After having read about this 1973 movie, seeing it on countless “top ten horror movie” lists and seeing some folks here recommend it, I finally got around to watching this over the weekend. I already knew about the ending, which is probably what stopped me from viewing it earlier, but with it being so highly regarded I figured I’d give it a look. It was. . . interesting. I don’t know exactly how to describe it. It is visually stunning (with the exception of Donald Sutherland’s hair. And ass), thematically intriguing and was, overall, an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. That being said, I do not get the fanatical praise for this film (don’t know if anyone here feels that way; I’m talking about IMDB).
My biggest issue is that Mr. Sutherland and Ms. Christie, whom I usually like, we’re unappealing individually and together had absolutely no chemistry, which made the overly long, superfluous sex scene even more annoying.
All the performances weird odd. In some cases it worked, such as the detective (I read that he didn’t actually speak English and was just reciting the lines phonetically); the Bishop, not so much.
Had I not already known the ending it would have really been a big WTF moment, and not in a good way. As it is, it still seems random. Is that really the ending that Daphne Du Muarier wrote? I didn’t *feel *like I was having trouble following the plot but I even watched it a second time to see if I could better connect the dots between the big reveal and all that went before. The line still remained pretty faint.
So, for those of you who like it, can you tell me why and maybe help me to view it from a different perspective so I too might enjoy it more? Did anyone else have the same problem with it as I? I realize that some times a person simply doesn’t like a movie or whatever, and that’s fine, but when I see a work in my favorite genre that is overwhelmingly embraced and I can’t agree, I feel like the problem lies with me.