Суспирия (2018) Poster

(I) (2018)

User Reviews

Review this title
144 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Starts off well, but after that....
scrappybilly1 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Suspiria, as I'm sure anyone reading this is aware, is a remake of the 1977 Dario Argento film of the same name. This time around, it's directed by Luca Guadagnino (Call me by Your Name) and David Kajganich (who worked by Guadagnino on A Bigger Splash and created the AMC limited television show "The Terror"), and expands upon the folklore of Agento's "Three Mothers" trilogy. 2018's Suspiria is less a remake and more of an expansion on the world of the Three Mothers, even boasting a post-credit sequence, like an entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Dakota Johnson plays Susie, an American ballet dancer who joins a world-renowned German dance company, that harbors a dark secret. It is, you see, run by a coven of witches. Anyone who discovers the secret, or goes looking too deep, disappears-usually in a violent dispatching. Their motives are unclear, but they feed off of the energy of the young dancers and when one goes missing, it's easy enough for them to find another to replace her.

Tilda Swinton plays Madame Blanc, the face of the dance company, a dancer and a dark entity that takes Susie under her wing. The most interesting scenes in Suspiria deal with their relationship. They're at once predator and prey, mother and daughter, and two old souls who've known each other since before time. Their interactions, and the way they involve, showcase a much, much better movie than the one we ended up getting.

The problem with Suspiria is that it's a mess-in every conceivable way, it's a mess. As a horror movie, it isn't scary; the scenes of suspense are taken to comical extremes. Whether these comical extremes are intended or not are up for debate, and in a better movie, that would be a subject of interesting conversation. Here, it's simply confusing. As a drama, it's incoherent. Twists in the plot occur without any real logic behind them. As a horror fan, I love movies that boast their own kind of self-contained logic, but that requires a certain suspension of disbelief that Suspiria just didn't earn.

Suspiria is a unique paradox of having both too much and too little plot. It has too much plot dedicated toward dead-ends and too little dedicated to big reveals, where they wind up confusing and pointless. In a movie where about five notable things happen, to say its 2.5-hour-long run time is bloated would be a generous understatement. In what will surely become the film's most infamous scene, Susie dances, while her movements magically contort and mutilate another dancer. This scene goes on and on and on, and the thing is, it's not even particularly well-edited. Susie will do a pirouette, and the victim on the receiving end of it will... just sort of crash into a wall, or her jaw will unhinge. None of the movements match. It would have been interesting to see one movement darkly mirror another, or vice versa, but instead it looks like we're watching two unrelated occurrences take place. It's like watching someone eat cereal juxtaposed with a violent car wreck.

I don't believe it's a spoiler to reveal that Tilda Swinton also plays the character of Dr. Josef Klemperer, because it's worth noting that her performance as him makes zero sense in the context of the movie. It's a distraction. She also has an annoying acting tic as the doctor in which she clacks her jaw or smacks her lips every three seconds or so. It's a bizarre choice that I think the filmmakers were proud of, but was a miscalculation from beginning to end. In an interview, David Kajganich said, "Both Luca and I were adamant that the male gaze never intrude," and if that was their thinking here, it was a total failure.

Some of the more head-scratching decisions in the film can best be summed up the the terrorism subplot, an event never directly witnessed, but terrorists have kidnapped a group of people and a days-long event unfolds surrounding the school. At first, it adds a certain ambiance to the film, and it works really well in establishing the unease of the world outside of the dance company, as though the coven of witches are affecting the world at large around them. A girl named Sara (Mia Goth) hears something and pokes her head outside and says it was a bomb, that she can smell it. This helps put us, the audience, in the world with these characters. And then, this plotline just sort of drags along and becomes, strangely, a series of news reports, as though the movie we're watching is being interrupted by an unrelated documentary. It never ties into the narrative as a whole, it's just a distraction that, like the Tilda-as-a-doctor story, should have been left on the cutting room floor.

The film's finale, in which everything comes together, just sort of staggers into place. Usually, getting everyone together all at once for the finish requires events established earlier, where a character will do this or that and everything pays off. This is just a scene that sort of happens, doesn't have any real tension, and contains revelations that undo the entire plot that had preceded it. It's also an extravaganza of terrible-looking effects and smeary frame rate that looks like it was inspired by the German shot-on-video horror entry The Burning Moon, but The Burning Moon was made for maybe a few thousand dollars and is genuinely unnerving.

To me, it feels like 1977's Suspiria is the remake. It feels like that film took the 2018 version, looked at all the plots that went nowhere, trimmed them out, boiled it down to its purest essence, and made a crack rock of horror. The problem, I suspect, was the director's desire to make this the first part of a trilogy, instead of a standalone movie. So, as a result, we're left with some threads that may pay off later, but sure as hell don't pay off here.

Suspiria is going to be a love-it-or-hate-it type of movie. I could see loving it, it just had a certain divorce from reality I didn't think was earned; its surreal qualities weren't enough to afford its more outlandish aspects. Its grounded-in-the-real-world vibe clashed with the horror instead of holding up a mirror to it.
108 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
High-brow, bleak horror.
trymcnl16 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I can understand why this film has been so polarizing. With that said, know that I'm clinging to the side that thinks this movie is an absolute masterpiece. I'm a huge fan of Argento's legendary 1977 film, but aside from title, character names, and general plot, this film is entirely separate from that technicolor nightmare fairy tale. Guadagnino has created a dour, political, and animalistic horror epic that's closer in style to a Fassbinder film or Kubrick's The Shining than anything in the Giallo ouevre.

People will hate this movie. People will adore this movie. Either way, it was made to elicit strong reactions and I have no doubt that it will.

Edit: scrolling through these one star reviews it's become pretty clear that most of these people have not....seen.....the movie
159 out of 268 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A film not meant for everybody
jonralph-296941 November 2018
This is my very first review on IMDB, but I feel this film merits recognition. First off, let me say this film is not for everyone (the guy who I fist bumped when we started the film walked out). Frankly, if we are being honest this is a bit of a niche film. Howeverly it is a gorgeous piece of cinema worth give attention to.

The cinematography is gorgeous in every shot, and at times will honestly make you questionin what era the film was made in. The socre is somber and a great match with the the bleak tone constructed by Guadagnino. The acting is very well done, and stands strong throughout the film. I personally don't want to give the plot away, or any more information beyond what I have said.

I for the life of me can't understand why fans of the original dislike this piece! If you love the uniqueness of the original Suspiria, and are willing to experience a new interpretation of the film I genuinely think you'll have a blast!
85 out of 142 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Fails to deliver on early promise
davidkhardman17 October 2018
For the first half of the film I was really intrigued and impressed. Setting the story in 70s Berlin, with constant references to the Baader-Meinhof group/Red Army Faction, provided a strong atmosphere. There was also some really squirm-inducing, grisly action - different from the original film, but serving the same purpose.

