great about "Don't Look Now" except to parrot 'it's a classic so it has to be great'."

Uh, you must not have spent much time picking over the threads on this board. If we DLN buffs were simply guilty of "DLN rocks, get over it" syndrome, the evidence would be there.

THEN you proceed to dismiss the film on the basis of the sound quality of your video copy? Christ.



There, daddy, do I get a gold star?

reply

I found the whole film builds up the tension with the frustration of not knowing what is going on all the time and the same is true of John who also has a great deal of trouble figuring out what is going on. This is a reason I was hating this film for the first half of it but felt that the final act really turned it around and made the whole thing make sense. Also I think a further viewing would probably enhance my opinion of the film, at the moment I have given it a still divided 7/10

But I do have to say the quality of the sound mixing was annoyingly poor on the dvd I watched.


----

Even if you hate Uwe Boll, give Postal a try, be offended or entertained.

reply

I'm with you on this.. after so many years nobody has ever told why this film is a masterpiece..

I'm still waiting for a completely detailed explanation, not just a "If you don't get it you are an idiot" or "You have to watch it again, observe the subtleties.."-crap.

reply

To an extent both those are valid responses: it's virtually impossible to explain why something clicks with someone but not somebody else. I also agree with those people who say you need to watch it more than once: it does not adopt a linear narrative so it does not really work as a linear experience. If you have only seen it once, then this is most likely why you don't find the film as rewarding as people who have watched it more than once.

As for why it is regarded a masterpiece, then Roger Ebert probably does as good a job as anyone in his DVD review explaining its timeless appeal: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-dont-look-now-1974

reply

I saw the film in HD on a 55 inch flatscreen and the cinematography was a washed out mess and the audio was annoying as hell with the clippity clop sounds effects.


Yes, your big 55 inch flatscreen made you expert on movies. And here's the hint: next time, buy original DVD instead of downloading some old VHSrip so cinematography won't be washed up and audio won't be a mess.

reply

Man there are so badly easily enjoyed people over terrible movies as this one. So many movies rated backwards on this site. Full Circle and this are pretty boring and bad and whoever thought Others was scary is nuts too. Heck, no ghost story movie is scary and to hear people believe there are real ghosts are nuts too. Ignore my signature but yes I do love gore and would rather watch it than most movies that people say are better. At least you get something out of the two hours with gore. Like the build up movies, you can't say the same.

I am a gore watching freak!!!

If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.

reply