User reviews

Science fiction films in recent years have been noticeably lacking both credible science and original fiction, but this multi-national production is a startling exception, presenting a complex tale of emotional manipulation that engages the imagination without the crutch of special effects. The intriguing plot, set in a recognizable near future where medical advances have completely eliminated the threat of natural death, follows a young volunteer (Harvey Keitel) who after having experimental micro-cameras implanted into his eyes agrees to follow a woman known to have a rare, incurable disease, in order to record on video her final days for the entertainment of a desensitized and nostalgic TV audience. Despite the morbid premise (anticipating by two decades the current glut of tacky, ersatz 'reality TV' programming) it's a surprisingly life-affirming movie, maintaining a mood of cautious optimism even while prophesying dark days just around the corner.

A great film, and quite scary, specially for Tavernier's view over the media (television here, but just replace that word, and nothing will be different), in a not so far future. Sad, because was Romy Schneider's last film. She, and Harvey Keitel, are in the leading roles, under Tavernier's direction the two in top form. In a way, this was ahead of other future "prophecy films", sure one of the best.

The world is so infatuating, troubled and desperate that the only way we can care about it is to run away from our troubles by seeing others in distress, dying or getting killed by the thousands each day on the news or in fictionalized accounts as we get ourselves fed in what is called "entertainment". In the world of "Deathwatch", the latest advance in satisfying bored beings (won't call them human since most of them here are mere walking robots) is to follow a reality TV show whose main star is a terminal patient who is about to die at any moment.

A show like this would be considered an outrageous act, a new low yet all sides of the issue whether being regular viewers or righteous souls opposed to it, they all watch it. Why? Because its too hard to kill curiosity. You may wonder how this managed to be presented? Well, we have Roddy (Harvey Keitel), a volunteer on a new experience where he has a camera implanted on his brain which records everything he sees, his eyes are the intrepid lenses who follow the poor Katherine (Romy Schnieder) recently diagnosed with an incurable disease. The filming of someone's downfall reflects in the escalating viewers numbers who are in it, trapped in this program, just waiting for the final hour. They want to be there, they wanna be present in those moments thinking they won't let her die alone. She'll have the company of millions.

George Orwell's "1984", Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" all worked in giving us frightening visions of a future that already was somewhat happening in the time these authors were living. We're followed everywhere, there's pleasure everywhere, books are depressive and if you go against your rules there's punishment ahead waiting for you. I was almost waiting for "Deathwatch" to be a little like those examples (this is based on David Compton's novel), but it missed an authoritarian government to force people to watch it. But there's conflict, not only between idealisms (very reduced) but the one fought by Katherine and her choices since she doesn't want to be involved at all in this ludicrous spectacle worked on her back on her disgrace. Here starts many of the films confusing issues. It throws that mass consumerism and media are evil forces but it never gives them a proper face: the audience who watches the reality show all look simple people, compelled by the woman's tragedy; the master behind the curtains (Harry Dean Stanton) seems too good despite his ways of getting what he wants, always hiding himself from anything until he realizes there's no other way than show up and face the problem. We're never able to see who is sponsoring it; and why it's so important to present such thing.

I'm not sure if the problem lies in the original source or in the way such was translated to the screen. All I know is that as long as it kept feeding me with ideas, new paths of thinking the unthinkable or the less shown on other films it kept me captivated, fully immersed in its story. Then the second half came in, proving to be sadly Hollywoodian and simplistic and disengaging. Luckily, the movie didn't mirrored its characters in the sense of us watching something dying slowly in front of our eyes. The final result is an interesting piece about mortality and how powerless humans are in face of many obstacles (and this is all sides of the issue, when it comes to Roddy's own problems while filming this project). Bertrand Tavernier makes an artistic, different and beautiful film over a delicate and rarely touched upon theme with efficiency which is death and everything surround it.

Here's a quite innovative sci-fi film, more human, down to earth and less imaginative and technical as those films tend to be, "Deathwatch" is a thoughtful experience with pleasant and powerful performances by Schneider, Keitel and Max von Sydow playing Katherine's first husband. Satisfying despite its problems. 8/10

Bertrand Tavernier's tale of a critically ill woman hounded by a television network for its popular show 'Deathwatch' could be looked back in 1980 as almost a premonition in these times of reality TV and their popularity with today's viewing public.