But then this all went nowhere. I suspect that the writer didn't really know how to wrap things up, so they simply tried to overpower the viewer with visuals. But sometimes more is less. The original film left almost everything to the imagination. This one leaves nothing to the imagination. It was all a bit of a mess, ultimately. It left me very disappointed.
108 out of 187 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
3 Stars For The Dancing And Supporting Cast. The Rest Is A Long Waste Of Time.
sscott9428 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, what a colossal mess this film is.

I saw this at the Dome in Hollywood on opening weekend with some serious film lovers. Very few claps at the end for such a huge theater. To be honest, they sounded like pity claps because the cast was waiting in the wings to come out.

The movie is 2.5 dreadfully long hours. I saw many people looking around and checking their watches. The pace is way too slow. There are scenes of Tilda Swinton (as the male psychiatrist) just walking and walking outside. There was no need to see any of that. But the director, Guadagnino, did that with many scenes in the film. They just draaaaaag.

On the note of Tilda playing a man. Totally stupid decision. The makeup made it obvious this wasn't a real man playing the part and her voice... well imagine Johnny Cash trying to talk like a woman. You get the idea. It completely took me out of the picture.

Here's the worse part. Her character didn't even need to be in the film at all. It added nothing to the story. At the end, I was like... "That's it? That's the payoff for watching this character throughout the entire 2.5 hours?"

The dancing is good (pretty obvious from the trailer). The music is eerie, which added suspense. However, I remember one scene at a table with no music and it became suddenly distracting to me, because of the drastic shift. That tells me the director relied to heavily on the music to draw suspense.

The supporting female cast (not including Moretz) were all believable and added a fantastic level of creepiness. They were the best thing about the film.

Tilda's main character, the dance choreographer, is performed well enough, though her character is not as creepy or fun as her supporting counterparts get to play. She also gets the short end of the stick at the end. What a letdown. Her character could have been so twisted.

Dakota's performance is pretty much the same throughout the film, even after her character DRASTICALLY changes in the final act. You would think that would call for her taking a step into the sinister side, but she's still playing it as the doe-eyed character gently speaking, only this time she's killing everyone around her. Clearly that's the director's artistic decision. Nope. Didn't work for me.
88 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Poor reimagination of a classic 70s giallo film. 152 minutes that feel it never end!
HorrorFan69693 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
It was impossible not to have high expectations for Luca Guadagnino's remake of "Suspiria." Dario Argento's original is, after all, a one-of-a-kind horror freak-out, the kind of mesmerizingly bizarre cinematic experience so sui generis that any remake would have to represent an aggressive reimagining.

And who better to take on this seemingly impossible assignment than Guadagnino, coming off the impressive troika of "I Am Love," "A Bigger Splash" and "Call Me By Your Name"? The cinema's greatest sensualist wasn't going to make us smell the rosemary or taste the apricot juice this time; the idea of his gifts being applied to blood-drenched horror promised a uniquely terrifying experience.

So what does Guadagnino's version convey? Boredom, mostly, with confusion and a dollop of disappointment and irritation.

The original was set at a creepy dance academy in 1977 Berlin, so Guadagnino and writer David Kajganich ("A Bigger Splash") have decided to lean into that time and place: There is constant discussion on TV about terrorism and the Baader-Meinhof group, and one of the plot points revolves around lingering survivor's guilt in the post-Nazi era. What do either of these ideas have to do with a dance academy that's a front for a coven of witches? The new "Suspiria" doesn't seem to know.

(It's not unlike Jonathan Demme's decision to remake the early-'60s classic "Charade" as the nouvelle vague-influenced "The Truth About Charlie," since the French New Wave was happening in Paris as Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn strolled by the Seine. An interesting idea on paper, perhaps, but historical context only works in a remake if there's an actual point to it.)

The 1977 setting also allows the filmmaker (and cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom, "Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives," "Call Me By Your Name") to go hard on the Fassbinder kitchen-sink miserabilism, which certainly could, in other circumstances, make a great, grim backdrop to an atmospheric horror movie. But the result here is to put an unappealing visual sheen on an already dreary film.

Dakota Johnson stars as Susie, a young woman raised by Mennonites but longing to dance with Berlin's Helena Markos Dance Company. She travels to Berlin, and her first audition blows away choreographer and former lead dancer Madame Blanc (Tilda Swinton), who accepts her on the spot.

There's an open room in the dormitory due to the disappearance of another dancer, Patricia (Chloë Grace Moretz). Some whisper that she has run off to join the terrorists, but the film opens with her in a ranting panic, telling her psychiatrist Dr. Klemperer (Lutz Ebersdorf) that the Markos instructors are witches who plan to destroy her.

Klemperer at first dismisses her fears as a delusion, but after Patricia disappears, he begins to investigate more closely, even though he's got his own problems; years after the end of the war, he still holds out hope that his wife, from whom he was separated as they tried to flee Berlin, will return to him safe and sound. Meanwhile, Susie quickly climbs the ranks, and Madame Blanc selects her to take the lead role in the company's most famous dance piece, "Volk."

The actual performance of "Volk" immediately ranks alongside "Goddess" in "Showgirls" and the fertility dance from "Lost Horizon" as one of the screen's most unintentionally hilarious pieces of choreography. The ludicrous terpsichorean display isn't helped by the costuming; the dancers all wear bright-red ropes tied in what appear to be Japanese Shibari bondage knots, a provocative choice undercut by the big white granny panties that they sport underneath.

To be fair, there's at least one legitimate scare to be found here; as Susie learns the new dance steps, her motions are mirrored in the basement of the studio, where an unseen force pillories a young woman to near-death using the exact same moves. But by the time "Suspiria" reaches its blood-soaked, all-of-them-witches climax, I was suppressing church giggles. The frights aren't frightening, the political subtext never connects with the rest of the movie, and even Guadagnino's generally unfailing visual sense isn't enough to put this over.

Swinton (playing more than one role, for no apparent reason) and Johnson give the material more than it deserves, but even they can't put helium into a lead balloon. The other ballet instructors are played by a fascinating ensemble of performers (including 1970s Euro-stars like Fassbinder's wife Ingrid Caven, German New Wave icon Angela Winkler, and onetime Paul Verhoeven leading lady Renée Soutendijk, as well as Sudanese supermodel Alek Wek), but they're given very little to do.

It's tempting to say that Guadagnino treats them like furniture, but in one of his better movies, he would actually shoot the furniture in a meaningful way.

