Suspiria

b

This film is a piece of art. Please ignore the negative reviews and judge for yourselves. It is a complete contrast from Dario Argento's movie and is best viewed as a separate piece of work. While Argento's masterpiece is rich in colour this is the opposite and very muted throughout. Thom York's soundtrack is haunting next to the stunning visuals and works perfectly. Dakota Johnson and Tilde Swinton stand out with a bubbling tension between them throughout. If you are a Fan of art house horror films then this movie is for you !

I sat through the entire film, and honestly do not understand any part of the plot. The film is basically a collection of bizarre scenes. Many scenes are gory, but they are so over the top that they become funny instead of scary. I can't imagine a film that can be worse than this.

IfDakota Johnson couldn't pull of 50 Shades of Grey why give her this role. The movie itself felt quite disturbing. By disturbing I mean that I do think that if this was released to people that like theatre and plays then it would have been a hit. But as a movie all i could think of was ''WTF!!!''. Dakota Johnson has a bland face. She has the same damn expression for everything. Unless she says ''i'm crying'' and tears fall down her face then you'll never know what is going on. Fortunately, this movie was so dull it will probably quickly fade from my memory.

This movie was made to showcase how utterly brilliant the original SUSPIRIA was. A true masterwork. Thanks to all of those involved with this. Your hard work has truly made Dario Argento's work shine that much more.

Lord love a duck, but this is a bad movie all on its own. To call it Suspiria just makes it worse. The writing and direction come off as both never having seen Suspiria and not at all understanding the story...which is laughably sad, since Suspiria's story is written in the manner of a fairy tale. It's simple as can be. This film, however, manages to completely mess it up in every way possible. Changes are made, arbitrarily and needlessly, to the point where it's absolutely unidentifiable as Suspiria; no part of it has anything to do with the real thing, aside from some similar names. It's also remarkably misogynistic, as well as being misanthropic, which the original, despite being made forty years ago, was not. It obsesses with dance and yet doesn't do dance at all remotely well. Yet we as the audience are supposed to recognize the things they do as graceful and authentic, even that the lead Dakota Johnson -- who was terrible, and an even worse dancer than she is an actress -- trained over a year to achieve just the right look and understanding of dance...when she doesn't even do correct spotting, a fundamental aspect of dance, within the first half-hour. And the choreography is so bad. It's embarrassing, laughable, and just execrable. It's not artistic, it's not graceful at all, and it looks like something a group of teenagers threw together to celebrate something they clearly don't understand but vehemently insist they do. Everything about this film is wrong. It's the definition of "tryhard", like a little brother who lives in his older sibling's shadow and tries to change things to their diametric opposite extreme in order to distinguish himself. The acting is shockingly bad, though that may be due to poor direction. The photography is also pretty and atrocious, in turns. You'll see a shot and think "that's pretty", and within five minutes, there will be at least one shot that looks like someone shot it on their phone, complete with manual run-ups to zoom. Cheap and amateurish. The soundtrack, as much as I wanted to look forward to it, is also not good. But then, neither is the sound production. It's altogether too quiet most of the time, or it's so fuzzy that it becomes impossible to understand. Not that them having huge stretches in German, which they don't subtitle, helps the coherency of the film; the extent to which the viewer feels alienated and just plainly bored is made far worse by this tendency. The visuals are bland and boring as they are patently stupid. There is literally no reason to watch this film calling itself by the title of something it's not, when you could watch a shorter, less pretentious, better-acted, more visually entertaining, better-directed, more coherent film with far better music, made forty years ago. This movie is a chore, and it doesn't deserve the attention for half of its runtime. This is exactly the kind of "reimagining" or "homage" everyone fears for something they love: a hackjob made by a pretentious ass who doesn't even understand what they're doing or what they're supposedly paying homage to in the first place. It doesn't deserve the title, or the names of any of the characters...which are incidentally its only resemblance to Dario Argento's classic horror masterpiece. Is it perfect? Nah. But even Mother of Tears was better than this piece of trash.

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.

Just spent 2 hours asking myself "WTF am I watching?".... It's total nonsense despite having watched the original Suspiria long time ago. Also, have some earplugs nearby cause you're gonna end up deaf with all these hysterical screams.

The director Guadagnino took the challenge after the other attemps by other directors failed to come to fruition. Let's face it, it'd be very difficult to top the original Suspiria. I see remaking a classic film very unnecessary and as a way to get fame just by its notorious name. I could also think of Dario Argento not liking the use of his name on the credits. However I don't even think that he cares about watching this film. To make it short, this film is a fusion of Harry Potter and Suspiria. One who has seen the original can then decide for oneself if that mess is going to work. Some may see it as a work of art which is open for interpretation and any feeling that arise makes it an experience in itself. In my opinion it's a movie seriosly lacking on every aspect. It's not stylish, it's not scary, it has zero respect for the audience and their expectations and it's a movie that the director just made for himself alone and not for the audience. It could have profited from not having the burden of the notorious name "Suspiria" and high expectations. It should have been titled "Mysteria" or something similar. It appears that many movie critics on the mainstream media are liking this film just because they see it as a mysterious art movie. I think of a conspiracy that these days movie reviews are just extentions of advertising. Cinema is struggling to get the crowds because these days hardly anything is worth watching on the silver screen. After seeing this film I'm just going to trust my instincs more than any reviews. Any movie receiving five stars and oscar nomination probably are the ones to avoid and any film directed by Luca Guadagnino. Of course one could just enjoy the experience, because it is said to be art and have zero expectations of anything and have nothing better to do for two and half hours.

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.