sign in
register
Watch
Showtime fuboTV Paramount+ Amazon Channel
+11
Don't Look Now
Showtime fuboTV Paramount+ Amazon Channel
+11
JustWatch
Remove ads

Don't Look Now

1973
Drama
Suspense/Thriller
1h 50m
John and Laura Baxter are living in Venice when they meet a pair of elderly sisters, one of whom claims to be psychic... (imdb)
Directed by:
Nicolas Roeg Nicolas Roeg
Written by:
Daphne Du Maurier Daphne Du Maurier Allan Scott
+1 more
Starring:
Julie Christie Julie Christie Donald Sutherland Donald Sutherland Renato Scarpa Renato Scarpa Leopoldo Trieste Leopoldo Trieste Hilary Mason Clelia Matania Massimo Serato Massimo Serato Giorgio Trestini David Tree Ann Rye Nicholas Salter Sharon Williams
More
Genres:
Drama, Suspense/Thriller, Horror, Mystery
Countries:
Italy, UK
Languages:
English, Italian
imdb More information at IMDb
See title update history
Suggest an edit
Show Less
Your probable score
?

Don't Look Now

1973
Drama
Suspense/Thriller
1h 50m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 62.62% from 2071 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(2070)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
prophet92Prophet92
Rated 03 Dec 2008
47
11th
Someone once told me that this film was so good it was beyond human comprehension. I can comprehend it. And I can comprehend that it sucks. The plot is a convoluted mess, and it plods from one pointless scene to another. The film does have quite striking visuals, and the ending works, but not unlike the Blair Witch Project, one has to wonder if we need that much build up to one halfway decent scare. If you want to know if this one's worth it, the title says it all.
Rated 03 Dec 2008
paxtonPaxton
Rated 03 Mar 2012
48
18th
Almost two hours of nothing to set up a flash scare. Oh, and no, I did not ask for a five minute Donald Sutherland sex scene.
Rated 03 Mar 2012
indyatmnINDYATMN
Rated 08 Feb 2011
10
0th
Is Roeg being subversive by taking the thrills out of a thriller & pissing all over the dictum that films r life minus the boring parts? I have no idea. I do know this is an insomniac's godsend w/ various plot threads & bits of strangeness (sisters who laugh maniacally, a dead child, injured son, several slightly "off" Venetians) grafted on2 the slightest of tales (psychic predicts man's death). All these oddities fail 2 tie 2gether in2 any kind of twist that might've excused this GODAWFUL slog.
Rated 08 Feb 2011
spleenspleen
Rated 11 Feb 2012
86
86th
Having seen this years ago I still can't forget the visuals: both majestic and terrifying, eerily graceful and unsettlingly nightmarish. I'm, of course, referring to Donald Sutherland's ass.
Rated 11 Feb 2012
thegreyfoxthegreyfox
Rated 28 Feb 2011
20
3rd
In the same way as the Blair Witch Project polarised viewers into "My god, the most scary thing ever" ... and "complete yawnfest where nothing happens" ... this is clearly the precursor to THAT film. I am not going to say it was rubbish, (although the acting was extremely wooden, which meant that any sense of reality was lost completely) but the story is completely devoid of purpose and denouement. It MAY be arty, and it DOES gets you thinking ... but only to ask what the hell was THAT about ??
Rated 28 Feb 2011
pickpocketPickpocket
Rated 19 Aug 2011
2
21st
Ridiculously cheesy and absurd. Liked the opening scene but it takes a nosedive from there. The fake blood looked straight up horrible and took me right out of the film instantly. You aren't dying bro, that blood is runny jello. Also enjoyed seeing Julie Christie's glorious rack, could've used more shots of her randomly walking around naked to boost the score a bit. The only thing shocking about the sex scene is that Julie Christie would ever agree to have sex with Sutherland, unbelievable.
Rated 19 Aug 2011
gleebgleeb
Rated 14 Aug 2007
30
4th
Too absurdly silly to have any real tension. Julie Christie is easy on the eyes, though.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
suture_selfSuture Self
Rated 08 Jan 2010
3
24th
Don't Look Now is a boring, stupid film.
Rated 08 Jan 2010
martintellerMartinTeller
Rated 14 Aug 2007
71
37th
Kinda good, kinda not. The film excels at building tension and creating a sense of dread. But it's also pretty cheesy, especially with the incredibly fake blood. The love scene felt superfluous.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 17 Feb 2007
80
95th
Amazing film.
