Search

» » Suspiria (2018)

Short summary

A darkness swirls at the center of a world-renowned dance company, one that will engulf the artistic director, an ambitious young dancer, and a grieving psychotherapist. Some will succumb to the nightmare. Others will finally wake up.
Susie Bannion is a young American ballerina who travels to Berlin to study dancing at the Markos Tanz Company, one of the world's most renowned schools under Madame Blanc's management. On her very first day, one of the students who had been recently expelled from the school is murdered. As this appalling happening does not seem to be an isolated occurrence, the brilliant new student soon begins to suspect that the school might be involved in the homicide. Her mistrust heightens when Sarah, one of the girls at the school, tells her that Pat, before being killed, confided to her that she knew and guarded a terrifying dark secret.

Trailers "Suspiria (2018)"

Jessica Harper, who played Suzy in the original Suspiria (1977), appears late in the film as Dr. Klemperer's wife Anke. In an interview with her and screenwriter David Kajganich at the film's Fantastic Fest premiere in Austin, TX, Kajganich revealed he and director Luca Guadagnino thought Anke would be the best character for Harper to play, Guadagnino contacted her and proposed the idea to her, which she immediately agreed to - and then she immediately contacted the Berlitz School to learn and practice German for her scenes, as she had lied to Guadagnino about speaking the language. For Harper, the hardest thing to do was get the dialect right while walking backward.

Dakota Johnson completed 2 years of ballet training in preparation for her role in this film.

Tilda Swinton's performance as 'Dr. Josef Klemperer' came about when both Swinton and director Luca Guadagnino thought that in a movie centering on women, it felt right to have a woman also play the principle male character. During filming, only a few cast members and virtually none of the extras knew that it was really Swinton in heavy make-up. They purposely credited a fictitious German actor called 'Lutz Ebersdorf' as Klemperer to hide this fact. The ruse would have gone as far as stating that Ebersdorf had already passed away during the editing phase, which would have explained his absence at the movie's premiere, but Swinton and Guadagnino thought that this went a step too far. They did leave a clue in the name tying this alias to Swinton: 'Eber' meaning 'boar' or 'swine', and 'dorf' meaning 'town' in German. Therefore, Swine-town, or 'Swinton'.

Although rumors that the actor playing Dr. Josef Klemperer (credited as "Lutz Ebersdorf") was really Tilda Swinton in disguise had circulated since the movie's filming, it was not actually confirmed until Swinton and director Luca Guadagnino were interviewed by the New York Times in October 2018. In that interview, Swinton clarified her prior denials: "'The answer to the question to me, "Are you playing Dr. Klemperer in Suspiria?" is always that Dr. Klemperer is played by Lutz Ebersdorf,' Swinton told me last week in an email. Yet there is a more specific question she has been waiting for someone to put to her, 'and curiously, to date, nobody has thought of it.' That query, if anyone had bothered to ask, is 'Are you playing Lutz Ebersdorf?' And the answer, Swinton said, is 'an unequivocal yes.'" When asked why she played the double role, Swinton answered, "for the sheer sake of fun above all. As my grandmother would have it - a motto to live and die by - 'Dull Not To.'"

The music score is the debut score by Radiohead singer Thom Yorke, who succeeds Radiohead co-composers Jonny Greenwood and Phil Selway into film scoring. Greenwood is notable for scoring the films Paul Thomas Anderson and Lynne Ramsay. Selway scored Let Me Go (2017).

In an interview with Elle magazine, actress Dakota Johnson revealed the intensity of the shoot had..."fucked [her] up so much that [she] had to go to therapy."

The subtitles in German have a red dropshadow, the subtitles in French, blue.

Unlike the original film, which uses exaggerated colors, Guadagnino conceived Suspiria as "winterish" and bleak, absent of primary colors.

Luca Guadagnino began filming 4 months after finishing work on Call Me by Your Name (2017) in 2016.

David Kajganich wanted the dance to directly reflect women's movements and emotions, so the inspiration for the choreography came from female dancers Mary Wigman, Pina Bausch, and Sasha Waltz. Modern dance is notably much more integral to the plot of this remake than ballet was to its original version Suspiria (1977), despite both being set in dance academies.

At the beginning of the film, a sign on the left side of the train station where Suzy is walking reads "Suspiria".

Luca Guadagnino (who was originally attached to the project as a producer), was announced at the Sept. '15 Venice Film Festival to direct, and was planning to bring the entire cast of his film Päikesest pimestatud (2015) for Suspiria (2018), but only Tilda Swinton and Dakota Johnson returned for this movie.

The film incorporates stylized dance sequences choreographed by Damien Jalet, which form part of its representation of witchcraft. Principal photography took place in late 2016 and early 2017 in Varese and Berlin. The score was composed by Radiohead singer Thom Yorke, who took inspiration from the krautrock created around the time of the film's setting.

A remake of Suspiria was announced in the early 2000s, after Guadagnino had acquired the option from the original film's writers, Argento and Daria Nicolodi. Guadagnino offered the project to director David Gordon Green, but it was canceled due to financing conflicts. In September 2015, Guadagnino confirmed his plans to direct, with the film described as an "homage" to the 1977 film rather than a direct remake. A new screenplay was drafted by Kajganich, who had written Guadagnino's previous project, A Bigger Splash (2015). Kajganich set the film during the German Autumn of 1977 to explore themes of generational guilt in Germany following World War II.

At 2 hours and 32 minutes, this remake of Suspiria is nearly an hour longer than the original.

The first footage premiered at the 2018 CinemaCon presentation. It was said to be so 'intense and disturbing', that some audience members left, midway through.

