I watched it again last night, and I couldn't agree with your plea more. This film stands on its own for all the excellent reasons mentioned. A truly satisfying experience. The energies of the two main actors at their peak, particularly the radiant Julie Christie.
watched it this morning,theres a scene near the end where theres mist which is on the ground and when julie christie walks through it ,it almost creates circles as she walks through it,film making at its best.great film.
I remember watching this movie when I was on holiday in Wales back when I was around 14. I'm 47 now. I've not watched this since then but vaguely remember Donald stamping on a little girl at a carnival wearing a rain Mac?!!? Today I've just found the title of the film and I'm ready to give it another watch all these years later. ;)
''But she's laughing...she's laughing''..i remember that scene so well and it disturbed me..I was a little boy when I saw this in the 80's and I thought this is a piece of art, so it doesn't surprise me that Dummywood want to trash it like everything else...
I've felt this way about a lot of these remakes in the last few years. The downside is they're made so cheaply that curiosity alone dictates that they'll make a profit and then the studio thinks they've they've done something right when they really haven't, and that encourages them to make more. The upside is they disappear quickly, like a fart in the wind, while the original endures.
My favoirite film ever............... I agree with Mark but am happy to see a few people now intrigued to watch it. Venice remains one of the creepiest cities I have ever visited,
I totally agree with mark when it comes to remakes. This one is sacrosanct and should be left well alone fr all the reasons indicated. Any director can go through the listings of films in the public domain that could and should have a remake - and would be fun to see the result. Don't Look Now is cinema perfection - I really don't know why this is allowed on a copyright level, or like as not companies believe that a classic with a mandate is less of a risk. This is the thought process behind adaptations of popular works in literature. Far from the Madding Crowd is getting the same treatment at the same time, ironically another feature with Julie Christie - there must be something in the water......Mark is bang on right here, and like him, want to plead the remake production not to green light.
+Gail Spencer The trouble is that when a film is based on a book or in this case a short story there are often remakes. A good example is the many cinema versions of Jane Eyre . I would hate to see a DLN remake as the film is as about as perfect as you can get for the genre, acting , script and backdrop. Does anybody remember the quite dreadful Gus Van Saint remake of Psycho with Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan of all people?
No, no, no. Leave this masterpiece alone. Yes, I took the Donaggio score to Venice, too. I saw two small girls in red macks. Please make them leave this one alone.
Don't Look Now is a favourite of mine and although I agree with what Mark says, I can't help thinking, just what is the difference between remaking Don't Look Now and Far From the Madding Crowd?
I've never heard of Don't Look Now, now I did because of the remake and I want to see it. If anything this remake will bring a new crowd to the original. This always happens no matter how bad the remake or adaptation is. That's a good thing. Of course I want more original movies, but I'm glad that there are remakes too, because that way the audience learn about the classics.
As much as I hate tacky remakes I must say that they don't really make a difference to the original. You don't have to watch it....and for as bad as it probably will be...it may encourage newcomers to the story to seek out the original.
Wilf Shaw Sure, just like he has to see every Transformers film that comes out. Can it really be said though that this remake will ruin the original? If anything it will just make you appreciate how good the original is in comparison. Sure there's plenty of reasons a film shouldn't get made...but surely the Mr K's message here shouldn't be "Please don't make this film." It should be "Please don't WATCH this film, watch the original instead."
TheFireflyGuy I don't know... The Wickerman is still burnt into my mind. Now when I think of The Wickerman, I think Nick Cage, and when I talk to people who about The Wickerman, they think Nick Cage too... and those thoughts aren't good.
With Mark on this. For every good horror remake out there, there's at least 20-30 bad ones. With those odds, why chance ruining the memories of the original (which purely evokes the spirit of the 1970s) with a cruddy remake? But for me, the one film they remake that will sink my day is if they touch Freaks, Tod Browning's film.
