User reviews

Don't Go: Difficult to categorise: horror, time slips, attempting to change past events, maybe a touch of the supernatural about it. Ben blames himself (as does his wife Hazel) for the death of his child, Molly, who died in an accident. His guilt is worsened by where he really was when Molly perished. Ben and Hazel move to the West of Ireland to renovate a hotel but instead of being a new start Ben has strange dreams. He is transported back to a time when all three of them were on a beach. Even when awake he keeps seeing the slogan Seas The Day. He becomes obsessed with the idea of actually time travelling to avert the accident. The oddities of his situation are well illustrated - he has conversations with people who aren't really there yet seems to be able to being physical objects back from his time-slip dreams. The themes of guilt (plus hiding the truth)and the need for redemption run Don't Go but the realisation that redemption comes at a price is made all too clear. Reality (and Ben's imaginary conversations) is generally shot with a darker filter while the past beach scenes are in brighter colours. The film is unevenly paced with too much time used to set up the critical scenes, it might have worked better as a 60 minute episode of an anthology series. Directed by David Gleeson from a script by Ronan Blaney and John Collins. Saw it on RTE. 6/10.

Mystery movies are my favorite genre so I'm always excited when it's one of those stories with twists and turns but in this case it just fell short. The plot was much too confusing, not that original, with a slow repeating pace. The cast wasn't bad so no actor has to be blamed for the lower score. It's just the story that is not that captivating, unless maybe you lost a child yourself at one point so you can understand the despair of the father more. I can understand that people are going to like this movie but for me it was just not good enough, at least not to be remembered.

A father struggling with the death of his young daughter begins to believe he can change the past by a memory that becomes a reoccurring dream. Is it possible or is he simply losing his mind.

This film was decent. The actors played their characters with a lot of sincerity and the story was relatable. It felt a little slow at times and it would have been better with more depth invested into the individual characters and the way they interacted with one another. It's nothing that will blow you away but it was an entertaining watch.

I just threw this movie on for some background noise and it blew me away. Was not expecting that at all. By the end of the movie I felt sad and happy and confused and fullfilled and blown away all at once.

Nicely done

7.8

Really. Don't waste your time. It's a slow moving, plodding story that you think is going to leave you with a gem of knowledge, truth, a hard lesson, something! Instead it leaves you unfilled and regretting that you wasted so much time. Too bad too. It had a great setting and good actors, but all for naught.

This is the kind of twisted movie that will haunt your uncouncious nerve synapsis in your sleeping dreams. not wet they are, but a puzzle that made me think more than twice, and a maze to get out of. its a film that has two choices, start watching the end first or do it the regular way. its complicated but good

there are signs upon signs on top of signs, in dreams upon dreams on top of dreams. it has so much grieve,and so much hopes and wishes, till you start thinking the impossible will be possible. there are good pace all over,ok story and plot, acting very well done. the filmography are great, with lots of shifting themes, and the score are brilliantly used ,like a babys lollaby-song.the piano sequences that repeats inbetween are like hubba bubba under the shoes,sticky and difficult to get away.

so if your in for a mystery-drama, have a look at dont go,the grumpy old man says

Yet another dud featuring Stephen Dorff. At this pace, he's bound to become the next Eric Roberts. This one is nicely done, with a really great supporting cast, nice cinematography and direction, good editing, etc. But one thing falls short, and another goes a little too far. As usual, what goes a little too far is Stephen Dorff: he's always trying too hard to "act". Well, not always, but enough for you to notice he's trying too hard... What falls short is the plot. It sucks. Besides the fact that you can see the ending a mile away, there is no tension whatsoever, not even for a second, and then there's the ridiculous mystery animal (crows) and the ridiculous mystery-man (a furniture mover dressed in a crow-themed T-shirt bought online, who drops a couple of lines of platitudinous BS). If you are a romantic 12-year old, this might blow your mind. If you're an adult, you might enjoy this movie as a mild waste of time. You will forget it in 20 minutes, that's why I'm writing this ASAP after watching it.

Such an antidote to today's sex, violence, bad language and CGI. If you like all of those things, don't bother with this movie. However, if you want a mysterious and emotionally-moving story, cleverly told and portrayed by actors with a convincing range of real emotions, treat yourself to this. A slowly unfolding story of tragedy, with clever metaphors interwoven into the storyline. A moving film which leaves you with a feeling of emotional involvement. Worth watching twice, as at the end of the first viewing you realise that there were a host of references and clues that you missed first time round. Thank you, Ireland, for spurning the 'popular' genre of films and giving us something thoughtful.