Rated 17 Feb 2007
anomalyAnomaly
Rated 23 Jul 2013
45
15th
I'm sick of this style of filmmaking, anytime something happens there's a flurry of edits that completely destroys any emotional connectivity that's been built up. Without that emotional hook, there's no reason to be interested, and the film just becomes a detached montage of images. That people think this is somehow "atmospheric" shows that postmodernism went really wrong somewhere along the line. It also suffers from the "laughable climax" problem that many other horror films have.
Rated 23 Jul 2013
sweekodenSweekoden
Rated 05 Sep 2010
48
29th
Can't knock the visuals or the direction. When it's at its most abstract, it's engaging. When it isn't, it's sorta sleepy, and the finale is not only unsatisfying, it is also hilarious, which is slightly inappropriate.
Rated 05 Sep 2010
cclzaCCLZA
Rated 11 Feb 2010
80
77th
An intriguing tale of loss and the fear of loss with an enigmatically horrifying ending for the ages.
Rated 11 Feb 2010
mentaculusMentaculus
Rated 31 Jul 2012
82
77th
Less a traditional ghost-of-girl spookfest but more of a domestic drama about the horrors of marital separation. Roeg's most brilliant talents - the use of ellipses in time and space, and visual analogy - are perfect for horror. All sorts of disjointed, perhaps true!, perhaps not! relationships encourage that wide-eyed childlike terror when we never really understood the logic of it all. Maybe we still don't. Damned if I understand the climax scene.
Rated 31 Jul 2012
alex_watkinsAlex Watkins
Rated 14 Sep 2010
2
15th
An odd combination of a tragic domestic drama and a horror film. That gives it a unique mood, but it's not always as moody as you'd want, and in fact is kind of schlocky, right up to the ending, which is both frightening and ridiculous. Lots to admire about Roeg's approach here, but plenty to criticize as well. Nevertheless a fascinating film, but ultimately disappointing.
Rated 14 Sep 2010
amerigoamerigo
Rated 03 Oct 2020
78
53rd
Massively overrated. There are glimmers of brilliance and occasional sequences of unease, but ultimately it's messy, meandering, and feels like an illegitimate child of Polanski and the average giallo. Rampant overacting makes whole scenes laughably campy. The praise for the photography should go to Venice itself--as the flash cuts are annoying and come off like the work of an overeager film student. Still, the film's conceit is interesting and could definitely benefit from a skillful remake.
Rated 03 Oct 2020
ecitizeneCitizen
Rated 06 Apr 2013
20
8th
Much of it was boring and stupid. There is a great sex scene between Donald Sutherland and the gorgeous Julie Christie. Events are jumbled up and disconnected, one minute their daughter had just died, the next they are smiling at each other over lunch. I really disliked all the stupid psychic and religious nonsense and so much spoken Italian. There is also far too much setup for the pathetic ending. The setting and scenery are beautiful but the story telling was just terrible.
Rated 06 Apr 2013
forehead1forehead1
Rated 04 Sep 2010
40
26th
Suspense and mystery is built up well in this adult horror that constantly teases the viewer with snippets of eerily vague information, building up to what you hope will be an everything-comes-together climax. Unfortunately it doesn't, and the ending is not only insultingly daft, but also - the final nail in the coffin for any horror film - unintentionally laugh-out-loud funny. The Venice location is responsible for much of the movie's charm.
Rated 04 Sep 2010
jasongirl67Jasongirl67
Rated 12 Sep 2019
65
43rd
Haunting film that's done very well Donald Sutherland is fantastic as the grieving skeptical father
Rated 12 Sep 2019
p_u_l_pP u l p
Rated 09 Mar 2017
81
90th
After this movie you probably don't want to go to Venice anymore. I don't.
Rated 09 Mar 2017
damildamil
Rated 09 Sep 2014
40
13th
I think the best way I can describe this film is, "very 1970s". The direction, complete with superfluous zooms, the haphazard editing, the bad audio, the awkward performances, and the sex scene was... something else. It even managed to make Venice look unappealing. I didn't really care for it. I found it alternately boring and infuriating. Its one saving grace was the thrilling and scary climax. Otherwise, I don't really see what the big deal is. I wouldn't place this with other horror classics.