As for Thom Yorke's score, it's decidedly unobtrusive, which for some is the mark of good film music. Apart from a song under the opening credits and another under the closing credits, very little of it announces its presence. Given how little subtlety "Suspiria" otherwise displays, that's an admirable sign of restraint. - Alonso Duralde
157 out of 299 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
7 Deadly Responses on Seeing the new Suspiria
7DeadlyThings2 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
1. Suspiria is gonna be divisive

Like last year's mother! by Darren Aronofsky, Suspiria has already divided audiences at this year's Venice Film Festival. Whilst I clapped my palms off once the credits rolled an irate audience member beside me booed furiously (we exchanged disapproving glances). The Guardian has reported that "it fails to bewitch," but I beg to differ.

2. Some scenes in Suspiria are spectacularly scary

Lucky for us the talented directer Luca Guadagnino (Call Me By Your Name, A Bigger Splash) and smart screenwriter David Kajganich have taken this spooky subject matter very seriously. The result is some prima orrore assoluta - particularly the shocking sequence where some ubiquitous evil forces choreograph an ill-fated dance student into a très grave finale.

3. This Suspiria is not a remake

You don't need to have seen the original to enjoy this movie (although I'd highly recommend that you do). It's much more of a reimagining of Argento's dream-tale than a remake. Guadagnino intertwines German politics and terrorism - the film is set in 1977 (the year the original was unleashed) Berlin. Plus lead character Susie gets a much meatier backstory. And dancing, there's a lot more dancing.

4. Original Suspiria star Jessica Harper pops up

Having deliberately avoided any media about the movie to go in knowing nothing it was a pleasant surprise to see Jessica Harper make an appearance. Harper played the title role of Susie in Argento's version and with Guadagnino being Argento's biggest fan, and good pal, this cameo was a nice nod to the original and the fans.

5. The performances in Suspiria are spellbinding

Dakota Johnson is enchanting as the elite ballet dancer; Tilda Swinton is captivating, of course, as the mysterious headmistress; yet it was rising star Mia Goth's performance that did it for me. Chloë Grace Moretz along with the other fellow students are very good, as are the teachers (or coven of witches) at Tanz Dance School.

6. Swindled by Swinton?

An IMDb profile of Lutz Ebersdorf cites Suspiria as his only acting credit. However, there is growing speculation that it is in fact Tilda Swinton playing the role of psychoanalyst Josef Klemperer. During the press conference when Swinton was asked what it was like playing the two roles she replied, "what two roles?" followed by a wink. She even read out a letter from Klemperer excusing his absence from the panel.

7. Thom Yorke scores with the Suspiria soundtrack

The soundtrack to the original Suspiria is legendary. Italian band Goblin composed it working closely with Argento through production. This time, Guadagnino called upon Radiohead's Thom Yorke to bring the magic, and he doesn't disappoint. The music is definitely more mellow than it's predecessor but suits the autumnal tone of the film.
126 out of 241 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Relies on shock to cover a very basic plot
compoundeyes5 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Having never seen the original, I came in fresh with only a basic understanding of the original plot. I wasn't influenced by nostalgia or comparison, so I was able to judge this purely by it's own merit. With that said, I wanted to like this a lot. I wanted a psychological horror, I expected some highly graphic scenes, but I thought the plot would keep me engaged. Well, the psychological aspect ended up falling away in large part, and in its place came pure shock factor that actually served very little purpose to the story and didn't evoke fear either. I'm sure some may think I simply don't understand symbolism and deeper meaning, but I understand plenty of subtlety. Most of it simply had nothing that actually pertained to the story. For example, the first practice scene, when Olga is trapped in the mirror studio below and begins having her body broken as Susie dances. During this scene, Susie's dancing throws Olga about, sometimes as if she got hit by a car, others as if a force were grabbing her. This scene goes on and on, absolutely brutal and frankly nauseating to watch, but in the end, all it served to show was that the witches... can do that? Susie's abilities as a host I suppose? If depth is something to argue, so much more could have been given in Olga's movements matching Susie's rather than being struck by them, as they were in the same role. Another example is the somewhat subliminal imagery of the dream sequences. These were highly disturbing to watch, very unsettling, and yet none of the imagery really served a purpose. Hinting at the end ritual maybe? I guess? It was either so subtly connected that it was lost, or it was simply put in to unnerve the audience. One or two of these to that effect would have been fine, I get it, but every scene of violence or graphic content had no larger point. I'm not exactly sure why such a simple plot, at it's core, had to be muddled up with bizarre attempts to give an artsy, pretentious feel. The sheer storyline gives tension, unease, and mystery. Most of the subplots, the with exception of the Psychiatrist, went nowhere, and half of the things the witches did had no payoff later (collecting urine/hair for no reason? The terrorists storyline?). There was nothing that was legitimately scary, I was only scared once when the girl behind Sara started crawling at her, but literally everything else was just disgusting, not scary. It felt like such a waste. On the positives, because there were a few, the technical aspect of this movie is nearly flawless. The cinematography is stunning, every scene is captivating and the dance scenes are a treat to watch. Even the scenes of horror are filmed perfectly, they have so much more intensity and unease because of how they're filmed (if only they meant something). Also, this is a two and a half hour long movie, but I never felt like it dragged along and that's a massive positive in its corner. Few movies over two hours (and in some bad cases, less) keep me completely engaged, but this managed to. Even if it was only through actual nausea, I was never bored. That being said, if the unnecessary things were trimmed this movie would move at an even better pace and keep more of its tension. Overall, I'm disappointed. The more I considered this movie, the more I picked it apart and was dissatisfied. It's not the worst I've seen, it has positive aspects, but making me feel nauseous instead of scared would keep me from ever watching it again.
52 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bewitched and Bewildered...Don't Bother!
jadepietro12 December 2018
Text: GRADE: C-

THIS FILM IS NOT RECOMMENDED.

IN BRIEF: Dance 3, Looks 10

JIM'S REVIEW: Let me first state that Mr. Guadagnino is a talented director and he knows how to artfully hide flaws with his stylish flourishes. Let me second that by mentioning that he has created a film with strong images and crafted a well-made film for your moviegoing pleasure. But...perhaps, I must interject...for your moviegoing displeasure. That would be a more accurate term when experiencing his artsy-fartsy remake, Suspiria (2018). The film trades real tension and scares for freakish thrills and a smattering of blood.

This version basically follows the slender threads of the 1977 film of which it is based. We meet Susie (Dakota Johnson), a Mennonite girl with dancing in her soon-to-be possessed soul. She travels afar to become part of a German dance troupe led by Madame Blanc (Tilda Swinton). However, her journey may have led her to a coven of witches. Much macabre mayhem ensues as dancers become victims in gross and twisted close-ups.