I hope they do not remake it either, the film industry and it's obsession on making money from remaking classic movies. Their seems to be a lack of creativity no doubt afraid of exploring new ideas due to them possibly not being a success at the box office. Money rules over creativity.
OK, here are my thoughts. I'm not the biggest fan of remakes, but every now and again a remake comes along that trumps the original, i.e. Scarface, The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, etc (and I'm sure there were those back in the day crying out for those not to be made!). However, and this is the key thing, those films were made by competent, impassioned film makers/storytellers and not by lazy, money grabbing hacks. So while I'm not all against the idea of remakes (if they can improve on, and better, the original) it's vitally important that those working behind the scenes are of a quality that is deserving of the project. Sadly, I don't think that'll be the case with Don't Look Now.
I think people saying it doesn't matter because the original is better, is not the point. The point is, is that the original is great so make a new story, from a new idea. Or failing that, remake something that wasn't good to begin with. By remaking something, you piggy back off the original piece. It's cynical movie making. Like remaking RoboCop and Evil Dead. You use a franchise or original film to pique interest. And yes, you make plenty of money from this. But the flip side is, people also go "not as good as the original". If both films mentioned had different names, I would have had more respect for them as "stand alone films".
Craig Mather The problem with rubbish remakes of good films is that, whenever you want to talk about a good film, you have to say "The original" to distinguish it from the newer one.
Between 1921 and 1941 there were three different versions of DR JECKYLL AND MR HYDE, starring John Barrymore, Frederick March and Spenser Tracey respectively. All very different, and with their own idiosyncratic qualities. What worries me about this is that it will deter younger people from wanting to see the original...but then, the remaking of THE HAUNTING crashed and burned while the other is still held up as a classic, so maybe the same will happen here...
Terrible idea! It's like remaking "The Shawshank Redemption", "The Devils", "Battle of Algiers", "Citizen Kane", or "Intolerance", each of them as unique and as important as "Don't Look Now". What's wrong with today's filmmakers? Are they so bereft of talent and imagination? Do they need to vandalize all that is good and beautiful from our cinematic past and our memories? They should all be hung by their eyeballs.
Liam Neeson is a pitful excuse of an actor who seems to grab every script that lands on his agent's desk. I share Mark's great admiration for Nicholas Roeg's masterpiece and the idea of a remake (as all remake/reimaginings/reboots) is totally wrongminded but I feel this abomination will be realized. It's just a sad fact that all the great films of the past will eventually be remade. Hopefully they are so terrible that someone who never saw the original might seek it out. How Don't Look Now will be made without Roeg's amazing visual pyrotechnics and that it will be a dull, flat, lifeless, straight adaptation of the original story with Neeson doing what he does best in this twilight period of his career. The supernatural elements which are quite underplayed in the original will be pushed to forefront and rob the story of its ambiguous qualities. But I will just avoid it as I do all remakes (Carrie, The Fog, Halloween, etc) but will only prove how much better the original is despite not having the CGI crutch to lean on to tell a compelling story.
As Kermode says the film is based on a short story by Daphne du Maurier so as far as I'm concerned it is perfectly acceptable for someone else to make their own adaptation of her story. Otherwise are we saying books and plays etc. can only ever be adapted the once no matter how good or bad that one adaptation might be? Nonsense. Roeg's film will always be there no matter what. If you don't want to see the new one then just don't see it.
I've never been too keen on remakes at all but, the original film will always be there and you don't have to pay any attention to or watch a remake if that's what you choose to do. Let's not forget that it is the "movie business" after all, so any opportunity to make a quick buck here and there is up for grabs along with retelling older stories / remaking older, classic films. Does Mark know that there is a remake of The Exorcist currently in the works?... I'm not kidding either, WB has green lit it and it's currently in the first draft stages of writing... Ohhhh the horror, the horror, is nothing sacred anymore?.
