Suspiria (1977): The Good, the Bad and the Colorful
Synopsis: Dario Argento's giallo of a young American who goes to Europe to attend a ballet boarding school. Little does she know the school has a dark secret. As events unfold, young Susan starts to realize and uncover the truth behind those in charge.
The Good: Argento, among a few others like Bava and Fulchi, are the "masters" of giallo and if you know what that is, your viewing pleasure will be enhanced. This isn't straight up horror, it's a murder-mystery-thriller with a penchant for some excessive blood and shock. For what it is, Argento does it well. The collaborative efforts from screen to sound are a work of art. The soundtrack, performed by the band Goblin, in essence, make the film, because it's really not scary at all. Those who coin phrases like, "the scariest film I've ever seen" are just silly. It's not scary. It's atmospheric. The widely applauded use of angles and color are as good as advertised. It's a very nice looking film. Moods are well-captured and yes, it is quite "arthouse" in form and thus, loved by film snobs worldwide. Am I a snob? No, but I do well to appreciate something new and different and well-captured and this is a film worth seeing for that alone.
The Bad: All that good stuff about cinematography and atmosphere aside, the script of this movie is a mess in places and incoherent in others. No one that is not taking a "snobbish" approach to this film can deny that there are just some flat out bad scenes in this movie. Stilted acting, wooden dialogue... it's all there. This is one of those movies that has received acclaim and now, it seems no one wants to backtrack and call it what it really is... a decent giallo that is far from a "work of art". Strictly speaking, the story just isn't a great one... not great enough to stand the test of time. Nor is it told in any way that is unique. The only unique and interesting quality is the way the movie is filmed. That sets it apart and makes it an Argento film. That is great and all, but it doesn't make it a cinematic classic in these eyes. The story is what is missing here. It's just very dull and slow-moving, but done in a nice-looking way. It's a sawdust cake that is beautifully frosted, but has nothing tasty at it's core.
The Colorful: As stated before, Argento's use of color in the film is truly brilliant. It creates mesmerizing atmosphere and it is unforgettable and makes the film unique and worth watching. The use of bright red blood is one of style and some reviews seem to not acknowledge that (i.e. "...and the blood was just so fake!"). Yeah... it's supposed to look that way. Coupled with a musical score that brought out the vibrant reds and greens, the look and feel are as good as any movie out there, horror or not. Too bad the content doesn't match.
Synopsis: Dario Argento's giallo of a young American who goes to Europe to attend a ballet boarding school. Little does she know the school has a dark secret. As events unfold, young Susan starts to realize and uncover the truth behind those in charge.
The Good: Argento, among a few others like Bava and Fulchi, are the "masters" of giallo and if you know what that is, your viewing pleasure will be enhanced. This isn't straight up horror, it's a murder-mystery-thriller with a penchant for some excessive blood and shock. For what it is, Argento does it well. The collaborative efforts from screen to sound are a work of art. The soundtrack, performed by the band Goblin, in essence, make the film, because it's really not scary at all. Those who coin phrases like, "the scariest film I've ever seen" are just silly. It's not scary. It's atmospheric. The widely applauded use of angles and color are as good as advertised. It's a very nice looking film. Moods are well-captured and yes, it is quite "arthouse" in form and thus, loved by film snobs worldwide. Am I a snob? No, but I do well to appreciate something new and different and well-captured and this is a film worth seeing for that alone.
The Bad: All that good stuff about cinematography and atmosphere aside, the script of this movie is a mess in places and incoherent in others. No one that is not taking a "snobbish" approach to this film can deny that there are just some flat out bad scenes in this movie. Stilted acting, wooden dialogue... it's all there. This is one of those movies that has received acclaim and now, it seems no one wants to backtrack and call it what it really is... a decent giallo that is far from a "work of art". Strictly speaking, the story just isn't a great one... not great enough to stand the test of time. Nor is it told in any way that is unique. The only unique and interesting quality is the way the movie is filmed. That sets it apart and makes it an Argento film. That is great and all, but it doesn't make it a cinematic classic in these eyes. The story is what is missing here. It's just very dull and slow-moving, but done in a nice-looking way. It's a sawdust cake that is beautifully frosted, but has nothing tasty at it's core.
The Colorful: As stated before, Argento's use of color in the film is truly brilliant. It creates mesmerizing atmosphere and it is unforgettable and makes the film unique and worth watching. The use of bright red blood is one of style and some reviews seem to not acknowledge that (i.e. "...and the blood was just so fake!"). Yeah... it's supposed to look that way. Coupled with a musical score that brought out the vibrant reds and greens, the look and feel are as good as any movie out there, horror or not. Too bad the content doesn't match.