Where this film differs from the original source is in its treatment of taking its low-brow horror subject origins and trying to make high-brow art. No silk purse here, but a sow's ear and other ugly accoutrements are certainly thrown into the bubbling cauldron of evil. Mr. Guadagnino's vision celebrates the hideous (entrails, urine, rotting flesh, disfigured bodies, etc.) and he becomes a cinematic Hieronymus Bosch master with his unrelenting onslaught of gross imagery. Whereas Mr. Argento's psychedelic low budget blood-fest had some suspense and scares, this has none. Zero.

Suspiria (2018) still takes place in 1977 Berlin but it takes a truly different approach from that point. Mr. Argento's vivid use of color is toned down to bleak muddy browns and dingy grays. Grey is the new red. Dance (or dramatic gyrations set to music) becomes pivotal in the storyline in David Kajganich's misguided screenplay. The dialog is filled with German angst at its worst. Yes, there are many (many) missteps afoot in both words and movement (pardon the pun).

Still there are a few saving graces: Mr. Guadagnino's visual technique is quite keen. Thomas Yorke's dissonant score provides some needed atmosphere. Sayombhu Mukdeeprom has some stunning compositions using light and shadows that are quite memorable. Ms, Johnson finally acquits herself in a lead role that has some depth and requires her to act. Mia Goth as Sara, one of Susie's friends, brings some nuance to her sketchy supporting role. Ms. Swinton plays three roles, one of which is a male psychiatrist. The actress is again under tons of realistic prothetic make-up and creates a credible character.

The director does try to bring some gravitas to his remake by adding political and historical background to his period film (the Berlin Wall, terrorist hijacking, the Holocaust, etc.), yet it doesn't advance any plot points...it just lengthens the screen time and bores the audience with unnecessary details. Mr. Guadagnino's Suspiria makes a plethora of serious statements about the state of the world then and now when it should be all genuine scares and suspense. He completely misses the real aim of any good horror film: to scare the bejesus out of the audience.

Suspiria (2018) is one of the most unpleasant moviegoing experiences of this or any year. Avoid.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Only working at times
Horst_In_Translation11 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Here we have "Suspiria", perhaps the biggest dancing-themed film of the year 2018. The director is Luca Guadagnino and while his collaboration with James Ivory recently turned out a very big Oscar-winning success recently, here he takes on an old movie by Italian legendary filmmaker Dario Argento, so maybe working a bit with/on his personal heroes now. It's not really an appraoch I would have expected by Guadagnino. Anyway, the script this time is by David Kajganich and it's not his forst collaboration with Guadagnino and same can surely be said about Tilda Swinton as well, who plays one of the central characters here. It is a very female-cntered movie with the big names all being women. In the middle of it is Dakota Johnson and add to that Swinton, Moretz, Testud, Goth and also old German actresses like Fassbinder regular Caven and Winkler. Especially the latter's inclusion surprised me quite a bit. This film is set several decades back, actually during th eyears of the left wing terror by Baader Meinhof and these political references are thrown in on several occasions during the film. But honestly, they made zero impact to be honest. There is not a single moment when this is a political movie and there was no point in making these inclusions. The heart and soul of the film is at the ballet school as we get to witness Johnson's character's rise to fame and success in the light of previous students who stand up against Swinton and the school as a whole have to face serious consequences as indeed the school is a coven and everybody working in it is witches. This is the majoe plot twist, although it becomes pretty obvious quickly that there are supernatural forces at work when some of the unpleasant students are brutally tortured. I assume these scenes take place in a similar manner in the Argento film? I am not sure, but they are among the better moments overall really.

Then there also is the story of the old man investigating what happens there and if there is really evil included, the one who meets Moretz early on. A bit of a pity really, CGM has so little screen time only. Would have loved to see her more often, but yeah there is a topless scene for the fans I suppose. I mean she clearly has lost her bait Lolita image by now as an actress and I like her and hope she can become a successful grown-up actress. The talent is there. Now back to this film we got here. One main reason why I am giving it only 2 out of 5 and a megative recommendation is the ending really. The story with the old man was already mediocre from the start, but him meeting his sweetheart again through the witches' magic tricking him is not half as effective or emotional as I wanted it to be. And then honestly, the Marcos revelation well, yes it is fairly gross, no denying, but it does not feel real. I mean she takes out a powerful wicth like Swinton's character and then basically loses easily to Johnson's? Hard for me to believe really, even if the trick to beating Marcos is not through pure power, but through tricking her I suppose. Still, it did not feel right to witness the main character's rise to power this way. Although, she did not depict the ruthlessness throughout the film that I wanted to see in her to make such an ending seem realistic. Well, as realistic as it can be in a fantasy horror film. Visually, the movie is good I suppose. Costumes, music and also sets were fairly impressive most of the time and I would not be surprised if the film sccores one or two Oscar nominations in that department, especially given the love they handed to Guadagnino's previous project. But I am disappointed still. As a Berlin citizen and the film taking place in my town, I hoped for more to be honest. It is a bit of style over substance and also way too long. Could have been a more convincing watch at 100 minutes or so, 120 minutes max with better focus of course. But the way it actually turned out, I would not want to watch it again. Perhaps give it a go if you really care about ballet-themed films or professional dancing in movies. Even liking the main actors won't be enough otherwise because I do like Johnson and Swinton fro example and still it did very little for me, so my overall suggestion is to watch something else instead. It's a miss and could have been in theory a far superior film than it actually turned out to be.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The only thing stupider than the first 2 hours and 10 minutes...Are the last 22
Syddies4 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Gosh what a lame film. Sorry if this review comes across as rant-ish, but I've never seen a movie so EMBARRASSED to be a remake. If Luca G-whatever his name is wanted to make a horror film, he should've created his own original property instead botching an already great movie!

And I get it, the original Suspiria is NOT a masterpiece, but what it has that this version absolutely DOES NOT is visual style, fantasy, and a sense of wonder and mystery. Suspiria (2018) feels like a dull, drab, depression that the viewer can never escape.

And MAN, how about that final 30 minutes or so? If you were scared at all during the film's first few acts, be prepared to be absolutely rolling on the floor laughing during the sacrifice scene. I was falling asleep up to this point so it was great to laugh at some Blumhouse demon making old people's heads blow up.

Heres a quick controversial opinion: this films visuals suck. The colors are ugly, the production design and costumes are lazy, the camera work is shoddy (the quick zooms remind me of the office), and the use of high frame rates reminds me of a music video for a nu-metal song.

oH BOY DO YOU HEAR THAT? IT'S TIME TO TAKE A HOT LOAD ON THE SOUNDTRACK!!