Hadn't heard about it being a TV mini-series, had just read that WB had green lit movie remake and had some writers working on a first draft of the script. If it does end up being a mini series with Blatty involved then I'd definitely be curious to check it out but wouldn't have too much hope for it being anything special, wait and see I guess. The Rosemary's Baby mini series that was done a year or so back left a bad taste in my mouth to be honest. So an Exorcist TV series?, I'll remain sceptical.
They're truly out of original ideas. *But* there is a very simple reason for doing remakes. *Money* . Let's face it 95% of all movie goers have seen nothing made before 2000, with the odd timeless classic. That means that 95% haven't the faintest clue this "latest movie" is actually a *remake* . The name of the game is to make *money* of an old hit, classic or cult movie for those 95% who believe they're seeing something "highly original". Even in the case some people inform them that it's a remake these same 95% will shrug and say:"Well, if it's such an old movie then it's unwatchable today I'll be watching this remake thank you very much." By now there's a whole new generation to whom remakes are either "superior" (very few are, and most or clearly inferior) or the "norm".
I'll avoid, thanks. (Just as I'll be avoiding the Poltergeist remake due out) Unfortunately, Mark is unable to, for that is his job. Sorry man, you have my sympathies.
Dont remake now.Toally agree with Mark this is bad News I saw it at a Midnight Movieand it gave me the creeps although I was one step ahead at the end but the screams in the audience were good.Dont remake this or The Exorcist.It wont have te style of the original and I for one wont go to see this
Instead of remaking give it closure get Julie Christie to travel to Venice and hire a private detective to find the killer who killed her husband , and so many women in Venice try and make the same misty wispy atmosphere of Venice at night voices echoing , and once the detective finds the killer dwarf he captures and presents it to Julie who then kills the dwarf, shed some light why the killer killed was she an escaped asylum paitent who now lived in deserted churches of Venice ,venturing out at night and killing victims
That's a valid point, but I think he's making this plea for the sake of the "memory" (maybe the wrong word) of the film as a whole, rather than just for his sake.
Oh, no doubt you're right. But I was saying that Mark is defending the original for the public. He must watch the new film, but then that's his job, it comes with the territory. But a much easier way of preserving the image of the original (for everyone except film reviewers!) is just by not watching the new film, then it can't ask anything of you!
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D5 | Fall | พลาดวันนี้ จะต้องเสียใจ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A5-Cuo12p6A/mqdefault.jpg)
Yay! You did it Mark! They didn’t remake an already perfect classic!!!
I watched it again last night, and I couldn't agree with your plea more. This film stands on its own for all the excellent reasons mentioned.
A truly satisfying experience. The energies of the two main actors at their peak, particularly the radiant Julie Christie.
Totally agreed: Don’t touch “Don’t Look Now”.
watched it this morning,theres a scene near the end where theres mist which is on the ground and when julie christie walks through it ,it almost creates circles as she walks through it,film making at its best.great film.
"Don't do what Donny Don't does."
couldn't agree more. Please listen to Mr Kermode
I remember watching this movie when I was on holiday in Wales back when I was around 14. I'm 47 now.
I've not watched this since then but vaguely remember Donald stamping on a little girl at a carnival wearing a rain Mac?!!?
Today I've just found the title of the film and I'm ready to give it another watch all these years later. ;)
''But she's laughing...she's laughing''..i remember that scene so well and it disturbed me..I was a little boy when I saw this in the 80's and I thought this is a piece of art, so it doesn't surprise me that Dummywood want to trash it like everything else...
I've felt this way about a lot of these remakes in the last few years. The downside is they're made so cheaply that curiosity alone dictates that they'll make a profit and then the studio thinks they've they've done something right when they really haven't, and that encourages them to make more. The upside is they disappear quickly, like a fart in the wind, while the original endures.
A little birdie told me Tommy Wiseau will be cast as the lead. Looks great!
pastrychef1985 Oh god, oh man, oh god, oh man, oh god, oh man, not you again!
pastrychef1985 I feddup of dis world!
Never seen the original, however, this heartfelt plea makes me want to.
I SO AGREE . . .AND I ONLY SAW THE FILM FOR THE FIRST TIME LAST YEAR.