A strong cast portrays a simple, if at times ponderous story dealing the acceptance of death and those out to prosper from it, with Harvey Keitel putting in a passionate driving performance as the TV company's 'virtual camera', a point in the film which adds a certain element of fantasy to the whole proceedings, along with vague decrepit industrial towns and eerie bays as the backdrop for the main characters to drift through. However, despite strong performances all round, the journey the film takes never seems to reach a definitive destination, rather slows, bogs down and then finally stops, and despite keeping the viewer intrigued throughout never seems to deliver anything more than the inevitable.

There is no doubt 'Deathwatch' is an original, eerie and at times beautiful film but one that does not necessarily make sense, just like Max von Sydow's eloquent line in the film that 'Events that have no significance like the flight of a bird, do not have to mean something.'

This is a relatively low budget sci-fi film set in what should be the distant future. And in this future, diseases have mostly been eliminated. However, it's strange that the entire picture looks like Britain circa 1980! It reminds me a bit of "Gattaca" where the astronauts are shown boarding the ship in black suits--presumably because space suits would have cost a lot! This is not a major problem...but a problem.

In this futuristic world, folks are intrigued by any death that occurs to a young person...since they happen so infrequently. And, because of this, a sleazy TV show wants to follow someone as they die...because, as one of the execs says, "death is the new porn"! And, that person they've chosen (Romy Schneider) wants nothing to do with fame or money...she just wants to die in peace. And, she eventually flees to the poor part of town...where she can blend in and be anonymous. So, they use their newest invention to follow her surreptitiously...a camera embedded into a reporter's skull (Harvey Keitel). So, what he sees, the world sees as well.

In some ways, the film is very prescient. After all, in this future, reality television is king...just like it is today. It's also a bit like watching "Network". But you can't help but think that for folks to be unfamiliar with death you'd THINK the world would have changed in some way...with newer styles of clothes, cars and buildings.

I think this film is worth watching. However, I also think Bernard Tavernier's direction is, at times, rather slow...not bad but slow. And, at the end it becomes glacially slow!! Because of that, as well as the constricted affect of most of the actors (definitely NOT Keitel), the impact of the film is lessened and the film loses steam. Overall, good but not great.

I'm saddened that no one seems to remember Romy Schneider-- at least in the USA they don't. Arguably the most beautiful woman who ever lived, she deserves a place next to Ingrid Bergman, Sophia Loren, Bardot, and Liz, among others, as one of the great screen beauties. This is not her best film and she was a bit past her prime at this point, but anything with Romy is worth seeing. Haunting to watch knowing that she died soon after. The film itself is highly flawed, which is a shame because it had all the right elements-- great director, brilliant cast, fascinating script. What went wrong? Would be interesting to see if someone else can make a successful remake. Perhaps in the hands of Mr. Minghella?... but more likely they'd give it to a Hollywood director who would cast Meg Ryan in the Romy Schneider part. So, let's leave well enough alone. Please.

An intense firebrand of a crime-genre actor playing against type during the 1970's Renaissance opposite a beautiful dying European woman is reminiscent of BOBBY DEERFIELD, where Al Pacino put the breaks on his otherwise aggressive persona as a subdued race car driver driving around with Martha Keller, and Harvey Keitel opposite Romy Schneider will seem like deja vu, only it's science-fiction along with the romantic melodrama...

Both elements coexisting in a not so futuristic-looking future where people rarely die of diseases, and a television series called DEATH WATCH does what THE TRUMAN SHOW would years later: filming the life of a person without them knowing, and where Keitel, working for shallow producer Harry Dean Stanton, has cameras implanted into his eyes to follow a dying author, Schneider's Katherine Mortenhoe, around the eclectic Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland location, from beautiful tall grass fields to various dark-art ghettos, where she thinks he's simply her love interest, not a roaming camera...

The shame is that French director Bertrand Tavernier never fully realizes how creative and potentially intriguing the TV-station's plot-line is, throwing most of the more suspenseful aspects meant for the characters onto their travelogue-style surroundings, peppered with random protesters within a quasi police state that's supposed to be of an Orwellian nature but without explaining exactly how, or why...

Making DEATH WATCH lovely on the eyes, and, filled with a terrific side-cast from a gorgeous barfly (Caroline Langrishe) to Keitel's faithful narrating ex (Thérèse Liotard) to an 11th hour expository Max Von Sydow, it's an involving enough character-study... but when Keitel''s given his own dire circumstance to compete with the woman he's predictably fallen for, the couple's need and passion is deleted, leaving the audience very little to hold onto for either the science-fiction or romance genre.

