The movie is lifted above the average by a fine performance by Mrs. Farrow, who is deeply moving as a mother devastated by loss and guilt. Her performance turns the movie into a chillingly accurate portrayal of grief and loneliness : here is a woman whose life has turned into a desert, complete with maddening mirages.If one subtracts Mrs. Farrow from the movie, then "Full Circle" becomes a well-crafted horror movie of the more subtle and psychological kind : it's pretty decent, but nothing stratospheric. Its credibility was somewhat undermined by the remarkable ease with which the protagonist succeeded in piecing together a long-buried story of woe : she constantly meets the right people pointing in the right direction, at the right moment. In my experience, people who try to reconstruct old stories, especially old stories involving crime and injustice, are more likely to meet interlocutors threatening to flatten their faces with the aid of a tire iron. And if they do happen upon a benevolent and helpful witness, they'll soon discover that human memory is as riddled with holes as a slice of Swiss cheese. ("Yes, I remember Mrs. Watson from Number 18, she had three sons - no wait, two sons and a daughter, the little daughter had infantile cancer, she died in 1957 or 1960, the poor kid was killed in a car accident, her eldest brother was called Shirley and he became a policeman after his two sisters died in an airplane disaster in the Belgian Congo. Mr. Watson was a criminal - he once tried to kill the Queen with a cauliflower - but Mrs. Watson was a decent Christian woman, she kept all five of her sons on the straight and narrow. Nowadays they all live in Independence Street, with the exception of Pamela Snowdon, who married a Greek astronaut.")Still, it's a pleasure to watch a movie which relies on a careful creation of an uncanny atmosphere, rather than on acres of gore.

This subtle and affecting ghost story is a must-see for people who like to be disturbed. In a way, the film reminded me of THE SIXTH SENSE, as both films conjure up the same kind of atmospheres of unquiet and lurking horror. Beware though, this film is also extremely slow-moving, so those with short attention spans might find it difficult to sit through. Me, I enjoyed it immensely.Based on a story by Peter Straub, the film works best when it creeps up on you. It's not really about in-your-face shocks here, it's more designed to make you feel uneasy, when you know Mia Farrow is not alone. There's something hiding in the darkness, out of sight, something menacing. The film's most frightening moment (for me) is when Farrow's husband breaks into her house and hears footsteps creaking about, this short scene manages to sustain the tension for a surprisingly long time before the payoff.The acting is pretty good. The film was a joint Canadian/UK production, and apart from the two leads, the rest of the cast is made up of British actors and actresses. Tom Conti is about the only normal person in the entire film, and he creates a believable person in his antiques dealer (originally, he's obviously smitten with Farrow, later on he's untrusting of her stories of ghosts and views her with some unease). There's even space for a couple of British stalwarts to pop up every now and then, including Peter Sallis and, surprisingly enough, Arthur Howard! Keir Dullea gives a nicely unsympathetic portrayal of Farrow's husband who wants to get her locked up. Unfortunately Mia Farrow isn't one of my favourite actresses. She's capable, but there's just something I don't like about her. Still, this didn't affect the film for me in any way.After gradually building atmosphere in the first hour, the film changes track slightly to give us an OMEN-style series of horrible accidents which kill off most of the cast. It also becomes part detective film, with Farrow searching for clues about the history of her house and meeting a series of increasingly-odd and disturbing characters. The scene in the mental home is accurately portrayed, and for me, one of the scariest in the entire film. Added on to this is a subtle ending which is left unexplained (I'm not sure if Farrow is aware of what's going on), and THE HAUNTING OF JULIA is a chilling, above-average ghost story.

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."

I read the book way too young to compare it to the film. My dad was a huge Peter Straub fan and for a young child those books were intriguing. They evoked my favorite childhood emotion (fear), they were chopped full of adult themes, and they seem to properly reflect the shadowy disappointments of life. The American release of this book (Full Circle) also boasted one of the coolest covers in existence.Strangely when I sat down to watch the film I couldn't remember if I had even seen it. The VHS tape was almost worn out of existence so I must have seen it several times in my youth, but I was still drawing a complete blank.In the first scene our heroine's daughter gets a piece of an apple lodged in her throat. The parents do what any parents would do - panic. Obviously any audience member with first aid experience would probably be yelling what steps they should follow at the screen, and the first step being not to panic, but realistically parents would still panic.She tries to use her fingers to pull it out, then a knife to cut it out. Of course the child dies and our heroine blames herself for her daughter's death.After a short stint in a hospital she runs away from her cold, emotionless husband and buys a large house. Her husband can't understand why she would leave him and believes she is just confused. He sends his sister to try to talk to our heroine and even, at least our heroine believes, bangs on the roof to scare her back to him. But of course the house is haunted with... well that's enough of the plot.As the movie continued I began to remember it more and more. The music, which is great ghost story music, seemed to jar out the memory more then anything else. By the middle of the film the ending came back to me, and the imagery at the ending is almost poetic.... I would like to say... unforgettable.There are some death scenes throughout, and I can't help to think the movie would be more effective and more creepy without them. This is probably a different reaction then the one I had to the book.I think people who are only familiar with modern horror movies may find this movie a little slow, but almost every scene does have to do with the plot or the characters in some way.Don't expect it to scare you, it is not that kind of story. This is probably the cause of my negative reaction to the mere fact there is death scenes. This movie is more about strangeness and atmosphere. It resembles the kind of ghost tale you would tell around the campfire one dry summer's night, and your exposure to those kind of stories is probably a good yardstick to judge what your reaction to this movie probably would be. It's definitely not my favorite in these kinds of stories, but I'm willing to forgive quite a lot for such a good ending.I give it 4 "unforgettable" campfire tales out of 5. Thanks for reading.