Rated 09 Sep 2014
ella_mayElla May
Rated 23 Dec 2013
55
11th
I had had high hopes because of the source story being by Daphne Du Maurier. The atmosphere and pacing were fantastic, but overall the story seemed muddled rather than mysterious. The climax felt campy and I laughed out loud. Then there was dreadful supernatural explanation at the end.
Rated 23 Dec 2013
valenzettiValenzetti
Rated 28 Feb 2011
87
78th
Hauntingly crystalline, but it maintains a distance that ultimately works against the immediate impact of the visuals.
Rated 28 Feb 2011
overratedoverrated
Rated 10 Jan 2010
44
38th
One of those mystifying "classics".
Rated 10 Jan 2010
cowmanCowman
Rated 11 Aug 2016
40
7th
This movie takes boredom to a new level. Near the end you get exactly one mildly uncomfortable scene. Is it worth the 110 minute wait? Hell no. Apparently this movie is important for its 'impressionistic editing' and innovative use of 'time as a fluid non-linear concept'. I call that overanalyzed bullshit!
Rated 11 Aug 2016
kramyessevKramYessev
Rated 07 Sep 2013
62
42nd
A lot more cerebral and profound than it initially appears, but that doesn't make it a good movie. Aside from the last half hour, 'Don't Look Now' is a plodding, overly long borefest, made worse by the insufferable acting. Whoever says this is an accurate depiction of grief is wrong. The infamous sex scene is nothing spectacular either. 'Are you a Christian?' 'Well, I'm nice to children and animals!' Ugh.
Rated 07 Sep 2013
lintonmyroxylintonmyroxy
Rated 29 May 2020
92
96th
I'm all for a gonzo ending in a horror film, but not at the expense of the preceding 45 mins. I felt more lulled than tense. After the first half the psychic sisters hardly affect the plot at all, and Julie Christie's character is shafted for ambiguity's sake. Again Roeg offers a beautiful setting and lively direction but burns me with loose ends. (Actually, upon rewatching, this is a flawed masterpiece)
Rated 29 May 2020
talonmalontalonmalon
Rated 09 Oct 2012
85
69th
This film is a real work of art. Couple that with an intriguing story, and you've got a great thriller here.
Rated 09 Oct 2012
stainStain
Rated 19 Aug 2007
50
33rd
This is supposed to be mysterious and suspenseful and everything, but I don't find it all that exciting. It's not erotic, either, even though it's been highly touted as such
Rated 19 Aug 2007
andreasthauAndreasThau
Rated 13 Jun 2010
75
68th
Venice more horrible, beautiful and mystical than ever pictured before (or since). I didn't find it as terrifying and scary as I was told it would be, but that doesn't matter. Nice atmosphere all the way through, mainly due to the nice editing and camerawork - very subjective, felt as if it was inspired by the manifests of impressionism... Nevertheless, found the sound a bit annoying at times, and the problems with the plot: meant to add to the mysticism or simply sloppy errors? Hard to tell.
Rated 13 Jun 2010
nathan_sNathan S
Rated 11 Aug 2018
4
74th
Roeg's associative and elliptical editing pattern creates an uncanny time and space, a byzantine geographic and psychological miasma which actually feels precognizant of The Shining.
Rated 11 Aug 2018
nathanbatesNathanBates
Rated 15 Aug 2020
60
35th
I'm in the "meh" camp here. It's a fairly simple Hitchcockian-style creepy movie. The acting is fine; I generally like movies where the place (Venice) seems to be its own character. But there were a lot of editorial choices, like the staccato back-and-forth viewpoints at the beginning and the overly-long sex scene, that distracted me too much.
Rated 15 Aug 2020
kasperlKasperL
Rated 13 Apr 2008
90
97th
Very moody. And the ending is, or ought to be, even more legendary than its love scene.
Rated 13 Apr 2008
anselmi86Anselmi86
Rated 27 Aug 2009
80
70th
Nowhere near as creepy as most made it out to be, but still a great mystery with fine cinematography and absolutely masterful editing. The scene with the scaffolding is unforgettable.
Rated 27 Aug 2009
nathandarkoNathanDarko
Rated 08 Mar 2011
65
24th
I really really wanted to like this one, but I failed. Nevertheless beautiful shots from Venice and a great cinematography (especially the sex scene).
Rated 08 Mar 2011
vandelay1Vandelay1
Rated 02 Mar 2009
84
94th
Nice movie. Some very beatiful scenes.
