I'm sorry. All that hype on 'greatest scary moments' lists and me waiting for ages to see this film & then it's one of the daftest, crappiest films I've ever seen.
Seriously don't waste 2 hours of your life watching it. You'll never get them back.
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."
I agree with you. I also feel like my 2 hours were complete wasted. I never saw such crappy movie in my life.. And I saw hundreds of movies, if not thousands. So yeah, I agree.
Everyone who praise this movie just want to justify it for themselves, because they know they have wasted their time, but they also see some fans, so they want to look "deeper" into the *beep* (that the whole movie is) and to see some meaning.
It's boring at most. It is the best description I can tell. I can appreciate classics, I saw 2001 odyssey and many other older movies, like Metropolis, and I loved them all. God, even PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE was better than this crap.
Sorry guys, I'd like to discuss with you but I couldn't even FINISH it! Usually I give a movie a chance to prove itself. Plenty of films start out slow and then become great. After an hour, I was still waiting for this to get great. It just wasn't happening. Plus, because of the 100 movie moments on Bravo, I pretty much knew the ending and decided it wasn't worth waiting around for. People are saying the editing is great. For my taste, it was pretentious and disjointed. Maybe that was the director's purpose- but I didn't think it worked. I was so bored.
Compelling.Brilliant.Beautifully acted. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114436/
[deleted]
That's a pretty ignorant assumption. I like a lot of great movies, I just didn't like this. Loving a movie is completely subjective.
Compelling.Brilliant.Beautifully acted. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114436/
[deleted]
One should remember that in 1973 this sort of film was the peak of stylishness. Donald Sutherland was cutting-edge and Julie Christie was perfect with him. A lot of what was done in this film was new then. Maybe it doesn't stand the test of time but clearly when it was first seen it was revolutionary.
shareI agree entirely with the OP. This movie is a total crap. Don't waste your time watching it.
shareWatched this film with no expectations, and had to start & stop a couple times as my attention began to drift. I wanted to give this film every possible chance to live up to its reputation, and I personally feel it has not. Perhaps this will improve on repeat viewings, letting the symbolism seep in. Here are my immediate impressions:
-Character empathy. Would have been nice to actually *see* the parents interact with Christine as a family so we could get a better idea of their relationship, and hence their loss would have carried more weight for the viewer. I felt disconnected from their grief because *I* was not emotionally invested in Christine. We know she was inquisitive (e.g. the flat frozen lake question) but we never hear her speak, and never really think of her as more than a little girl who drowned - she is almost abstract, offstage, her presence *always* filtered through others, obscuring the full force of her from the viewer.
Same goes for their son, Johnny. Barely onscreen, never hear him talk. I wasn't even sure if he was a friend of Christine or her brother until the restaurant scene. Laura has the most contact with him (e.g. letters to the boarding school, traveling back home after his fall). John is distant and evasive, which is likely related to his grief over Christine - which would have had more impact if we had gotten to know the kids beforehand.
-Sex scene. Perfectly fine with it. Wish more scenes were as tasteful and thoughtful as this was.
-The Bishop. Certainly more going on there than meets the eye, as the film suggests, what with his lack of concern over the restoring of the fake, and his spiritual/psychic connection to John's death. This guy deserved a movie of his own.
OMG: I have No Voice, even Left Over:
but, I Feel like.. I must Say Something:
Obviously, All Those who do not Understand or Like this Film, lack of any Basic Film making's Culture or Education.
Beside the Haunting,Unforgettable Performances of Icon Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland, This Movie is one of the Most Poignant, Unforgettable Examples of Outstanding,Out Breaking Film making,Ever Achieved in a Psychological Horror Film,and,with a Strong and Stylish Personal Vision, Able to go through the Narration of just a Genre Film,and Making of it an Outstanding Masterpiece of Visual(really, Visual.. not that Garbage You guys are used and Abused with Today, thinking that such Images can make an Entertaining Film, your Minds are Corrupted,at least, Realize That!) Genius,and Discovery,and on Set Experimentation(Often a Failure, here clearly Triumphant!)While Unraveling with Class and Grief,one of the Most Unsettling Story ever told, without the need of Exploitation, but the Continuous Use of Metaphoric Links,Images,Flash Back's and Flash Forward's,able to Frighten even the Most Insensitive Monkey,and Create an almost Magic Atmosphere of Mystery, never Even seen Before in a Hitchcock's Movie!
This Film is a Legend, I did not Say this, it's been Clearly Raising Popularity(despite the Huge Success obtained back in 1973,which actually Helped Paramount to stay on its Feet,having such a Hit in a relatively Low Budget Film,when Other way More Costly Productions had Proved Huge Disasters!) and Gaining Cult and Respect from some of The Most Celebrated Writers,Critics,Directors,and Professors of Cinema.
There's Nothing to be Discussed here! Period.
if you don't get it, I feel Sorry for you guys, Just Go get the next Clash of the Titans,or Superhero Movie, you may at least,Be able to follow up some Momentum with those, I Hope:
but your negative Impressions about this Unique Masterpiece have no Foundations,and most of all, Do not Interest anyone,who's passed 5th Grade with decent Grades.
Exactly!
Besides obvious ones there is a lot of subtle foreshadowing, parallels and red herrings up the wazoo.
After the wife goes out of town the portrayal of anxiety/paranoia was excellent!
I think the ones who "don't get it" dismissed the abstractions because they overlook them and don't understand them, so they just focus on surface and obvious things.
