The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

To date there have been only two films based on books by bestselling author Peter Straub: "Ghost Story", which was an appalling mess, and this one. "Full Circle" is derived from "Julia", Straub's second published novel and first foray into the horror genre--and, while certain arbitrary departures from the book prevent this film from being totally effective, it does capture the formidably spooky atmosphere of Straub's prose. What clicks: A.) Mia Farrow as Julia. She's every bit as persistent, and as fragile, as her counterpart in the novel; desperate for some sense of resolution after the tragic death of her nine-year-old daughter, Julia puts herself at greater and greater risk as she pursues the ghost that haunts her newly-purchased London townhouse and the park adjacent to it. The final encounter between Julia and Olivia is beautifully, deliciously eerie, and works despite the fact that nothing so definite occurs in the book. B.) Colin Towns' sensitive soundtrack, especially in that final scene. What doesn't: the decision to make Magnus, Julia's estranged husband, a much younger and less menacing character than he was in the novel. Keir Dullea delivers an adequate performance as this diminished Magnus, but he's only an incidental character here--not a link to the troubled history of Julia's house, as he was in the book. Missed opportunity: the exclusion of Mona, the little black girl encountered by Julia in the novel. The reader is never quite sure who or what Mona is, but each of her appearances in the book is a precursor to one of Olivia's own dreadful manifestations (or to the revelation of something terrible that Olivia has done). When Julia asks Mona the name of the blonde girl in the park, the answer she receives is not "Olivia" but "Doolya". This is one of the novel's most unsettling moments. Surely it could have been worked into the movie somehow? This is only director Richard Loncraine's second film, but he handles the subject matter deftly. "Full Circle" (which played U.S. theaters in 1981 as "The Haunting of Julia") will please most fans of Peter Straub and intelligent horror in general. Seven and a half stars.

After the accidental death of her daughter, Julia (Mia Farrow) leaves her domineering husband Magnus (Keir Dullea) and moves into an old house. Soon she believes she is being visited by her daughter's spirit. But when people around her are murdered, Julia realizes this isn't her daughter she's dealing with.I wish I understood the logic behind casting Americans Mia Farrow and Keir Dullea and then making them speak with British accents the whole film (when they remembered). I just don't see what them being Brits contributed to the film but their poor accents did take away from it. So perhaps they would have been better off making them Americans living in England or something. Anyway, that bit of business aside, it's a by-the-numbers ghost story with some mindless killings thrown in for good measure. There's the creepy old house, the strange noises, the gauzy photography, the haunting piano music, the obligatory séance scene, the investigation into a decades-old crime, and so on. It's based on Peter Straub's first novel "Julia." Haven't read it but I see many people who have saying it's better than this film. I'll assume it must be. Ghost stories have always fared better in books where fear of noises and shadows holds more weight. There's nothing scary about this movie. While it is watchable, it has very little atmosphere and the pace is terribly slow. The murders do nothing to liven things up, either. It's really pretty dull. I wouldn't recommend bothering with it unless you're a Straub fan or a ghost movie nut who just wants to see as many of them as possible. The only other thing worth seeing here is Tom Conti's hair, which is admittedly magnificent.

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."