Inferno

I only got around to watching this recently....for the first time perhaps!? I may have saw this when i was 10 or 11 when it was first released in the 'good old' days of the pre-cert nasties era. I've been going through a horror/slasher nasties nostalgia phase recently and I've been re watching Dario Argento's vintage slasher movies, Suspiria, Tenebrae etc, but after watching this i just thought....Terrible!! What was all the fuss about and why on earth was it banned?! There's a awkward scene of a REAL cat eating a REAL mouse which is completely unnecessary and if filmed deliberately for the movie is totally wrong and unethical. The film itself is abominable. And what about that soundtrack - Keith Emerson and Dario Argneto are not good bedfellows, what were they thinking? In fact i feel the soundtrack almost completely ruins a potentially good film....It's absurd and totally out of contex to whats happening on screen. I actually found myself laughing in parts at the incongruity of what i was seeing and hearing. I suppose you never watch a Dario Argento film for its acting,( i know a lot also gets lost in the dubbing) but i felt the acting was exceptionally bad and the cats were probably the best actors in the movie! The colour of the movie was nice and staging and sets are typical Dario Argento. Where was all the spectacular death scenes i've read so much about? I don't believe i watched a truncated version,(Anchor Bay region 1). It reminded me of the first time i saw Lucio Fulci The House by the Cemetery, equally overrated and very tame. I'm sorry it's just not a favourite and i cant see why this is considered a classic of it's genre? The one thing i do like is the poster..an absolute classic, filmwise a major disappointment!!

It's a film made from a bad, convoluted script. And if the script's bad, the movie will be a shambles. In fact, Argento's "Inferno" was so awful, I had no choice but to abandon it. Besides the weak script, the audio and audio effects are poor and laughable. Argento delivers great lighting and color, which is undoubtedly his trademark, but it's wasted on this pathetic attempt at horror and suspense. Don't believe the hype that this is a horror tale worth watching. If anything, it's worth forgetting.

"The Three Mothers" are a trio of nasty, unseen witches/sisters whose rein of terror leaves behind a string of bizarre, grisly murders stretching from Germany to Italy to America. A young woman (Irene Miracle) renting out a room in a multiple-story, Gothic mansion in New York City (also head quarters to the witches) becomes obsessed with a book on the sisters and ends up meeting a gruesome demise for her meddling. Her brother (Leigh McCloskey) receives a distressed letter and returns from musicology studies in Rome to investigate, is thrust into a series of grisly murders and coming face to face with the spirit of death itself! Argento's follow-up to SUSPIRIA is poorly acted by the leads and often confusing and senseless. However, it's also surreal, beautifully atmospheric, gorgeously photographed and strikingly colorful. Keith Emerson's thundering keyboard score another plus. Beware the Key/20th Century-Fox VHS version that's missing over twenty minutes. Lamberto Bava was the assistant director. His father, Italian horror stylist Mario Bava, in his last film (he died in 1980), gets credit for both shooting it and FX.

Directed by Dario Argento, a well-known horror specialist who hails from Italy, with over 30 years experience in the business. Argento has a considerable cult following for titles like Profondo rosso, Phenomena, Due occhi diabolici, Il fantasma dell'opera and Tenebrae. I don't think it's a secret to discuss how different European films are in comparison to the American flavor. While it would be a lie to deny the obvious influence several famous American directors have on European work, certain brilliant individuals, like Argento, take a different approach when it comes to psychological stimulation. In my opinion, Dario's strong suit is definitely his cinematography. It's apparent that his genius couldn't truly be successful without a competent production team, but it takes a certain insight to think "outside of the box" in terms of aesthetics; his style has been recognized and praised internationally. But to get down to it, the premise of Inferno initially follows a young poetess, Rose Elliot, who comes into contact with a book sold to her by a local antique dealer. The book documents the existence of an ancient triumvirate of witches known as "The Three Mothers": Mater Suspiriorum, Mater Tenebrarum, and Mater Lachrymarum. This movie concerns Mater Tenebrarum, or the Mother of Darkness and Shadows. She soon discovers the location of where Mater Tenebrarum is kept. Meanwhile her brother Mark, a music student who resides in Rome, receives her letter about the new-found discovery and decides to investigate in New York City. Argento would plan on releasing a trilogy of movies concerning this evil trio, starting with 1978's Suspiria - moving along to 1980's Inferno, and finally ending his series with 2007's La terza madre (also known as The Mother of Tears). To discuss the elements present in Inferno, however, I can say this: the cinematography was outstanding. He effectively utilized a blue and red lighting technique, heavily laden with black shadows to set an emotional atmosphere. I never fully understood what it meant to appreciate the artistry of his work until I watched this film. It's unfortunate that the plot is broken up and incoherent - I often felt confused. They exercised the idea of focusing on a new main character every 10 minutes or so...leaving you to wonder, "Ohhh okay, so they'll follow her for a little bit." Until she dies. Then you are left saying to yourself, "Huh? Oh. Oh okay, him then." Then he dies. There is absolutely no attachment to any of the characters. They often leave certain sequences unexplained and choose not to revisit them. It's for this reason that I rated this title lowly - a decision I'm upset about because of how beautifully shot it was. If you're a fan of Argento this one is worth watching, just don't expect much - stick with some of his other titles.