Wouldn't mind seeing a David Lynch re-imagining..
i hope "Don't look Now" NEVER gets re-made. You can't remake a film as brilliant as that!
Oh, God no. Please. The Suspiria remake was bad enough. DLN should absolutely remain untouched.
Thankfully I don't think this happened - but agree with Kermode.
I completely agree. Leave a great film alone.
Hey guys I hear Michael Bay is directing a remake of Schindler's List! I always thought that film needed more explosions.
My favoirite film ever............... I agree with Mark but am happy to see a few people now intrigued to watch it. Venice remains one of the creepiest cities I have ever visited,
My favorite horror film, it was bound to happen eventually but doesn't mean it is right.
I totally agree with mark when it comes to remakes. This one is sacrosanct and should be left well alone fr all the reasons indicated. Any director can go through the listings of films in the public domain that could and should have a remake - and would be fun to see the result. Don't Look Now is cinema perfection - I really don't know why this is allowed on a copyright level, or like as not companies believe that a classic with a mandate is less of a risk. This is the thought process behind adaptations of popular works in literature. Far from the Madding Crowd is getting the same treatment at the same time, ironically another feature with Julie Christie - there must be something in the water......Mark is bang on right here, and like him, want to plead the remake production not to green light.
+Gail Spencer The trouble is that when a film is based on a book or in this case a short story there are often remakes. A good example is the many cinema versions of Jane Eyre . I would hate to see a DLN remake as the film is as about as perfect as you can get for the genre, acting , script and backdrop. Does anybody remember the quite dreadful Gus Van Saint remake of Psycho with Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan of all people?
Oh boy!! I was afraid of this.
No, no, no. Leave this masterpiece alone. Yes, I took the Donaggio score to Venice, too. I saw two small girls in red macks. Please make them leave this one alone.
Remaking Don't Look Now is like Uwe Boll remaking Children of the Damned
Just imagine his reaction if Mr Bay was involved,not long till the unnecessary poltergeist remake hits our screens!
Don't Look Now is a favourite of mine and although I agree with what Mark says, I can't help thinking, just what is the difference between remaking Don't Look Now and Far From the Madding Crowd?
I've never heard of Don't Look Now, now I did because of the remake and I want to see it. If anything this remake will bring a new crowd to the original. This always happens no matter how bad the remake or adaptation is. That's a good thing. Of course I want more original movies, but I'm glad that there are remakes too, because that way the audience learn about the classics.
jktomas a crowd of morons
I actually am working on it. I'm in the cgi department.
As much as I hate tacky remakes I must say that they don't really make a difference to the original. You don't have to watch it....and for as bad as it probably will be...it may encourage newcomers to the story to seek out the original.
TheFireflyGuy to be fair Kermode may well have to see it.
Wilf Shaw Sure, just like he has to see every Transformers film that comes out. Can it really be said though that this remake will ruin the original? If anything it will just make you appreciate how good the original is in comparison. Sure there's plenty of reasons a film shouldn't get made...but surely the Mr K's message here shouldn't be "Please don't make this film." It should be "Please don't WATCH this film, watch the original instead."
TheFireflyGuy I don't know... The Wickerman is still burnt into my mind. Now when I think of The Wickerman, I think Nick Cage, and when I talk to people who about The Wickerman, they think Nick Cage too... and those thoughts aren't good.
dodeadson n
They’d never capture the same feel, never!! Modern remakes are a disaster followed by disaster
Brilliantly tense thriller ,please don't do a remake ever , the film is so good so chilling and so mysterious ,worth watching anytime.
The death of imagination.
I miss Kermode Uncuts
Completely agree with you Mark. This could be a disaster... just like Doctor Sleep could be. Most likely.
With Mark on this. For every good horror remake out there, there's at least 20-30 bad ones. With those odds, why chance ruining the memories of the original (which purely evokes the spirit of the 1970s) with a cruddy remake? But for me, the one film they remake that will sink my day is if they touch Freaks, Tod Browning's film.
