I'll tell you why so serious

Good movie but grossly overrated

it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

The movie is a good film. Nothing wrong with the film but I think they dragged it out to much in the beginning with Julia moving, her new boyfriend (or whoever he is) and her soon to be ex-husband, barely any ghost stuff going on etc... even after the seance it dragged on to long. Then it became this film about Julia trying to find out who the kids are the medium talked about because she bought the house and found it highly important to know. Julia tracks down the people that used to live in the same house and their kids died there.This is basic ghost/haunting story without a lot of ghosts - really it is because it's more about Julia's husband and boyfriend plus her tracking down the people of the dead ghost kids.6/10

I did not find this movie a bit entertaining. In spite of the fact that many (TOO many) people die in appalling ways, there is no feeling of scariness, no thrills, no suspense, no atmosphere, and no jumps. When you finally get to see the ghost girl, in spite of all the evil things you know that she has done, you do not feel any fear.This movie OUGHT to be scary and entertaining, because it is about a ghost child in an old house, and there is also a mystery that Julia (the main character) is trying to unravel by visiting people who might know what happened thirty years ago... That is: just the kind of horror movie I would like. But - it falls completely flat.It is also difficult to understand. Too little is actually shown. You are left guessing. When I had watched it through I was not sure if I had understood the ending, so I had to go back and watch it a second time... Also when Julia's daughter died at the beginning, it was difficult to understand what was really happening. And at another point, when the ghost girl's toys could not be photographed, this was also not shown properly - I missed it at first and had to go back. You have to concentrate very hard at all times, and you often have to guess what is happening.Maybe some movie buffs prefer movies that are "difficult", but a horror movie, I think, should be entertaining first of all. It should be easy to understand what is going on, if not at first at least all questions should be answered later in a way that cannot be mistaken. If you try to make a horror movie into something else, it will unfailingly disappoint people who were hoping for something scary and thrilling that would make them forget about their own problems for a little while. After all, that is what movies - and especially horror movies - are for. It comes as no surprise, that this movie was a failure when it was first released.

The 70's was undoubtedly the heyday for horror cinema, with some well known masterpieces such as Alien, The Exorcist, Suspiria, etc. Still, there were quite a few of them that were just as good, but didn't get the recognition they deserved, and are still quite obscure today. "Full Circle", or as it is better known under it's US title "The Haunting of Julia", is one of these cases. In many ways a hybrid of Nicolas Roeg's "Don't Look Now" and Mario Bava's "Kill Baby ... Kill", is a slow-burning, intelligent horror film that genuinely scares the Hell out of you. Director Richard Loncraine goes for a stylish yet subtle approach at a somewhat old-fashioned ghost story formula, without resorting to 'in your face' scares that were popular at the time. While it does open with a bang and ends with a bang (probably the films' most powerful and haunting sequences), Locraine goes instead for an interesting psychological analysis of a grieving mother's crisis over her daughter's death. Staring with small things that go grow more and more nasty as the story progresses, and the line between fantasy and reality becomes more and more blurry, The events that go on through the film may well be figment of her imagination, and the fact that, by the film's shocking climax, you still don't know for sure if it did happen at all, only adds to it's creepiness and strange atmosphere. It's snail-like pace works both for and against it, as some might find it particularly fascinating and delightfully unnerving, while others might find it dull and uninteresting. In fact, it does move a little too slow for it's own sake, but Mia Farrow's gripping, strong performance and Locraime's visual flourishes help it from becoming uninteresting. Speaking of visuals, the film is beautifully photographed by Peter Hannan, but sadly it does show it's full aesthetic power in the bad VHS print it's available on. Nevertheless, one can still see it's impact on the film, particularly on making the wintry streets of London and the old-dark-house setting even more menacing.The film also benefits from having a lovingly melancholic and often genuinely spooky score by Colin Towns, which blends perfectly with it's visual brilliance, as well as perfectly capturing the characters' emotions. Overall, a sadly unrecognized classic which, in spite of it's few flaws, deserves much more praise. 9/10

Maybe I need to see this movie again in order to better appreciate it, but in all honesty, I feel this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'll start by saying that there ARE two redeemable qualities about it... okay, three: The views of London, A Wonderfully romantic old house, and Tom Conti's portrayal as Mark, an antique salesman, and a mutual friend of Julia (Mia Farrow) and her husband Magnus. Aside from these things, I have no praise to offer. Timing and transition are very important, but almost nonexistent in this movie.For example, one minute, Julia's in bed, grieving the sudden loss of her daughter, and the next minute, she has rushed out the door, gotten a cab, and purchased this huge Victorian house because she's leaving her husband... sure, happens all the time...Secondly, just WHO are we supposed to be focusing on here: is it Julia's husband Magnus and his sister (because he seems to be plotting to prove that Julia is mentally unstable and his sister doesn't want him to, but neither idea ever develops); is it the sudden death of Julia's daughter?; the death of the young boy in the park?; the death of the little blonde girl haunting the house (who is not Julia's daughter)?; the mother of the young boy who died in the park?; the mother of the young girl who died in the house?, or the piano salesman who was supposed to have seen it the little blonde girl get killed? If this sentence confuses you, that's my point: The whole movie confused me. Okay, so MANY people are haunting Julia, but which one is the most important? Thirdly, why are there so many unanswered questions? It appears that Julia's husband gets into her basement when she isn't home, and while he is searching for her, the spirit of this elusive little blonde girl finds him and kills him. However, Julia never finds his body. If I'm correct, he landed on the basement floor and laid in a pool of blood from his head wound; but that doesn't develop into anything. I guess when he died, so did that part of the plot. Why does Julia eventually "welcome" the spirit of this little blonde girl into her arms, wanting to tell her it's safe, and then suddenly, she's asleep in her chair and the blonde girl is gone? Odd. Why (and this gives plot away)... is the good guy killed, and for no apparent reason? Mark, the one that's supported Julia and protected her when no one else would, is suddenly electrocuted one night in the bath tub, when the spirit of this little blonde girl pushes a lamp into his bath water.Fourthly, the plot of this movie is terribly slow, and thus hard to pay attention to, the "creepy" music is so overkill that it drowns any suspense that would be created at tense moments. The audience is not allowed to feel the tension for themselves because the music takes it all over before we've even had a chance to see what's happened.In my opinion, Tom Conti is a wonderful actor, and his performance in this movie does add some humor and vulnerability to a film that is otherwise.. hard to get through. Good for you Tom, but I think I'll stick to "Reuben, Reuben" and "Shirley Valentine."