I hate this movies soundtrack. I do! And maybe I'm biased because I think Thom Yorke is a cry baby, but I do love Radiohead so don't come at me virgins.

If Goblin's horrifying prog-rock soundtrack is Beethoven, Thom Yorke's "music" is comparable to a five year old noodling on a piano when they're bored at a dinner party. And DON'T get me started on his "singing", which sounds like a teenage boy crying along to a sad alt song after his first break-up.

I'd also like to quickly point and laugh at the dance choreography in the film. It's somewhat similar, but not quite exactly like when your friend invites you to her ballet performance at her liberal arts college and you're expecting it to be something cute like "The Nutcracker" or "Sleeping Beauty" but you get there and it's titled something French and all the dancers are stomping around out of rhythm while some girl monologues about female anatomy. If you can picture that, you've seen the dances from the film... which is disappointing.

Geez I've gone off on a tangent. Well, you probably catch my drift. I really dislike this film, but I'm also just tired of seeing films in theaters that make me feel like total crap when I leave. Please tell me someone feels the same? What I'd really like to see in future horror movies is charisma, color, and character. The three C's. Which I've just made up.

I give this dumpster fire a 3/10! Which is one point lower than the one I saw last week!

Thank YOU for taking the time to read my review!
59 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible
matthew-872355 November 2018
Dario Argento's 1977 version of Susperia is one of the top 10 best films I have ever seen. Luca Guadagnino's 2018 version of Susperia is one of top 10 worst films I have ever seen. There are a few obvious things that made the original so influential; sound, color and horror. Guadagnino manages to disregard all of these important factors.

Let's start with sound. One of the most important factors about Argento's Suspiria is its radical unfront use of the music scored by the Goblins. From the first second of the movie we are enveloped by an aggressive driving force of intense music while watching an electric door open and water running down the drain. Seriously, I have never been so scared of shadows on a tree but the music does it. Guadagnino's use of Thom Yorke's lack of sound is the opposite. There are actual dance scenes where there is NO music. It is absolutely absurd. Moreover, in the final climactic scene of the murderous dance, he basically uses something a Radiohead song.

Another aspect of tension and effect was Argento's use of color where his pulled saturations created a mental dissonance and surreality. His use of Art Deco settings helped the environment become a key player in the 1977 film. This is expressed when Pat falls through the glass mosaic skylight or when Sara was trapped by a room filled with wire. The exterior of the dance hall and the blue iris painted walls all added to the character of the coven. You can't deny that Guadagnino literally ripped every aspect of color from this film making it horribly bland to even look at.

Sidebar: this film had the worst sound/dialog recording ever! Every line is delivered with a mumbled inarticulation that drove me mad and forced me to eventually disengaged from listening. Moreover, the horrible master mixing only made it worse.

Lastly, the violence in Argento's original had the critical aspect of camp that allowed the viewer room for disbelief. It is horrific, but also silly. This is also based on the period when it was made. Guadagnino's murder scenes incorporated the victim urinating on themselves and push the envelope to snuff movie levels, which is not what horror suspense is about. Conversely, The final "dance of death" was so ludicrous that I laughed out loud at the absurdity.

Lastly, the need for Tilda Swinton to play two roles was interesting as an expression of her talent but completely distracting in the movie. First off the makeup was like watching a bad version of Dustin Hoffman's elderly character in Little Big Man. I was constantly distracted by the makeup artists inability to connect the prosthetic with the actual mouth. It was a continual obvious fake for the whole movie.

I rarely ask for my money back during movies in theaters. Had this not been such an important movie for me to criticize (because I love the original) I would have.
54 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Black Swan without the depth
vivekvi-0261318 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
If you want to see a good movie about dance, that's dark, and has psychological depth to it, (without wasting two and a half hours (!)), I dont recommend this one, but I would point the audience towards movies that have accomplished this elegantly already, such as Aronofky's dance themed movie, Black Swan.

On the other hand, a good horror movie involving dance would be the original Suspiria, which was already made. This 2018 remake seems to be an attempt at some kind of art film, and hedges its bets by throwing a bunch of loosely connected ideas and more shallow gimmicks onto the screen to make it seem 'different' instead of an actual homage to Dario Argento's already classic film.

Suspiria 2018 seems to be secretly attempting to repeat some ideas expressed beautifully in Black Swan - the ideas of feminity and horrors of transformation, and it then replaces the horror of the original Suspiria with an attempt at high brow intellectualism that unfortunately takes that risk without ever really making a clear point. What it lacks in horror, it finds in the grotesque, but fails even at that because by the end, anything grotesque reaches a point of silliness instead. I was never scared, never intellectually challenged or in suspense, and I wanted to be impressed, but I kept finding myself checking the time and how soon it would be over. There's some nice attempts, but it all gets lost in the tedium and a kind of forced intellectualism that is almost never effective in cinema.

Indeed, it's a different movie than any of those it pretends to not emulate, claiming to be something new; but it doesn't quite come across as anything original, not if you know other cinema. Instead, it wants to be Black Swan, a Fassbinder film, and the original Suspiria all in the same whisper. (all puns intended). Too many ideas, but not enough depth to really give it any legs to dance on.

The disparity in artistic appeal is that in Black Swan, there is a significance to how dance and female puberty is tied into each other on an allegorical level (the protagonist slowly becoming like the swan played in swan lake), while in this Suspiria, there are no connections made between the iconography and the symbols posited by dance and witchcraft. The appeal of such ideas would be in horror, but while it takes a classic approach to horror, I find it better to just watch the original, as it is the real masterpiece in twisting your emotions.

The writer has previouslydone good work (The Terror), and seems like this script probably was good at one time, (conveying ideas of death and rebirth_, but somehow it seems the director lost the writer's work by dismissing any kind of throughline and just threw the kitchen sink at it instead.

Coming in way too long, there seems to be a total lack of self-editing, or perhaps, no other producer was there to keep the story/ideas from getting out of control. Opting more for 'a bunch of ideas that will seem clever,' this movie never quite gets the train out of the station, but instead it tries very hard to force the audience along for a journey in which no destination is ever quite clear.
112 out of 225 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Guardadingno Pretends a Pretentious Play, it's Pretty Pathetic
peter_the_great_scott8 November 2018
I had to find excuses to leave the cinema. Get a popcorn, go to the bathroom, make a phone call. This movie had me so fidgety with boredom and aggravation that the director's arrogance to force audiences to sit through 2.5 hours of drivel is apparent so much on every scene in this movie.