As close to perfect as a movie will ever get.
it seems people are more worried about it being good then bad.
I hope they do not remake it either, the film industry and it's obsession on making money from remaking classic movies. Their seems to be a lack of creativity no doubt afraid of exploring new ideas due to them possibly not being a success at the box office. Money rules over creativity.
OK, here are my thoughts. I'm not the biggest fan of remakes, but every now and again a remake comes along that trumps the original, i.e. Scarface, The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, etc (and I'm sure there were those back in the day crying out for those not to be made!). However, and this is the key thing, those films were made by competent, impassioned film makers/storytellers and not by lazy, money grabbing hacks. So while I'm not all against the idea of remakes (if they can improve on, and better, the original) it's vitally important that those working behind the scenes are of a quality that is deserving of the project. Sadly, I don't think that'll be the case with Don't Look Now.
That's what I'm trying to say. I don't have a problem with a Don't Look Now remake. Just don't put it into the hands of hacks.
Silver lining: more people, who otherwise would not have even heard of Don't Look Now, may actually see the original as a result.
Can that not also be achieved by a re-release? There’s really no justification or benefits to remaking this film.
No No No No....no remake...Nooo!!!!!
It won't be long until they remake Jaws. Probably produced by Michael Bay.
I think people saying it doesn't matter because the original is better, is not the point. The point is, is that the original is great so make a new story, from a new idea. Or failing that, remake something that wasn't good to begin with.
By remaking something, you piggy back off the original piece. It's cynical movie making. Like remaking RoboCop and Evil Dead. You use a franchise or original film to pique interest. And yes, you make plenty of money from this. But the flip side is, people also go "not as good as the original". If both films mentioned had different names, I would have had more respect for them as "stand alone films".
The remake wont replace or damage the old film mate. It really doesn't matter.
Craig Mather Would damage the name.
Also there are people stupid enough to think:"Why not watch the remake, surely it must be better."
PauLtus B Those would be people who are not film fans
***** Not denying that.
Craig Mather The problem with rubbish remakes of good films is that, whenever you want to talk about a good film, you have to say "The original" to distinguish it from the newer one.
you shouldn't have to do that, even if the recipient does not know the context.
How do I not do Don't Look Now? You just don't.
please dont..
Between 1921 and 1941 there were three different versions of DR JECKYLL AND MR HYDE, starring John Barrymore, Frederick
March and Spenser Tracey respectively. All very different, and with their own idiosyncratic qualities. What worries me about this is that it will deter younger people from wanting to see the original...but then, the remaking of THE HAUNTING crashed and burned while the other is still held up as a classic, so maybe the same will happen here...
Scary film - no way!!
What's next?! The Exorcist? Wait a minute...
Terrible idea! It's like remaking "The Shawshank Redemption", "The Devils", "Battle of Algiers", "Citizen Kane", or "Intolerance", each of them as unique and as important as "Don't Look Now". What's wrong with today's filmmakers? Are they so bereft of talent and imagination? Do they need to vandalize all that is good and beautiful from our cinematic past and our memories? They should all be hung by their eyeballs.
Liam Neeson is a pitful excuse of an actor who seems to grab every script that lands on his agent's desk. I share Mark's great admiration for Nicholas Roeg's masterpiece and the idea of a remake (as all remake/reimaginings/reboots) is totally wrongminded but I feel this abomination will be realized. It's just a sad fact that all the great films of the past will eventually be remade. Hopefully they are so terrible that someone who never saw the original might seek it out. How Don't Look Now will be made without Roeg's amazing visual pyrotechnics and that it will be a dull, flat, lifeless, straight adaptation of the original story with Neeson doing what he does best in this twilight period of his career. The supernatural elements which are quite underplayed in the original will be pushed to forefront and rob the story of its ambiguous qualities. But I will just avoid it as I do all remakes (Carrie, The Fog, Halloween, etc) but will only prove how much better the original is despite not having the CGI crutch to lean on to tell a compelling story.