Rated 02 Mar 2009
moribunnyMoribunny
Rated 13 Feb 2007
100
99th
A masterpiece, probably my very favorite of the genre, every last detail of Don't Look Now is perfect. Roeg is deeper, smarter, more sensible and more percise than Hitchcock ever was, for starters. Donald Sutherland kicks ass and the script is magnificent.
Rated 13 Feb 2007
the_pirateThe Pirate
Rated 18 Aug 2016
60
16th
The editing is very interesting once you've seen the movie all the way through; it really works well with the themes of foresight and premonitions. The music, also, works very much to the film's advantage, whether it's to emphasize the love scene or add chills when it builds up to it's climax. But here's the thing, that ending is only half chilling, and half absurd and out of nowhere. The rest of the movie is completely boring!
Rated 18 Aug 2016
kleaklea
Rated 31 Aug 2012
48
46th
More or less, this was a glorified, 2 hour Twilight Zone episode w/ nudity
Rated 31 Aug 2012
sofielykkesofielykke
Rated 29 Aug 2013
78
58th
It's rare these days to see a steamy sex scene that feels real and intimate. Really liked that. As for the rest of the film, though, I was quite disappointed with the second half. At first I enjoyed the lack of exposition but it soon got really tiresome to keep searching for some kind of deeper meaning behind the mysticism. This is a mood-film more than anything else, reminiscent of Rosemary's Baby and the Wicker Man. The eery and experimental cinematography is what's most interesting.
Rated 29 Aug 2013
charlieCharlie
Rated 30 Apr 2015
85
91st
Slow paced and brilliantly shot and edited. The tension builds up till it all comes together in a haunting finale. No wonder this is an inspiration for so many filmmakers.
Rated 30 Apr 2015
sproostsproost
Rated 25 Jan 2023
80
87th
Sutherland and Christie are such a believable couple, i'm even doubting the sex scene was fake (it's the 70s after all). The film has an interesting visual and auditive style that really helps constructing the story, feverish and surreal but not there just to confuse the viewer.
Rated 25 Jan 2023
christiaanbchristiaanb
Rated 23 Jan 2016
83
75th
Contemporary horror movies typically rely on jump scares in order to give their audiences the kicks they paid for. Nicolas Roeg relies on dread rather than scares; Don't Look Now develops at a lava-like pace as tension builds up and the protagonists lose their senses as the landscape around them - the decaying city of Venice - collapses in on them. Some 10 minutes before the ending the pace picks up and races to a horrifying finale.
Rated 23 Jan 2016
actionbergActionberg
Rated 02 Jan 2017
80
71st
Kinda like an Antonioni-Hitchcock mixtape. I can't help but give props to the editing trickery that got my eyes to believe that a girl in a red coat and a leaf floating down the Venice river were the same thing.
Rated 02 Jan 2017
rufamRufam
Rated 10 Apr 2014
75
72nd
A unique and occasionally baffling examination of guilt and remorse in the guise of a horror thriller. Although it can be hammy and the execution some times falters, "Don't Look Now" is nevertheless visually striking, Roeg effectively creating an atmosphere of dread (evocative of the spirit of early Polanski but also sufficiently original). My single two favorite sequences were the most tender (the lovemaking) and the most unsettling (the final montage).
Rated 10 Apr 2014
darkmandarkman
Rated 19 Aug 2008
76
68th
Great atmosphere and editing.
Rated 19 Aug 2008
yesistastyyesistasty
Rated 29 Aug 2012
91
72nd
Loved the stream of consciousness editing. Masterfully captures the dream-like, vaguely sinister mood of Venice during the off season.
Rated 29 Aug 2012
sophiesophie
Rated 08 Apr 2008
75
68th
Quite well done. I think when I watched it for the first time, I might have peed my pants a little in the end. ;)
Rated 08 Apr 2008
gill0383gill0383
Rated 14 Jan 2011
91
64th
I believe that this was a joint English-Italian production. It certainly captures that "giallo" feel.
Rated 14 Jan 2011
pigletPiglet
Rated 29 Jul 2009
72
68th
A bit of a let down....
Rated 29 Jul 2009
juanitajuanita
Rated 08 Mar 2014
80
56th
It's about love connections.