Luca Guardadingno seems to want to be like other great directors, so he just borrows their look and their technique and throws a bunch of loosely connected ideas to the wall and hopes they stick. He brags a knowledge of cinema as if that will save his own messy undisciplined approach to storytelling.

There's a very real kind of pretentiousness permeating everything in this movie. None of it seems to be for the audience enjoyment. Confident filmmaking would be something, and there's plenty of that in most movies, but you get the sense that the surefire vision of most filmmakers is backed up by some kind of discipline and mastery and a respect for the audience experience. Crack the whip, bring the best out of the story, the crew, drive your compulsion to a near perfectionism and you end up with something great. That would have been great.

Because audiences tend to sense the passion within a project.

This is something else entirely. One imagines Guardadingo cracking a whip at his crew while playing on his iphone.

It's just a mess. A messy messy mess. A slow, painful mess. Expect to at least have some unintended laughs at the end. The ending is so so dumb, like a school play made by teenagers.
53 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Almost better then the original
masonsscott1 September 2018
This movie has really good characters, very intense, very bloody, and very just ahhh.... AWESOME I saw it at the arc light in Hollywood test screening you all are gunna love it!
139 out of 295 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Politically juvenile, with a troubling approach to the Feminine, but it's certainly convinced of its own profundity
Bertaut2 December 2018
Released in 1977, Dario Argento's giallo classic Suspiria (1977) has a plot you could fit on a stamp - a young American dancer goes to a famous Dance Academy in Germany, only to find it's a front for a witches coven. By no means is it a good film, with terrible acting, a dire script, and laughable effects, but it's immensely enjoyable, mainly because it doesn't take itself too seriously. Luca Guadagnino's remake is the polar opposite - it has an intricate plot covering all manner of themes and topics, featuring several new characters, and setting everything against a complex socio-political background; the acting and effects are excellent; it takes itself very, very seriously; and it continually tries to prove to the viewer that it is much more than a piece of kitsch horror. The real question, however, is not how similar or dissimilar it is to Argento. The real question is whether the film is a beautifully mounted insightful exploration of female sexuality, a celebration of a self-contained matriarchy set against the destructive chaos of a failing patriarchy, and a psychoanalytical investigation of national trauma and World War II guilt, or is it an overlong, dull, self-important, incoherent mess, that in trying to be both feminist and feminine somehow ends up being both misogynist and misandrist?

Set in "Divided Berlin" in October 1977, the film begins with Patricia Hingle (Chloë Grace Moretz, who appears to be cornering the market in rubbish Hollywood remakes), a student at the prestigious Helena Markos Dance Academy arriving at the home of her psychoanalyst, Dr. Josef Klemperer (Tilda Swinton, credited as Lutz Ebersdorf). Terrified and not making much sense, Hingle tells Klemperer she has discovered something sinister about the Academy and is now in fear for her life. Meanwhile, Susie Bannion (Dakota Johnson), a Mennonite from Ohio, arrives at the Academy hoping to audition. Impressed with her abilities, lead choreographer Madame Blanc (also Tilda Swinton, channelling Pina Bausch), admits her to the Academy, and Susie quickly finds herself dancing the lead in the Academy's upcoming piece, Volk. Elsewhere, Klemperer is trying to find out what happened to his wife, Anke (Jessica Harper, who played Susie in the original), who disappeared in 1944, whilst also investigating the Academy, enlisting the aid of Susie's roommate, Sara Simms (Mia Goth). Meanwhile, the coven holds a fractious election for leader.

Set in October 1977, the events of the Deutscher Herbst (German Autumn) are constantly on the fringes of the narrative, with street demos, bombings, and radio reports of Ulrike Meinhof's death in police custody in May 1976, the imprisonment of Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin, the activities of the far-left, anti-imperialist terrorist group Red Army Faction, the hijacking of Lufthansa Flight 181, and the kidnapping of Hanns Martin Schleyer. And it is in relation to politics where we encounter the first, and most certainly not the last, of the film's problems. Guadagnino, working with screenwriter David Kajganich, employs a pseudo-Jungian approach to show that the country's political turmoil runs parallel to the struggle for control of the coven. The once harmonious group has now devolved, just like Germany, into factionalism, backroom political manoeuvring, subterfuge, and animosity. But to what end does he make this parallel? What is he trying to say? Rarely have I encountered a narrative which employs such blatant yet inconclusive and vague political contextualisation. None of the other political symbols amount to much; they certainly don't inform any grand thematic statement or political thesis. Guadagnino bombards the viewer with empty historical and political themes which do nothing for the central storyline, functioning instead as decoration; trivialising and disconnected.

Also important in relation to the film's politics is Vergangenheitsbewältigung ("Overcoming the past") - essentially, Germany's attempt to come to terms with World War II and the Holocaust. This is primarily seen in Klemperer's search for his wife, which throws up another problem. Klemperer, who is not in Argento's original, is a surrogate for the audience. Nothing wrong with that, it's a standard screenwriting technique used to facilitate more organic exposition. However, Klemperer is a distracting and painfully on-the-nose device to afford Guadagnino a vehicle for a political subplot, which is superfluous to what is happening in the coven. Every reference to Anke could be removed from the film, and it would work just as well. In fact, it would work better. In a story ostensibly about the Feminine, it's rather troubling that the emotional core is male.

Which brings us to another theme; femininity (if not necessarily feminism). Susie is told by head matron Tanner (Angela Winkler) that the academy ensures the "financial autonomy of our girls"; speaking of Nazi Germany, Blanc says the regime wanted women to "close their minds and keep their uteruses open"; Susie is reminded that "before the war, Germany had the strongest women". As Klemperer is played by Swinton, the film effectively has an all-female cast (apart from two cops whose main scene involves the witches hypnotising them and mocking the size of their genitalia). Guadagnino isn't interested in idealising female empowerment, telling Jezebel, "if we talk about the Great Mother, we cannot deny the terrible mother. True feminism is something that doesn't shy away from the complexity of the female identity."

But does the film imply that a powerful group of women is something to be inherently feared? Partly. Indeed, the very theme of witchcraft itself (perhaps the purest historical manifestation of the patriarchy's fear of female agency) carries an undercurrent of misogyny, which is not helped by the nudity and repeated violent objectification of the female body. There's a very thin line between condemning the male gaze and recreating it, and it's a line which Suspiria frequently crosses (for an excellent example of a film which recreates the male gaze for the purpose of satirising and ridiculing it, see Coralie Fargeat's Revenge (2017)). Maybe the problem here is simply that a story inherently about matriarchy, female empowerment, and the importance of motherhood, is a story a man can't tell very well. I'm reminded of Sofia Coppola's remake of The Beguiled (2017), of which she argued, "this story had to be directed by a woman. The essence of it is feminine, it's seen from a female point of view." Suspiria also has a feminine essence, but it doesn't have a female point of view, and one can't help but wonder what a talented female director like Coppola, Mary Harron, Patty Jenkins, or the genius that is Lynne Ramsay would have made of this material.