This movie foretold the downside of the "reality TV" craze twenty years before it happened. Wonderful brooding cinematography around greater Glasgow at its most depressed. This is definitely a film which deserves to be in greater circulation and better known than it currently is. Romy Schneider's last film, ironically enough, and an excellent very real performance in a fairly artsy 70s vein. I should note I saw this in Glasgow some years ago, and it was the European cut, not what sounds to be a bowdlerized American version which misses some of the point.

This European science fiction story reminded me in many ways of Fassbinder's "World on a Wire," the starkness, the deliberate pacing, and the art house pretensions all within a clever sci-fi premise. However, Fassbinder made his film engaging, suspenseful and also thought provoking. This film, while thought provoking, is dreadfully dull. The story here has TV producer Harry Dead Stanton sending reporter Harvey Keitel (who has camera implants in his eyes with special x-ray properties) to interview a dying writer, Romy Schneider. The film does pose interesting questions about privacy and independence in a society where both are eroding. This topic is made all the more interesting and prescient today, in the age of Google Glass and social media. Unfortunately, the film moves as a leadened pace and is populated with uninvolving characters, despite three strong actors in the leads, along with Max Von Sydow in a supporting role. This film does have it's defenders, but I found it pretentious and dull, though it may be that I'm just not a fan of writer/director Bertrand Tavernier, whose only film I've ever liked was "Coup de torchon."

Great cast and a great idea but ultimately doesn't do the job. In a future that looks like 1979 Scotland, a TV show wants to chronicle a dying woman's final days because death is now rare among all but the elderly thanks to modern medicine (we used to have faith in that). Besides the eye cameras in Harvey Kietel's eyes and a computer the heroine uses to co-write trashy novels, not much of the future is seen on screen. Why is a French director filming in the UK with American & Austrian leads? The film takes it's sweet time, basically the first half to get to Kietel filming the woman as she goes on the run. The idea is ahead of it's time with reality TV and media manipulation. But the pace is slow, the visuals bleak and colorless. The conclusion wasn't satisfying to me at all. A misfire.

I'd be plainly lying if I said this didn't surprise me, and to be frank, disappoint me. The premise is clear and focused; in my opinion the film itself is not. To whatever extent the movie follows terminally ill Katherine, and discreet "cameraman" Roddy, the scope of the storytelling and the ideas within are broader and less precise. 'Death watch' shows us enough of this near-future world to introduce new notions into the narrative, but not enough to truly build out that world or to do anything with those notions. At one point or another we're treated to intimations of a crumbling dystopian society; the death of imagination; foreshadowing of the real-world emergence in recent years of "artificial intelligence" being "substituted" for the "creation" of art; the loss of privacy; what it means to age and die in a world where death from illness is extremely rare, and how the old and infirm are treated; the corruption and greed of television and studio executives; and more.

Moreover, ideas are treated very unevenly in the narrative, and while it definitely reflects poorly on the screenplay, or at least Bertrand Tavernier's realization of it, I can only hope and assume that David G. Compton's novel is more even-handed. Though it hardly seems like a statement made in good faith, Vincent delivers a sage kernel of wisdom, and a theme that this could have latched upon, of making death personal, and making it matter, in a world where the end of life is largely shuffled out of view; this does not meaningfully characterize the plot as it presents, however. It's also very noteworthy that the movie leaves an aspect of the plot wholly unexplained until the last ten to fifteen minutes, and in so doing adds still another element to the tableau that doesn't remotely feel like it's given all due consideration.

But that's still not all, because there's at least as much emphasis in the storytelling on Roddy as on Katherine, and on Roddy's condition as on Katherine's. What comes across isn't that the picture is made more complex for the fact of these two facets, or any comparisons that could be drawn, but simply that Tavernier, or screenwriter David Rayfiel, couldn't find balance or decide what they actually wanted the end product to be. This is especially true in the last act as the course of events come to a head, and as if everything else going on here weren't enough to trouble the viewing experience, here's one more: I love Antoine Duhamel's score in and of itself, a bevy of ponderous musical themes so striking that I'm actually reminded of Georges Delerue's compositions for Andrzej Zulawski's 'L'important c'est d'aimer' - notes so looming in their immensity as to convey feelings of horror in some measure. Yet despite the bleakness of some of those thoughts this broaches in passing, 'Death watch' is most definitely not a horror film, and it doesn't genuinely carry itself as such in any other manner, so the music seems out of place. And all this is to say nothing of dialogue and scene writing that is part and parcel of the scattered cornucopia the feature represents, and cements it, and also amplifies it under a prominent spotlight.