As Kermode says the film is based on a short story by Daphne du Maurier so as far as I'm concerned it is perfectly acceptable for someone else to make their own adaptation of her story. Otherwise are we saying books and plays etc. can only ever be adapted the once no matter how good or bad that one adaptation might be? Nonsense. Roeg's film will always be there no matter what. If you don't want to see the new one then just don't see it.
it kinda was remade by Lars Von Trier with Antichrist
Yes, don't do it! Everybody knows you can't polish a turd.
Well at least we are being told not watch the movie
Agreed. It will be so lame. And there is only one Julie Christie. Only the one.
Not the kind of film that I'd recommend be remade. The need to get material that is already known continues and you'd wonder where it will end.
Did I hear you say "the sex scene is gonna be done in a much more racy way" ?
There ain't no way!😂😂
Thanks for the warning haha ha ha.......ha........😛
I've never been too keen on remakes at all but, the original film will always be there and you don't have to pay any attention to or watch a remake if that's what you choose to do. Let's not forget that it is the "movie business" after all, so any opportunity to make a quick buck here and there is up for grabs along with retelling older stories / remaking older, classic films. Does Mark know that there is a remake of The Exorcist currently in the works?... I'm not kidding either, WB has green lit it and it's currently in the first draft stages of writing... Ohhhh the horror, the horror, is nothing sacred anymore?.
Hadn't heard about it being a TV mini-series, had just read that WB had green lit movie remake and had some writers working on a first draft of the script. If it does end up being a mini series with Blatty involved then I'd definitely be curious to check it out but wouldn't have too much hope for it being anything special, wait and see I guess. The Rosemary's Baby mini series that was done a year or so back left a bad taste in my mouth to be honest. So an Exorcist TV series?, I'll remain sceptical.
Dwayne Johnson will be in it.
They're truly out of original ideas.
*But* there is a very simple reason for doing remakes. *Money* . Let's face it 95% of all movie goers have seen nothing made before 2000, with the odd timeless classic. That means that 95% haven't the faintest clue this "latest movie" is actually a *remake* . The name of the game is to make *money* of an old hit, classic or cult movie for those 95% who believe they're seeing something "highly original". Even in the case some people inform them that it's a remake these same 95% will shrug and say:"Well, if it's such an old movie then it's unwatchable today I'll be watching this remake thank you very much." By now there's a whole new generation to whom remakes are either "superior" (very few are, and most or clearly inferior) or the "norm".
I'll avoid, thanks. (Just as I'll be avoiding the Poltergeist remake due out)
Unfortunately, Mark is unable to, for that is his job. Sorry man, you have my sympathies.
Shakes head
Dont remake now.Toally agree with Mark this is bad News I saw it at a Midnight Movieand it gave me the creeps although I was one step ahead at the end but the screams in the audience were good.Dont remake this or The Exorcist.It wont have te style of the original and I for one wont go to see this
Instead of remaking give it closure get Julie Christie to travel to Venice and hire a private detective to find the killer who killed her husband , and so many women in Venice try and make the same misty wispy atmosphere of Venice at night voices echoing , and once the detective finds the killer dwarf he captures and presents it to Julie who then kills the dwarf, shed some light why the killer killed was she an escaped asylum paitent who now lived in deserted churches of Venice ,venturing out at night and killing victims
Don't watch the film.
Problem solved.
George Rickard Well that's his job.
That's a valid point, but I think he's making this plea for the sake of the "memory" (maybe the wrong word) of the film as a whole, rather than just for his sake.
George Rickard A remake kind of asks you to forget the original, and probably gives it a bad name.
Oh, no doubt you're right. But I was saying that Mark is defending the original for the public. He must watch the new film, but then that's his job, it comes with the territory.
But a much easier way of preserving the image of the original (for everyone except film reviewers!) is just by not watching the new film, then it can't ask anything of you!
who cares.