Inferno, Dario Argento's second film in his Three Mothers trilogy, features some great death scenes and inventive set-pieces, and yet the film remains my least favourite from the Italian auteur. Whilst individual moments certainly impress (an underwater scene at the beginning is particularly scary), I find the film as a whole something of a disappointment. My first major issue is with the plot (or lack of one)... Leigh McCloskey plays Mark Elliot, a man searching for his sister Rose (Irene Miracle), who has gone missing whilst investigating the legend of The Three Mothers—three wicked witches each living in a different part of the world in specially designed buildings. Mark discovers that the apartment in which Rose was living is situated in the building created for Mater Tenebrarum, the cruelest of the Mothers, who is keen not to be disturbed. So much so, that she kills anyone who comes close to discovering her secret hideout. Which leads me to ask the question 'why don't people just leave her alone?' Seems to me that if you don't go poking your nose where it's not wanted, you won't wind up the as the victim in one of Argento's elaborate death scenes. Throw in some rubbish about a cat-hating antiques dealer (who gets attacked by rats and is killed by a hot-dog seller), an unnecessary appearance from Daria Nicolodi, and a confusing finalé, and you have one of the least satisfying stories that Argento has ever committed to celluloid. The other big problem that I have with Inferno is the damn irritating lighting: I'm sure that many Argento fans feel that Inferno is a visual triumph—a feast for the eyes that actually transcends the need for a logical storyline—but I cannot stand the constant overuse of primary-colours . I would have much preferred a plot that I could understand over the blatant lighting nightmare that drenches practically every frame. I didn't really like Suspiria, and enjoyed Inferno even less. Which means that I may be the only Argento fan that isn't looking forward to his next film: the Mother of Tears—the last in the Three Mothers trilogy.

Two years after he shot his masterpiece "Suspiria", horror director Dario Argento made "Inferno", a sequel, of sorts. Unlike it's predecessor however, it meet lots of bad reviews and it didn't get a proper release. Which is a shame really, considering how it's one of Argento's finest works, containing two of his most beautiful screen moments (Rose's descent into the flooded ballroom and the scene at the lecture hall with Mark). While it may not be as good as it's predecessor, it's still more than a worthy follow up, specially when compared to "Mother of Tears", the god-awful second sequel to "Suspiria". Again, with have a gorgeous color palette and brilliant set design, there is a haunting atmosphere of dread throughout, a great soundtrack (Keith Emerson replaces the Goblins in this one, and does a pretty good work), some very creepy moments and of course, the brilliant death scenes, Argento's trademark. The film also excels in creating a dreamlike feel that surpasses anything remotely surreal that we've seen in "Suspiria". "Inferno" is probably the closest thing to a recorded nightmare I've ever seen. It's also much different than the other genre flicks of it's time. In fact, it's feel much closer to the work of Alain Resnais or Luis Bunuel than to the films of say George A. Romero or even his Italian contemporaries such as Fulci or Bava Jr. Of course, the film is not without it's flaws. The biggest flaw of the film is the protagonist. Argento shows us three candidates for the role of the protagonist, only to kill each and everyone of them in brutal and mean-spirited ways (they were clever twists, I admit). At the end, we are left with the one guy we'd never expect to be the 'the final boy'. That is, Leigh McCloskey as Mark. The thing with this character is, it's badly written and badly acted. Maybe it was Argento's intention to have the main character look high from the beginning to end, possibly to enhance the film's state-of-dream, but it simply doesn't work. Also, there are some surprisingly cheesy and unintentionally funny lines that are almost impossible to seat through. Still, the film has more than enough redeeming qualities, and it is one of the greatest masterpieces of the macabre - a definite acid trip to Hell. Even if it's not for everyone, it should be seen by anyone interested in horror.