Not quite what I thought but enjoyable enough for an afternoons viewing . Dorf doss well as does Melissa George , nice twist at the end

"Prepare yourself for an unparalleled cinematic ordeal. The movie in question, if it can be generously labeled as such, unfolds at an agonizing pace, drowning the audience in an ocean of mind-numbing dialogue. With every passing minute, the film becomes a marathon of verbal monotony, leaving one yearning for the sweet embrace of silence.

The screenplay, or lack thereof, seems to revel in its refusal to adhere to basic storytelling principles. Characters engage in lengthy conversations that meander aimlessly, devoid of any discernible purpose. One could argue that the scriptwriter mistook verbosity for depth, as the incessant dialogue fails to contribute meaningfully to the plot, assuming there is one hidden beneath the verbal labyrinth.

The narrative, if we can generously use that term, is an elusive phantom, a mirage that vanishes upon closer inspection. The audience is left adrift in a sea of disconnected scenes, struggling to discern a coherent story arc. It's as if the filmmakers abandoned any pretense of crafting a compelling plot, opting instead for a disjointed collection of events that defy logical progression.

The characters, mere vessels for the ceaseless verbal onslaught, lack depth or relatability. Viewers are forced to endure exchanges that serve no purpose other than to prolong the agonizing runtime. It's a cinematic experiment gone awry, where character development is sacrificed at the altar of tedious dialogue.

The cinematography, while technically proficient, fails to salvage the sinking ship of this cinematic endeavor. Scenes linger interminably, capturing the mundane minutiae of characters engaged in mundane conversations. The visual composition, rather than enhancing the viewing experience, becomes a cruel accomplice in subjecting the audience to the drudgery unfolding on screen.

The soundtrack, if one can call it that, is a forgettable symphony of mediocrity. It neither complements nor elevates the viewing experience; instead, it serves as a background hum to the verbal onslaught, fading into the background as the audience grapples with the tedium unfolding before them.

As the credits mercifully roll, one is left to ponder the purpose of this cinematic endeavor. Was it an attempt to redefine storytelling, an avant-garde exploration that missed the mark entirely? Or perhaps a misguided experiment in pushing the boundaries of audience endurance? Whatever the intention, the result is an arduous journey through a cinematic wasteland, leaving viewers questioning the value of their time and the elusive one star out of ten feels almost too generous.

In conclusion, this movie is a testament to the perils of prioritizing talk over substance, of forsaking a coherent narrative for the illusion of intellectual depth. It stands as a cautionary tale for filmmakers tempted to venture into the abyss of verbosity without a lifeline of engaging storytelling. Save yourself the agony and choose a cinematic experience that respects your time and intellect."

I am not sure what to make of this film, perhaps I needed to suspend belief and believe in the characters more. Father apparently loses child and has recurring dreams about the last day although why or how the child died is not mentioned or shown. Then we have the situation where this man appears to be having a breakdown because of his grief. The premise of the story appears to question what is real and what isn't and just left me bewildered.

Just this fact alone makes this a MUST WATCH for me. I will be back with a review after I have seen the movie.

I love Ireland so I loved the scenery and the accent, but the story was very predictable and not worth telling. I wish I had spent the time watching something else.

This is one of those films where it wasn't great but i don't regret watching it. Not quite a 5 but not better than a 6. It's a good watch. Grief. Betrayal. A lil sci-fi time travel. And redemption. Not bad.

Don't look at the good reviews as I don't know why it got good reviews what a boring boring slow film

Anyone can let me know what happen at the end? I am confused!

A very good mystery, with lots of twists and turns until the end when the rest of the movie's plot seems to make sense after all. Solid performances by Dorff and George.

The acting, scenery, and music had me convinced that this would be a good thriller. However the missing piece of the puzzle is the science of reasoning.

If this main character can somehow alter his own timeline, why does he have to die? The boat accident (or near accident) has zero causal affect to the daughter falling down the stairs. Couldn't Ben just embrace his family at the beach and not cheat on his wife's best friend?

A lot of the connections to Shakespearean literature or attempts of symbolism were haphazard. I was left high and dry when the credits rolled. Maybe I missed the forest for the trees here.

I'm the same as natcalgary. I put it on for some background noise. But I noticed a few different scenes that made me pause it near the end and to watch it from the start, properly. I got the gist of the story and surprisingly these parents stay together but I didn't see enough the first time to spoil the end. I loved the ending, I didn't see it coming and that's the kind of movie I love. Hate it when a movie is entirely predictable but this one is not. It's a must watch (in my eyes). ENJOY!