Rated 08 Mar 2014
manwhonosemanwhonose
Rated 13 Apr 2017
100
98th
It's the ghost story at its best. When a movie gets to you and plays with your head long after the credits have rolled, it's good. It's really good, and this is one of the best. It not only stays with you for a while, this movie, it takes up residence in your mind. It makes itself comfy, and, once seen, is always there, to scare you again and again. Having said that, it's not just a psychological chiller; it's also a very shrewd examination of love and loss. In short, it's a masterpiece
Rated 13 Apr 2017
fredericg54frederic_g54
Rated 21 Dec 2021
5
20th
The opening scene is a masterpiece on its now, at least in terms of build-up and execution; I can't remember the last time I've seen editing used so effectively within one single sequence. I felt the rest of the film was just threading water, relying too heavily on cinematography and editing as a crutch for its faulty story that failed to amount to anything substantial and lasting. I'm pretty sure De Palma watched this film and was like: "step aside bro and let me show you how it's done."
Rated 21 Dec 2021
johnsandwichJohnSandwich
Rated 21 Apr 2011
90
95th
Virtuoso directing. Creepy, well-acted and beautiful to look at. Plus hot Julie Christie naked. Win.
Rated 21 Apr 2011
capodelnullacapodelnulla
Rated 21 Jun 2019
90
95th
julie christie ve donald sutherland'in performansları, ürpertici kardeşler, roeg'in kadrajları ve başlı başına şaheser kurguyla, tekinsizlik filmin kıyısına köşesine kadar siniyor. öyle bir dili var ki, mevzu dolaylı olarak bile insanın yaşamına dokunmasa da etkilemeyi başarıyor, ama bir de yakaladığı bir nokta varsa, işte o zaman dağıtıyor.
Rated 21 Jun 2019
peaceanarchyPeaceAnarchy
Rated 25 May 2008
85
81st
A visually creative film whose creepiness is mitigated by the absurd setup. Roeg's stellar direction is the centerpiece of the film, with dazzling shots of Venice, making it wondrously beautiful or creepy and labyrinthine depending on the situation. Sutherland and Christie excel as well, portraying their characters emotions well without ever going over the top. Still, supernatural plots like this are hard for me to fully get into and while the resolution is shocking, it's also a bit silly.
Rated 25 May 2008
boredomsboredoms
Rated 04 Oct 2010
93
98th
Impossible to forget.
Rated 04 Oct 2010
cestmoicestmoi
Rated 18 May 2008
75
48th
I'm still terrified of little people and red raincoats, but not as much as I'm afraid of sex scenes featuring Donald Sutherland's flat, white buns.
Rated 18 May 2008
sebbysebby
Rated 21 Apr 2009
65
58th
Probably a bit overrated due to Roeg's great camerawork and the fucked up ending.
Rated 21 Apr 2009
wetwillieswetwillies
Rated 21 Oct 2011
85
59th
It is all about the atmosphere in Nicolas Roeg's hazy horror film. This is not a movie without flaws, but the parts that work work really well. I'll give it another watch sometime.
Rated 21 Oct 2011
theyshoot07theyshoot07
Rated 01 Mar 2008
92
87th
# 163
Rated 01 Mar 2008
muutanetmuutanet
Rated 04 Feb 2008
86
91st
I like a lot the moment when leading couple dress and undress same time (two different scenes cut one on other with a help of small detals). The couple remembers the love making just before dressing up for ball.
Rated 04 Feb 2008
staryarabbistaryarabbi
Rated 13 Mar 2017
70
56th
What is essentially "horrific" with the concept of horror is the fact that it means a nature and law which act totally out of the accustomed logos. Like nightmares where our relatives & friends act totally strange & as if they're some1else, this movie transfers the strangeness of death and hereafter to the setting of Venice. A city sinking to the underworld w/o any consolation can only become the canvas of the couple's nightmare. Great directing and imagery but somewhat insignificant story.
Rated 13 Mar 2017
mirelurkMirelurk
Rated 10 Jul 2019
77
71st
Damn Criticker, your mind reading is impressive, 77 is on the money. I can see how this influenced a lot of great stuff, there is some very inventive camera work, editing and incredibly naturalistic performances from the leads. Honestly though I was bored at a fair few points in the film. This might be because the plotting has been stolen by so many modern movies that I just saw every beat coming. Julie Christie is so beautiful and has the kindest smile.