Another problem in general with a lot of people on here is this black and white thinking that you're either a "pretentious film snob" or an idiot who only enjoys "hollywood crap"
Just because people like a film without explaining why doesn't mean they're just trying to fit in.
What I get out of the people who don't like this film is that they were just looking at the surface and waiting for action. This is a true artfully crafted suspense. If the only feeling you got in the second half was the ending then you missed out, because the portrayal of anxiety/paranoia was palpable.
I just finished watching the movie. I didn't care for it much. The only thing I really liked was Mrs. Baxter's red boots - very nice. I wish I had read the reviews before wasting my time.
shareLove the way that if ANYONE says they didn't like the film for this or that reason then they are immediately dubbed an imbecile.
I've watched many films from teen comedies to world cinema and independent shorts to slasher movies and don't fit into any particular pigeon-hole.
I, however didn't enjoy this film whatsoever. It took me three viewings to actually make it to the end as I grew bored. It actually angered me that I couldn't keep with it and, considering that on it's initial release was shown back-to-back with one of my favourite films, The Wicker Man, dismayed me even more.
As it has been said already along this thread, film is subjective.
"I'm scheming like I'm dreaming on a couch with my feet up."
Posters aren't being "dubbed" an imbecile for not liking the film, they're being dubbed an "imbecile" for making imbecilic remarks. It's entirely the viewer's prerogative if they like the film or not, and there has been good negative criticism of the film: Vincent Canby—the New York Times reviewer—famously disliked it but nobody considers him an imbecile. However, the film is incredibly influential and even if you don't like it, it has many fine points that an objective and informed viewer should be able to identify (which Canby was able to do); so to simply dismiss it as "pure crap" makes it difficult to hold such an opinion or the person voicing such an opinion in any kind of esteem.
shareagree! totally waste of my 2 hours time. the editing is old fashioned and ill-thought, the storytelling is awefully boring. highly over-rated piece of crap!!!!!!!
share"The editing is old fashioned and ill-thought".
LOL
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
"the editing is old fashioned and ill-thought"
I'll agree with you about the ill-thought part, but the reason being that it's not old fashioned. All the quick cuts were actually very modern feeling, and mixed with the 70's-style soft focus lens made for a very distracting presentation.
Storywise, I didn't think the killer subplot was adequately established, and it bothered me greatly that the police would apprehend the blind lady without calling the English school first.
How is the editing "ill-thought"? Not only does it work perfectly in terms of pacing and the rhythms of the picture, but - with its hopping between the present and the future - it also brilliantly mirrors the theme of clairvoyance central to the film.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Read the story the movie is based on. It's very creepy and this film is a very good adaptation of it. The author, herself, who also wrote the story on which The Birds is based, as well as Jamaica Inn and Rebecca, thinks this is the most faithful adaptation of her works.
I know it doesn't hold up in comparison to the creepy stuff released now, but for it's time this and Obsession were two of the most eerie movies of the 70s.
The acting is superb, too!
I also watched this now and while I was enjoying it, it was because I was certain that it all would tie togheter in some suprising chocking way in the end. Instead this dont make any sense at all. Nothing is explained, and after searching I cant find anyone even coming up with a good explenation for what really happened or how its tied togheter. I dont consider a incoherent plot with no sense and full with plotholes a masterpiece, anyone can throw togheter crap like that.
I agree with the guy 2 pages back who said: "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 have still to hear someone EXPLAIN what it is "we do not get" and what this movie is all about, please explain the story you who "get it", I have yet to see it. And I dont talk about if we dont get how increadible the clipping and editing is because that I really dont get.
There is a huge flashback at the end of the film when Donald Sutherland dies, showing how the film all fits together, how much more explanation do you want? The plot is watertight, the only "holes" are obviously the bits you don't understand or have overlooked! I suggest watching it again and paying a little more attention next time.
shareWhat plotholes? Where?
Why do you NEED a "big explanation"?
I don't have to listen to these wild allegations!
"Seriously don't waste 2 hours of your life watching it. You'll never get them back."
I couldn't agree more! This was exactly the sentiment I expressed to my wife when this piece of ca ca came to an end....
Probably the real reason this movie stayed in the movie critic can and is still around nowadays is because it pushed the bounds of maybe one of the longest sex scenes in movie history. especially for the early 70's..
It's all about pushing the edges, and I am sure back in the day that this film got millions of lines in papers and movie reviews because of the sex scene. Now adays sex is so much a part of so many movies that it really isn't even thought of much as pushing a movie to the front.. Back then.. whoa.. this was some over the top stuff.
so the movie stayed on the radar long enough back then because Christie and Sutherland bared nearly all for a long long long time,, and made the movie an instant critical success. because they were bold and stood strong in the face of the moral majority. Art over morality and all that sort of thing..
Then to make it seem like the critics weren't keeping it alive just for the sex scene they started expounding on the AMAZING editing and story telling. was an amazing movie wasn't it.. How it made 2 hours feel like 30..
amazing..
"Probably the real reason this movie stayed in the movie critic can (huh?)/-/ is because it pushed the bounds of
Forgetting, for a moment, about the grammatical malaise dominating the post at hand, this must be one of the most primitive and ignorant efforts to second guess critics and their motivations that I´ve come across anywhere.
"Art over morality and that sort of thing".
The sex scene was, in fact, quite classy, artful and invested with genuine emotion. Nothing "immoral" about it.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Probably the real reason this movie stayed in the movie critic can and is still around nowadays is because it pushed the bounds of maybe one of the longest sex scenes in movie history. especially for the early 70's..