Editing Don't Look Now (section)

=== Critical response and awards ===
At the time of its initial release, ''Don't Look Now'' was generally well received by critics,<ref name="Billson (2010)"/> although some criticised it for being "arty and mechanical".<ref name="Guthmann (1999)"/> [[Jay Cocks]] for ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'', wrote that "Don't Look Now is such a rich, complex and subtle experience that it demands more than one viewing",<ref name="Cocks (1973)"/> while ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' commented that the film's visual flourishes made it "much more than merely a well-made psycho-horror thriller".<ref name="Variety (1973)"/> [[Pauline Kael]] writing for ''[[The New Yorker]]'' was more reserved in her praise, considering the film to be "the fanciest, most carefully assembled enigma yet put on the screen" but that there was a "distasteful clamminess about the picture",<ref name="Kael (1973)"/> while Gordon Gow of ''[[Films and Filming]]'' felt that it fell short of the aspirations of Nicolas Roeg's previous two films, ''Performance'' and ''Walkabout'', but it was nevertheless a thriller of some depth.{{sfn|Sanderson|1996|pp=21–23}} [[Vincent Canby]], reviewer for ''[[The New York Times]]'', on the other hand, criticised the film for a lack of suspense which he put down to a twist that comes halfway through rather than at the end, and at which point it "stops being suspenseful and becomes an elegant travelogue that treats us to second-sightseeing in Venice". Canby also suggested that second sight was not convincing on screen, since it appeared simply like flash-forward which is a standard story-telling device in films, and concluded that "Not only do you probably have better things to do, but so, I'm sure, do most of the people connected with the film."<ref name="Canby (1973)"/>

British critics were especially enthusiastic about Nicolas Roeg's direction. In the view of [[Tom Milne]] of ''[[Monthly Film Bulletin]]'', Roeg's combined work on ''Performance'', ''Walkabout'' and ''Don't Look Now'' put him "right up at the top as film-maker".{{sfn|Sanderson|1996|pp=21–23}} [[George Melly]] similarly wrote in ''[[The Observer]]'' that Roeg had joined "that handful of names whose appearance at the end of the credit titles automatically creates a sense of anticipation".<ref name="French (2006)"/> [[Penelope Houston (film critic)|Penelope Houston]] for ''[[Sight & Sound]]'' also found much to appreciate in Roeg's direction: "Roeg deploys subtle powers of direction and Hitchcockian misdirection."{{sfn|Sanderson|1996|pp=21–23}} American critics were similarly impressed with Roeg's work on the film. Jay Cocks regarded ''Don't Look Now'' to be Roeg's best work by far and that Roeg was one of "those rare talents that can effect a new way of seeing". Cocks also felt that the film was a marked improvement on the novella, noting that a reading "makes one appreciate Roeg and Screenwriters [Allan] Scott and [Chris] Bryant all the more. Film and story share certain basic elements of plot and an ending of cruel surprise. The story is detached, almost cursory. Roeg and his collaborators have constructed an intricate, intense speculation about levels of perception and reality."<ref name="Cocks (1973)"/> [[Roger Ebert]] in his review for the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' commented that Roeg is "a genius at filling his frame with threatening forms and compositions",<ref name="Ebert (1973)"/> while Pauline Kael labelled him "chillingly chic" in hers.<ref name="Kael (1973)"/> Even Vincent Canby, whose opinion of the film was negative overall, praised Roeg for being able to "maintain a sense of menace long after the screenplay has any right to expect it".<ref name="Canby (1973)"/>

[[File:Grand Canal south 2.jpg|thumb|left|The use of Venice locations was highly praised.]]
Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland also received praise for their performances. ''Variety'' considered Sutherland to be at his most subdued but also at his most effective, while Christie does her "best work in ages".<ref name="Variety (1973)"/> Cocks felt that thanks to their superb performances the film had a "rigorous psychological truth and an emotional timbre" that most other films in the supernatural genre lacked.<ref name="Cocks (1973)"/> Canby considered the "sincerity of the actors" to be one of the better aspects of the film,<ref name="Canby (1973)"/> while Kael found Christie especially suited to the part, observing she has the "anxious face of a modern tragic muse".<ref name="Addiego (1998)"/>

Roeg's use of Venice was praised too, with Roger Ebert finding that he "uses Venice as well as she's ever been used in a movie",<ref name="Ebert (1973)"/> and Canby also noted Venice is used to great effect: "He gets a great performance from Venice, which is all wintery grays, blues and blacks, the color of the pigeons that are always underfoot."<ref name="Canby (1973)"/> ''Variety'' also found much to admire about the editing, writing that it is "careful and painstaking (the classically brilliant and erotic love-making scene is merely one of several examples) and plays a vital role in setting the film's mood".<ref name="Variety (1973)"/>

Daphne du Maurier was pleased with the adaptation of her story, and wrote to Nicolas Roeg to congratulate him for capturing the essence of John and Laura's relationship.{{sfn|Sanderson|1996|pp=14–15}} The film was not received well by Venetians, particularly the councillors who were afraid it would scare away tourists.<ref name="Gregory (2006)"/>

At the [[27th British Academy Film Awards]], [[Anthony B. Richmond]] won for Best Cinematography, and ''Don't Look Now'' received further nominations in the Best Film, Direction, Actor, Actress, Sound Track and Film Editing categories.<ref name="BAFTA (1974)"/> It was also nominated in the [[List of Edgar Allan Poe Award for Best Motion Picture Screenplay winners|Best Motion Picture]] category at the 1974 [[Edgar Award|Edgar Allan Poe Award]]s.<ref name="Edgars (1974)"/>