It's an extraordinary cast that was assembled for this piece, and I think they all give terrific performances. The filming locations and production design are equally terrific; the hair and makeup artists did excellent work. I admire Pierre-William Glenn's cinematography. Down to the very last minutes, however, the writing is indistinct and poorly defined, and it really seems like it never fully knows what it wanted to say, be, or do. This was overloaded with a surfeit of potential, a cavalcade of possibilities, and it tries to throw them all in - with the end result that the entirety is given no clear form, or at least, too little of one. I didn't know what I was getting into when I sat to watch, but I had high expectations just based on the names involved. I'm glad for those who get more out of 'Death watch' than I did, but I think it's all too patchy, uneven, and spread thin to amount to much of anything.

This film was shot in my home town, Glasgow, in 1979. Since then it has rarely been seen and indeed I only saw it myself for the first time this year. Our local arthouse cinema, the Glasgow Film Theatre, screened a one off presentation of what was alleged to be the last print in existence. Though the print itself was old and worn the film blew me away with its futuristic storyline, fantastic cast and phenomenal locations. It captures Glasgow as it was in the late 70's just before a period of great changes in the landscape of the city. Tavernier skillfully uses an environment that is full of eery imagery - graveyards, cranes and an industrial landscape that is grinding to a halt. The film also depicts a society fascinated with death. Harvey Keitel is excellent as the human camera that allows society the ultimate act of voyeurism - watching someone die on TV. Awesome. Someone, somewhere please commission

I can see why some would find the ruminatory pacing to be slow, but I think it works perfectly for the story of a woman unexpectedly forced to grapple with her own imminent death.

Most of the film is a series of interactions between the woman, Romy Schneider, who is in turns fiercely resistant of her fate and soothingly resigned, and the reliably charismatic Harvey Keitel, who is filming her final days for all the world to see. There were many prescient speeches about the voyeurism of a culture that relishes other's pain as "the new pornography."

Harry Dean Stanton brings nuance to the corporate flunky charged with exploiting a woman's pain. The moment where he explains that more than 30 percent of viewers find the programming distasteful, but keep watching is such an accurate indictment of our media consumption.

I saw this film in May 1980, loved it, and immediately became a Harvey Keitel and Romy Schneider fan. I was shocked and saddened to read the next week in the newspaper that Romy Schneider had died suddenly. This was haunting -- especially since in this film she plays a woman who is dying and just wants to be left alone. Harvey Keitel plays a reporter working for a TV station who wants to up their ratings by filming raw drama. Harvey follows her, befriends her, and secretly films her on the run as she falls sicker and falls in love with Harvey. There are wonderful twists in the plot and technology ground breakers. Harvey has a camera lens implanted in his eye but the side effect is that he can never sleep. When I saw the Truman Show, it reminded me of this film from so long ago whose treatment of the subject matter (filming someone's life who is unaware of the fact) was such a new and exciting concept. Check this film out. You will not be disappointed!

In what is said to be a tragically prophetic role, Romy Schneider gives a superb performance as a dying woman at the mercy of a voyeuristic society presided over by a greedy television executive (coldly played by the brilliant Harry Dean Stanton). Also of note is an elegant cameo by the legendary Max von Sydow.

Why this movie has yet to get a rerelease is entirely beyond me. It doesn't help that it's nearly impossible to find in terms of both rental and sale. If you are able to track it down, then do not pass up the chance to see it.

I don't know if it is on video, but I wish I could watch this film again, after 20 years the idea still feels fresh and alive. even though there is truman show, it is not even getting close to the greatness of this film. Today, I have told a writer who is working on a cyberfilm script, to go watch this film first. technology is only a tool (most scifi films tend to forget) in telling the story of 2 suffering souls. The humans are not lost behind the scifi gimmicks, the film is about us humans. watch this film, you really won't be disappoi

I just finished watching this movie in a pitch black room and boy was it dark.Several sequences bordered on the invisible as Harvey Keitel descends into a cameraman´s room 101. Romy Schneider a revelation and spreading compassion on all throughout. The cityscapes are glorious and the faceless people of Glasgow add to the alienation expressed by the script. Excellent shift of pace as Max von Sydow enters to fulfill Romy Schneiders dreams. Great cast, though Harry Dean Stanton under-used, and a sin that this is not more widely recognised.