It's a testament to how awesome Don't Look Now is, that I keep returning to Roeg, often to get burned something awful. This one starts off so well, too- A credit sequence with Klimt paintings and music by Waits, but then it takes a savage nosedive into a pool of pretentious, aimless swill. Neither lead delivers a performance capable of carrying anything, much less a drawn out, tedious melodrama, so when the finale, meant to be shocking no doubt, comes around it's much too little, far too late.

Roeg is a visual master, no doubt, and the subject matter is interesting enough, depicting people being at different stages in life and therefore unable to manifest their love for each other, and also offering a look at the sometimes ugly male sexuality. But despite all its qualities it doesn't really grip me.

Boring. The editing is annoying. Keitel is dreadfully miscast.

"The structure is superbly non-linear and carefully edited together, the characters are intensely familiar, extremely well-drawn and realistically twisted and Roeg pulls no punches, thus receiving criticism from people who can't stand seeing such insightful exposure. The overly-explicit and nasty ending always ruins it for me however, not feeling completely in-tune with the rest of the characterization, and ending on a note of pointless nastiness rather than insight or dark catharsis."

I'm conflicted. I don't understand why people are praising Garfunkel as "surprisingly serviceable" because he's not good in this movie. He's dry and when Theresa Russell isn't on screen it's that much worse. Stop boring me Garfunkel, not even your zany-ass hair can save your acting skills. Russell is fantastic, yeah, and there are some good scenes, but the investigative portion was dull, even if the climax has power. Keitel's acting + character isn't terrifibly exciting either.

Altho it goes over some great ideas, I still can't get over the fact that that is Garfunkel, I cannot take any of it seriously with him and his acting here.

A very interesting commentary on love, control and freedom. The performances are nice but it's Roeg's direction that gives the film life. The editing and photography are incredibly captivating and build up the film's necessary tension really well, and leads to a great ending as well.

# 945

Vaguely a crime/detective story, but with an ingenious concept at that. Most clearly an exquisite psychological drama that grows profoundly insightful and amazingly multi-layered as it reaches its harrowing climax. Garfunkel and Russell are great, but what's astounding is that the absolute genius of Roeg went unrecognized while vastly inferior contemporary directors garnered all the hype.

Who knew Art Garfunkel could act? He's not that great at it, but he's okay. I've decided I don't like Harvey Keitel very much. He's got an odd, wooden way of speaking. I'm warming up to Roeg as a director, however, and his off-kilter sense of timing. I didn't feel this film had much new to offer, but the themes of control and spying were somewhat interesting.

926

The main problem about this film is that Art Garfunkel is such a crappy actor...

Art Garfunkel's performance single handedly drags this movie down about 40 points.

This was a pleasant surprise. Compelling, frustrating, and unexpectedly well acted. Begs a rewatch.

An erotic tragedy brought about at first by circumstance, eventually dipping into obsession. This is reflected by Roeg's fragmented direction and editing, which is fantastic. Art Garfunkel is serviceable, but Theresa Russell steals every scene she's in.

Surprisingly subtle, given the film's reputation, but the mystery and fragmented manner in which it is told give the film a certain understated tension. I was never on the edge of my seat, but I was always drawn in. Theresa Russell is outstanding.