'Inferno' is the kind of movie - like Gilliams 'Brazil' - where a few of us will leave the theater enriched by the experience, but there's also the sour-faced crowd dismissing it as the worst crap ever. I came upon Argento's movies just recently, looking for good horror films. Now I've enjoyed Suspiria, Tenebre and Inferno. At first his original style came as a shock. I can understand those that, accustomed to hollywoodian narrative, find his movies to be full of faults. I wouldn't even recommend them if you're looking for 'ordinary', mainstream horror. 'Suspiria' reminded me of the 1933 'Vampyr' by danish director Carl Dreyer. 'Inferno' has echoes of German director Fritz Lang, for instance his 1933 The 'Testament of Doctor Mabuse'. Much of the Argento way of doing things has a silent movie era feel to it. The acting is visually exaggerated, and the dialogue is often wooden - the awful dubbing of english voices in the versions I saw added to this effect. Argento makes different choices. The music, for instance, is not adding atmosphere as a soundtrack - it is a full frontal assault, meant to be noticed and impossible to ignore. The cinematic choices of camera angles, lightning and so on are stylish and unique in their unrelenting artistic ambition. I can't even begin to describe the style. Even if I mentioned Dreyer and Lang, Argento is more expressionist than impressionist, but for lack of good words I'll shut my mouth about this subject. I have to defend Argento against the claims that 'Inferno' has an incoherent plot. It simply doesn't - the story is fairly straight and linear. The evil depicted is not rational, and we are often left in the dark as to the acts and motives of the evil forces. But this is part of the horror and suspense. I won't go into more details about the plot, as there are many excellent user comments here, and this is not really a review, just some comments. Some parts of 'Inferno' are pure beauty - exact scenes, feeling more like a storyboard coming to life in the imagination than as a real movie. The design of the house of the second Mother is fascinating - modern and medieval at the same time. Finally, some individual scenes are truly scaring, which is rare in horror movies - especially the underwater scene.

I have thus far seen Suspiria, Phenomena, Deep Red, and Tenebre. I have enjoyed all of them, especially Suspiria which to me is a perfect 10/10. However, this film exhibited all of the weaknesses and none of the strengths I have seen in Argento's films. There is essentially no plot, and the characters actions make very little sense throughout the movie. The visuals, which are usually the strong point in Argento's films, are just plain cheesy in Inferno. Almost every scene is lit from one side by a bright blue light, and from the other by a bright red light. It looks like you're watching some cheap 80's television horror serial. The music is OK, but not on par with that in his other movies. In short, this movie is a real disappointment and not worth seeing. 3/10

People kill me. I am a big time Argento fan but this film is garbage if this was made by anyone but Dario you would never hear anything about it but since he made it it's the best thing since fish and grits. Im sorry but this film stinks. Defender's of this usually agree that it's plotless but they say it's all about the color scheme, nice colors in the film they are nice the music is cool too but that only takes you so far this movie has no plot. it's a collection of images that are a long way from Deep Red go with that Tenebrae hell even the Stendhal Syndrome is better his heart wasnt in this this is evident after the first half hour. Do yourself a favor save your money and you will thank me later

I'm sorry, but this movie was a travesty. I completely respect Argento's style and understand that plot is not what he concerns himself but this film was a waste of time. At least in Suspiria and Deep Red there was enough of a plot to sustain one's interest. In this there was absolutely no plot whatsoever. Even so, this is not truly what I disliked about this film. Where his other films may lack 'substance' (I find that they have substance, just in a different form) they made up for it with nightmarish insanity and heart-stopping violence. This has none of that. The sets are Gothic and beautiful, that's it. I hate to sound like a morbid sadist but what redeems Argento's films the most are his awe-inspiring death sequences. This has someone getting stabbed, and not in a very interesting way either. The score as well is a lard disappointment. It just doesn't creep me out at all. Why he didn't enroll those zany Goblin musicians is beyond me. Maybe he wanted to expand his horizons. I can sort of understand why he did this movie (perhaps to expand his vision of nightmarish horror?) but it just lacks any real tension of any kind. An awful movie. I'm sorry to say it.