Rated 10 Jul 2019
robertaRoberta
Rated 29 Dec 2014
80
78th
Wow. This has my favorite sex scene and it was made before my parents even got together (lol). Joking aside, it is really heart felt and natural and beautiful and their state of mind afterwards is amazing. A lovely sequence in a sad movie.
Rated 29 Dec 2014
obdurateObdurate
Rated 13 Jan 2022
60
23rd
Respect what it did for editing and how it dealt with its motifs, but I also felt that it was disjointed and had little to truly invest in. Acting is bad which puts a damper on the whole "exploring grief" thing. Script needed polish: some scenes go on too long while others not long enough. Some hokey dialogue. With that said, I got some enjoyment due to the atmosphere (Venice is spoooooky) and the general plot since there's a decent mystery in there. Ending is great.
Rated 13 Jan 2022
ryan_luedersRyan Lueders
Rated 25 Oct 2016
0
0th
Really. Just don't. Don't look now... or ever. I won't apologize to say this movie was truly stupid. You can't just base an entire movie on cinematography and editing. When that is all you can say about a film or those movies where you say "wow, well the music was good" it means the movie really wasn't that entertaining. Now, if you only watch movie as art and not to be entertained at all, if you see a movie as an electronic painting on your wall and have no interest in...
Rated 25 Oct 2016
hotsakehotsake
Rated 22 Apr 2023
43
24th
The poor camera work and odd acting really distracted me from the story which admittedly was kind of boring.
Rated 22 Apr 2023
moviesinhellmoviesinhell
Rated 16 Apr 2009
88
85th
Roeg crafts a supremely creepy, disorienting, and generally downbeat horror outing. In short, this is not just another axe-wielding-dwarf-in-a-red-raincoat thriller.
Rated 16 Apr 2009
closedmouthclosedmouth
Rated 30 Jun 2014
90
89th
The whole thing basically builds towards that extraordinary montage at the end. It's perfect; exquisite.
Rated 30 Jun 2014
ratedarghratedargh
Rated 20 Apr 2013
80
65th
Atmospheric and ridiculous. It's an effective and simple story told with flashes of disorienting style and camerawork. Sutherland plays it almost too cooly, but it works. The music is terrific and not overbearing. The slow burn set up works as the characters feel less like cutouts and more like actual people.
Rated 20 Apr 2013
johnnydarkjohnnydark
Rated 17 Dec 2010
75
24th
Doesn't seem scary while you're watching it, but afterwards it makes walking down dark alleys kinda freaky!
Rated 17 Dec 2010
facsimileFacsimile
Rated 28 Sep 2020
40
17th
The cinematography and atmosphere were great and the acting was servicable. But the script and the plot were just atrocious. How can anyone take this film seriously?
Rated 28 Sep 2020
metalhankmetalhank
Rated 23 Mar 2018
52
20th
Saw this fairly recently and was hoping for a lot more than what I seen. Just didn't click with me as it wasn't particularity thrilling or horror filled. Maybe if it was viewed in the 70s it would have been better.
Rated 23 Mar 2018
billkerwinbillkerwin
Rated 26 Jan 2010
87
75th
Sucessful atmospheric thriller.
Rated 26 Jan 2010
batface89batface89
Rated 28 Jul 2008
93
89th
Super creepy film. We rented this on a whim one night and it was great!
Rated 28 Jul 2008
bownBown
Rated 28 Oct 2022
78
46th
Unbelievable visuals and editing but the film they’re in service of tends to work way better as a camp dark comedy than a horror or drama which I don’t think was the intention
Rated 28 Oct 2022
twincinematwincinema
Rated 17 Aug 2014
75
64th
An batshit wacky ending (that I love). The dream logic that precedes that, with the weaving of past/present/future into one space, is masterful.
Rated 17 Aug 2014
lookjabbaLookJabba...
Rated 20 Aug 2015
9
91st
Don't Look Now is one of the best and most important horror films ever made. Few films since have managed to replicate or capture such a believable sense of genuine and legitimate horror. Nicolas Roeg's overall direction is impressive and the beautiful cinematography and masterful editing is some of the finest to ever be put on screen. Integrally Donald Sutherland & Julie Christie are simply sensational together and you wholeheartedly believe their relationship, their grief and their dread.
Rated 20 Aug 2015
ag0stomesmerAg0stoMesmer
Rated 30 Jul 2012
5
98th
Grief gets over Donald Sutherland in a scary version od Venice. The ear-ringing and mind-numbing pain of sudden loss is the horror.