However, even aside from these problems, there are a plethora of other issues. The character of Blanc is poorly written, and is stripped of agency towards the end of the film. As for the matrons, apart from Tanner, none receive an iota of characterisation; they are simply a jumble of non-individualised extras. The same is true of the dancers. There's a cliché-riddled scene showing Blanc telepathically channelling nightmares to Susie, full of images of skulls, worms, rotting flesh, etc. Nothing we haven't seen a hundred times before. Finally, the film is immensely silly in places. For example, the much-talked-about climax is presided over by what can only be described as a female Jabba the Hut wearing sunglasses.

From an aesthetic point of view, there's a great deal to admire, as one would expect from Guadagnino. Walter Fasano's editing is wonderfully disjointed and cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom's compositions are fascinating, often putting the camera in such a position as to purposely give a less than perfect view of a particular space. Combined, these two techniques are disorientating and frequently defamiliarising, rendering mundane geographical as foreboding and unknowable, almost protean. Contributing to this sense is the blocking, particularly the recurring motif of staging conversations so that one character is off-screen, only visible to the audience via reflection. Especially noticeable is the film's colour, or lack thereof. Whereas Argento's original was awash in garish and exaggerated reds, purples, blues, greens, and yellows, Guadagnino's remake was conceived as "winterish", with as limited a use of primary colours as possible; grey, beige, and brown predominate. Giulia Piersanti's costumes are also superb, with Susie's wardrobe noticeably changing from conservative dresses and sweatpants to more revealing tank tops and shorts as she gains in confidence.

Self-indulgent like little else I can think of, Suspiria is absolutely convinced of its own profundity. Far, far too long and far too self-serious, its themes and messages are poorly iterated, it's insanely dull for long periods, and it's badly unfocused. It's almost an hour longer than the original, and, honestly, it uses that hour to say precisely nothing of interest. The simple fact is that the slight story at the film's core (a coven of witches using a dance academy as a front) is unable to bear the massive weight of themes and narrative diversions heaped upon it; the vehicle just can't carry the message. Its politics are no more insightful than tabloid headlines, and serve only to detract from what is supposed to be the narrative's focus. Ultimately, it has little to say about femininity, feminism, political protest, the Holocaust, Cold War Germany, or World War II guilt, but it damn sure works hard to convince us it has a great deal to say about such topics. As cold as the Berlin winter it depicts, Suspiria is equal parts emotionless, mechanical, and dull.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Very disappointing. Embarrassing cringe-fest
arrowmeetstarget23 October 2018
I was looking forward to this, but there is not even a story here. The fact that it is an almost 3 hour movie makes that very difficult to sit through. I thought it was cheesy, not really scary, not really horror. I found myself cringing for the sake of the director or whomever was driving it off the cliff that no one was warning them. In short, the filmmakers seem to want to treat the project like a graduate film school thesis. It tries to push the limit of sensation, but ends up a pseudo intellectual bore. They shouldnt have remade Argento's movie unless they could make it enjoyable. Recommend watching something else with your three hours.
78 out of 164 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
German Autumn meets Italian horror
Quadruplex2 November 2018
Set in the "German Autumn" of 1977 the movie tries to confront the supernatural horror of "Suspira" with the earthly horror of the RAF terror. But like the psychoanalyst Dr. Klemperer (Tilda Swindon) who is not able to help his patient Patricia the director fails to give some analytical insight in the nature of horror itself. We get some well composed pictures, a moody light and some good acting but the director missed his target. He has studied the history of the Italian cinema exploiting and dismembering the human body. But while those cheaply produced pictures often gave some insight in the nature of horror, terror and fascist politics this movie is just set in a gloomy Berlin struggling with its Nazi-past, the wall and a leftist terror group. It was not a happy time that message is delivered but unlike many delTorro movies it fails to mirror the horror of reality with the horror of the spiritual world - well unless you take mirror literally.
46 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unintentional Comedy - but not as funny as calling it a masterpiece...
peter_the_great_scott6 November 2018
The funniest thing I've seen in awhile. The last 2o minutes of the movie I heard more laughs in the theatre than I do at any seth rogen "comedy." I give it a point for trying, but it's just trying very hard to seem smart, while leaving no substance until only the thing left to fight any breath for is the vapor of "you just dont understand art."

Kitsch.

*Before i go any further, I've seen 6 or 7 bad reviews get removed from here in the week or so beforehand. There's a lot more people out there who dont like this movie than is allowed to say it, apparently. Be wary of the campaigning.

A perfect 10? No way.

I'd like it more if it didnt seem so pretentious, self important (rather than telling us a story), and arrogant.. Why couldnt it be like any good art form and just actually in any kind of service to the audience's enjoyment? "Six acts and an epilogue?" For 2.5 hours? REally? Ok. I will take the ticket, but I'm expecting to be really moved and really absorbed in the journey. Forget it. This movie is like watching paint dry. I was invited on a six act, plus epilogue, 2.5 hour journey and then forced to watch a mess. Irritated, I'd have given it more points for effort if it hadnt seemed so lazy and arrogant.

Ok, 2.5 hours, very bold of you, so take me on that journey then, but in order to be that bold, indeed, it better be a masterpiece. A masterpiece has to be an actual master of form, master of storytelling, master of character direction, master of dealing with the team's talents, etc before you force others to watch whatever you dictate they should. This requires a level of meticulous detail and effort that goes far beyond ordinary thresholds. It requires much more care for the work that is being put into it and the people you invite to it. They dont have to like it, or want to go, you know. So you better care about them.

This movie is NOT Dr. Zhivago. It is not an "epic." Publicity like that is also why the word "genius" doesnt mean a hill of beans anymore. Lawrence of Arabia is an "epic," homies. This is just long. And it's long because it is lazy. Zhivago, Lawrence are epic weavings of tremendous character arcs.

This is faux and shallow passing itself off as value; it's like Slavoj Zizek on celluloid, and just as incomprehensible as his blabbery tongue. Russell Brand type "knowsomethingish" superficial nothingness.

It's wayyyy too lazy and self important to pull together a mastery of the creative team and medium. You get the sense of a tyrant yelling at the editor or the team: "NO- it's my movie and it has to have all those pointless things in it, because i said so. Put more stuff in it or you're fired!"

How is it mastery if it seems like no one was editing it? I'm sure there was someone saying we should edit more, but I cant help imagine it going like "no, it's perfect, i am genius. " :-D This suffers the same way a lot of Christopher Nolan's movies suffer from = a real lack of self editing or listening to what doesnt work.

ugh.

