1973 psychological thrillerRating: 18/20
Plot: Donald Sutherland and his wife are having difficulty getting over the death of their daughter. She drowned because they were too busy being pretentious. They get away to Venice, Italy, a place where they won't have any water to bring up memories or anything, and Donald takes on an ambitious church remodeling project. They meet weird sisters while dining, and the blind one claims to have seen the daughter and gives the couple a warning. Meanwhile, Donald Sutherland sees flashes of a red raincoat in the twists and turns of Venice's alleyways.
Profoundly creepy and thick with symbolism and strangely recurrent details, this based-on-Du-Marier movie is brilliantly executed. Creepy pacing, creepy imagery, creepy flashbacks, creepy Donald Sutherland's ass, creepy artistic shots, and most of all a creepy (and oddly vacant) Venice (seriously. . .doesn't anybody live there?) contribute to piece together something that sucks you in and then takes a bite out of you. A genuinely shocking ending. This seems less dated to me than other 70's horror classics, dated only, I think, by some of the music. I thought the acting was very good as the characterization (good) was mostly via gestures, glances, half-conversations. Roeg's virtuosic direction and meandering mystery make this required second viewing to spot the spots not originally spotted. Seemingly extraneous scenes morph into things sinister and profound thirty-seven minutes after the movie's ended. Such a simple, thick movie--a stylish toying of the spine. Dumb title though.
Note: This makes the tenth "midget" movie of the year. One out of every nine movies I watch has a midget? That seems either too high or too low. My wife thinks I watch movies for nudity. Maybe I watch for midgets!
Here I am wishing I had Donald Sutherland's hair:
Did you factor in the hefty midget bonus? Next day, this is feeling more like a 17. Does that even matter?
ReplyDeletekkbpzgd...word verify! Testify!
At first I thought I was caught in some 70's drug flashback. The colors were washed out. The camera was being operated by someone on speed, or someone who had never operated a camera before. Sutherland's man-perm was really freaking me out, and I couldn't figure out how someone uglier than Maggie Gylenhal(?) could get women like Jane Fonda ("Klute") and Julie Christie. He does look a lot like John Holmes. Did the women mix them up, or is there something about Sutherland that we don't know?
ReplyDeleteThen someone died and I started thinking about Christie's sucky acting. Early in her career she was very good, but I started to wonder if winning the Oscar for "Darling" ruined her. First "Far From the Madding Crowd", and now this.
Then things started to improve. There was an extended sex scene with too much Sutherland, but Christie's acting was definitely getting better. Then this film started to turn into a very moody, atmospheric horror film. I still have no clue what was really going on, but it was confusing with style. Why did he see the illusion of his wife. Why were the two women cackling over the picture, leading me to believe they were evil witches. Why did the blind one grab her breasts so much during the seance, and did she have an orgasm? Who was the midget crone, and why was she killing people? Why were Sutherland's reactions so slow since he was obviously in good shape from having sex with Christie? Why did his blood look like strawberry syrup. There is no way I would give this an 18 (or a modified 17), but "Don't Look Now" is certainly interesting and I loved the Venitian setting and the mystery of the film. A 15.
I was so confused I forgot several question marks. Back to punctuation school.
ReplyDelete