Rated 30 Jul 2012
ceekay19Ceekay19
Rated 13 Mar 2019
50
10th
Inspector Longhi: "Age makes women grow to look more like each other. Don't you find that? Old men decay and each becomes quite distinct. Women seem to converge, eh?"
Rated 13 Mar 2019
judo_koalaJudo Koala
Rated 08 Nov 2020
72
42nd
Nope, sorry, the ending is a wet fart. Look out, Donald, it's a... dwarf...? Wow, that's, like,... so spooky, dude. I guess. At the very least, the non-linear editing successfully elicits palpable feelings of disorientation and trauma, and Christie & Sutherland are, as is typical, searing. But I just found the whole conceit to be rather doltish, I don't know. Maybe the problem is me, and my general aversion to ghost stories.
Rated 08 Nov 2020
notitlenotitle
Rated 31 Aug 2007
96
99th
it made me feel the same way like i felt in rosemary's baby.
Rated 31 Aug 2007
theyshoot08theyshoot08
Rated 19 Dec 2008
93
86th
136
Rated 19 Dec 2008
djrossdjross
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
62nd
Score based on distant memory.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
cruelclowncruelclown
Rated 24 Jul 2009
80
73rd
a bit overrated I would say, good nonetheless. Venice is super eerie, the story is good but predictable by today's standards but there are some scattered cheap, lame scenes lying around which makes this movie a tad short from being perfect.
Rated 24 Jul 2009
parasiteParasite
Rated 24 Sep 2018
60
68th
The whole message and even certain parts of the story are too much up to your interpretation, and I'm not really a fan of such an approach to writing. Especially considering that there is a direct deception included in the script for the sake of building and developing the tone.
Rated 24 Sep 2018
3drevelation3dRevelation
Rated 19 Oct 2013
69
41st
Very atmospheric film that looks great, but the plot could have been more straightforward. The ending is also bizarre. I expected more.
Rated 19 Oct 2013
monstergearMonsterGear
Rated 12 Sep 2007
58
17th
It's creepy and pretty interesting. My film professor said it was the scariest film he'd ever seen, and it obviously can't live up to that expectation for anyone except him, it was still reasonably effective.
Rated 12 Sep 2007
michaelhashMichaelhash
Rated 01 Nov 2012
92
64th
92.000
Rated 01 Nov 2012
vengefulkbmVengefulKBM
Rated 25 Feb 2015
80
75th
Crazy art. Crazy, crazy art. Donald Sutherland alternates between scary-good and hilarious. It's glorious.
Rated 25 Feb 2015
larsvontrierLarsVonTrier
Rated 21 Jun 2022
3
72nd
what was the point of that sex scene? really....
Rated 21 Jun 2022
miss_jesusmiss jesus
Rated 02 Feb 2009
65
58th
Good acting, and there's some really good stuff here metaphorically; unfortunately, there are only one or two scenes that are genuinely creepy in any way, so while the patience of this film (which is typical of the director and era) gives us plenty of time for characterizations and gentle pacing, the payoff is ultimately just not there.
Rated 02 Feb 2009
cockolaCockola
Rated 04 Dec 2020
41
16th
Why/How (when/who/what) do people like this boring ass film? * The 41 points I'm giving it are for the 41 times I said HA during the sex scene
Rated 04 Dec 2020
moushmoush
Rated 11 Aug 2008
51
22nd
lol dwarf
Rated 11 Aug 2008
dougiedDougieD
Rated 09 Sep 2012
100
97th
One of the greatest horror films I have ever seen, with excellent performances from Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie.
Rated 09 Sep 2012
glm01glm01
Rated 04 Jan 2013
85
83rd
84.500
Rated 04 Jan 2013
jschlanskyJSchlansky
Rated 21 Aug 2017
73
63rd
Macabre Month of Horror 2017 video review: https://youtu.be/3bXi54GfVbY
Rated 21 Aug 2017
kenmeistersKenMeisters
Rated 11 Sep 2019
62
39th
Great to look at but with some hammy performances and not as suspenseful and weird as it could have been.
Rated 11 Sep 2019
theficionadotheficionado
Rated 13 May 2007
100
97th
Good luck getting that penultimate scene out of your head.
Rated 13 May 2007

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...