People putting this movie on a pedastal either aren't really expressing why it is even good. It seems like either they are paid to write good reviews for PR purposes, havent seen a lot of movies, or they just like something because it seems artsy fartsy. I'm the first to be thirsty for more independent cinema, less super hero stories, but this movie is not really helping us get there.

This movie has no plot points or unifying structure - these are elements of mastery in storytelling. Even most of David Lynch's movies have an inner logic that runs like a thread through all the quirkiness, maintains tone, and sticks to a language that piques interest in the characters. This movie just borrows from other directors.

Being able to direct and weave a story together requires an extraordinary amount of development and work, and this movie has no hint of that. i'm sure the writer had a good script at some time, but it seems like someone wanted to just throw anything and everything at it in hopes someone would like them. Cheesy 70s camera tricks and bad frame rate changes mix in strangely with bad cgi, poor costumes and "avant garde dance theory" choreograhy. It seems to want to make a point on feminism (spare us the politics please), be a horror movie, be an homage to other great filmmakers, and be an arty "epic" all in one. I do remember good cinema, and all of those movies knew what they wanted to be and say. Remember the nineties? Sigh...

Subplots wander as aimlessly as tilda Swinton in a fake looking man costume, and just like the conundrum of why she is even in that costume instead of a man, also these subplots never get resolved or have any clearer of an aim. How is that mastery?

I went home and binge watched some great movies just to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

*I wrote 2 reviews here because my first one didnt seem to be published.
50 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worse kind of bad, it's BORING!
aiqbal665 November 2018
One of the worst movies of 2018. As I get older, I feel time is flying by. Not today... while watching this boring piece of crap for 2 1/2 hours I felt like time wasn't moving. Several plot elements including a holocaust survivor and terrorism go nowhere and lengthen the movie by over an hour. The dance sequences reminded me of Staying Alive in the way that the director doesn't really understand the art form. The plot? Who knows and who cares. Near the end, I was just happy it was finally over.

On the plus side, the film has lots of atmosphere taking place in 1977 Germany, but that's about it on the positives. A film needs to be a lot more than great cinematography, it needs to tell a engaging and compelling story.
47 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
We should left the old movies in the past
bigblack200912 October 2018
Every scene in Suspiria is like a Instagram post rather than a movie. The beauty try to compensate for the lack of substance. We find master strokes from Guadagnino and a nano-thin plot that is an excuse to throw sumptuous visuals at the viewer. Argento was right. Remaking Suspiria was a bad idea to begin with. The movie by Dario Argento was maybe a child of its own times. It's very delicate; almost childish. It' just doesn't translate to modern cinema and the attempt came out as very bland, boring and without a soul. Simply try to recreate what worked in the past is not a safe way to success. We would do best to remember that.
85 out of 183 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is the worst remake I've ever seen...I'm now done with remakes forever...
The_King_In_Yellow4 November 2018
I'm a fan of the original. I even gleefully bought the 40th anniversary edition to show my wife before we attended the new version. I talked my friends into coming out for what I promised was sure to be an homage to something that was way ahead of its time. I said it was the "grandfather of ambient, visceral slasher movies with a paranormal twist." I said it was influential. All of that is true.

The new movie has absolutely nothing for the fans of the original.

If you watched the original (and you're an idiot), and you said to yourself, "I really wish this movie had 50 more minutes of dance in it," then this is your baby.

If you watched the original, and you thought, "Hey, I wonder what it would be like if I broke the pacing over my knee, crow-barred in a needless WWII tragedy from an entirely inconsequential side-character and ham-handed something about good witches vs. evil witches"...then, I guess this is your version?

Jeez.

Utter garbage. Even on its own terms, it fails as a decent horror film.

Don't let anyone else touch Argento's work. Let it age like fine wine. Some artists are unique, and their vision sticks out. Let his library breath. Enjoy the original version.
52 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I had hoped for so much more... don't waste your time.
pstannard29 October 2018
I was really hyped for this movie, but so, so disappointed after leaving the theater. An excellent soundtrack and promising trailer aside - it was dreary, tedious, confusing, overly long, and utterly ridiculous by the end. I'm a fan of art films and slow movies in general, but trust me when I tell you that there's nothing redeeming about this 2.5 hours of dreck. Do yourself a favor and avoid this one. It's not a case of this reviewer "not getting it" or thinking "it's just not to this guys's taste" - it's simply clunky and poorly constructed. You'll be bored and entirely indifferent to the mess of plot by the time credits roll. I'll give it one star for Thom Yorke's worthy contribution.
75 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worse than "mother!" - 2 hours of nothing. 30 minutes of kitsch.
benjaminreturns29 October 2018
Here we have almost three hours of boredom, then thirty minutes of absolute silliness. "Mother!" got panned really hard by critics because of the same poison this movie suffers from - pretentious nonsense and complete disconnect from the audience. The belief that audiences really love to sit there for three hours and let you show off what you can do is disconnected from the sophistication of the audience's own tastes. This isn't the 70s anymore and people now have the power to choose freely and turn off what doesnt pull them in.

Don't waste your time with this one, unless you like to sleep to the sound of Thom Yorke music, but you can do that at home with better music. It's almost three hours that you wont get back.
62 out of 130 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie is so bad.
yayamafiya-552117 November 2018
People talk about visuals of this movie but I am surprised about this. The shots are what they should be, like any movie.

But why do people say this is lush photography? I can find 5 minutes of any ridley scott movie and it would be more lush than 50 best shots this director has. I don't get it. I think it's maybe because very little else is good in his movies and the photography is the best only choice this director has to seem good.

That's a bad sign. Hire a good cameraman and you always will have that. Great films has great stories, great direction (of actors, not just camera), great sense of pace in editing (if this director can learn to edit it in two hours it would have been something, bravo!), AND good looking photography. But only it has photography. I was thinking about this movie a lot, but not because I want to understand it.

I was thinking how it's possible this movie was made and can be so bad? This movie just plain is BORING. The end is FUNNY. The tone is not oppressive in a good way, like Pixote or Schindler's List, it is oppressive like it is if you looking at a blank white wall for two hours and half.

Nothing happens in this story so the boring of the colors only makes it seem like a very long journey into mediocre and petty boring boring boring.

Please don't go see this movie. Better to do something with your life. WHY this movie was made and how do a director like this get the money to make it? - sometimes I think we live in bizarro world where opposite happens than what should.
40 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed

 
Christmas in Theater Eight | Aquarion Logos (26) | Czego życzy sobie kobieta (2017)