Apart from the two detectives and a handful of minor roles, many without speaking lines, the entire cast of Suspiria (2018) is female; even Dr. Klemperer, who is credited as "Lutz Ebersdorf", is played by Tilda Swinton in heavy make-up. Given his comments that this interpretation's visual style is inspired by the films of Rainer Werner Fassbinder, this could be seen as director Luca Guadagnino's tribute to Fassbinder's Die bitteren Tränen der Petra von Kant (1972), which was comprised of an entirely female ensemble. Also indicative of this Fassbinder tribute is the casting of Ingrid Caven as housemother Miss Vendegast. In the early 1970s, Caven was married to Fassbinder and appeared in many of his movies.

In 2008, Natalie Portman was set to star in the film, with David Gordon Green as director.

Posters of David Bowie can be seen in Sara's bedroom. Tilda Swinton appeared in David Bowie's "(The Stars) Are our tonight" video, appearing as David Bowie himself.

This film marked the fifth collaboration between director Luca Guadagnino and actress Tilda Swinton. The previous were The Protagonists (1999), Tilda Swinton: The Love Factory (2002), Ma olen armastus (2009) and Päikesest pimestatud (2015).

Director Luca Guadagnino enjoyed working with Vanda Capriolo on Call Me by Your Name (2017) so much, he immediately offered her a role in this film.

The song Patricia intermittently sings in Klemperer's office is "The Fairest of the Seasons" by Nico.

Dakota Johnson said in the Autumn/Winter '15 issue of AnOther magazine that she was already deep in ballet training to prepare for the film. In November 2015, director Luca Guadagnino said in an interview with Italian website Daruma View, that Tilda Swinton would be in the movie along with Johnson, and filming would begin in 2016.

Principal photography began in Varese, Italy on October 31, 2016, and was completed in Berlin on March 10, 2017. Additional filming had taken place at the Palazzo Estense in December 2016. The Grand Hotel Campo dei Fiori in Varese served as the primary shooting location, serving as the Markos Dance Academy. Like its predecessor, Suspiria was shot on 35mm film stock.

Judi Dench was rumoured to play Madame Blanc, when David Gordon Green was to direct.

In order to help distinguish Suspiria (2018) from Suspiria (1977), director Luca Guadagnino chose not to use the vibrant color palette used in the original.

At the end of the film a woman can be seen walking out of the front garden of Klemperer's former estate holding a book entitled "The Great Mother." The full title of the tome is "The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype" written by Erich Neumann. According to the description, the book "explores the Great Mother as a primordial image of the human psyche." The book also describes how the "feminine" can be depicted as a goddess or a monster. All of these themes are explored in the film, especially towards the end during the ritual.

Suspiria premiered at the 75th Venice International Film Festival on September 1, 2018.

This movie marks the third horror-thriller film for Mia Goth after starring in Marrowbone (2017) and Vastumürk tervisele (2016).

The infamous maggots scene from the original film was ultimately not recreated for this film. It was, however, referenced briefly in one of Susy's dreams where a few worms start to fall on her face.

When David Gordon Green was set to direct, Isabelle Fuhrman was announced to play Suzy Bannion, Isabelle Huppert as Madame Blanc and Janet McTeer as Miss Tanner. Michael Nyqvist and Antje Traue were also cast, but it is unknown whether they would play updates of original characters or entirely new ones. Prior to his death in 2017, Nyqvist lamented the failure to launch Gordon's version, being a fan of the original film and looking forward to being in the remake.

The casting of Tilda Swinton as Madame Blanc is quite interesting, since she has played another evil witch associated with the word 'White' which Blanc is a French translation of. That character is, of course, Jadis the White Witch of Narnia. Tilda Swinton portrayed Jadis in all three live-action Narnia productions with Walden Media.

The film's editor, Walter Fasano, was the editor and an uncredited co-writer on Dario Argento's La terza madre (2007), the third entry in Argento's "Three Mothers" trilogy which includes the original Suspiria (1977).

The actress who plays Patricia Hingle is Chloe Grace Moretz, who has starred or acted in several notable horror film remakes during her career (The Eye, The Amityville Horror, Let Me In, Dark Shadows, and Carrie) as well as original horror films (Room 6 and Wicked Little Things). Much like her earlier works, Suspiria is a remake of a classic horror film.

The black dress Susie (Dakota Johnson) wears when she goes out features stampings of what appears to be 'female trunk' from abdomen to mid-thigh.

In addition to playing Susie/Mother Suspiriorum, Dakota Johnson also played her twin sister Naomi in the opening credits, as revealed by director Luca Guadagnino in an October 2018 interview with Vulture. Naomi is the pregnant blonde sister in the pink dress looking over their mother (Malgorzata Bela) as she's tended to by their other sisters and farmhands; Johnson's face is never shown apart in brief flashes from behind or in profile.

It would take up to five hours to fit Chloë Grace Moretz and Elena Fokina into their decomposition makeup for the finale.

The date that Josef's wife Anke died during WWII, November 11, is the same date as the performance of Volk, 11/11/1977.

In the montage where the coven sends Susie their dreams, the shot of an apparently nude woman sitting in a chair next to an imprint of her body on the floor recreates a famous photograph by Francesca Woodman.

In the original film, the character of Patricia is killed within the first 15 minutes by members of the cult. In this one, she is killed towards the end (along with Olga and Sara), by Susie.

Chloë Grace Moretz, despite having top billing as part of the cast, only has about 6 minutes of screen time throughout the entire film.

Jessica Harper does not appear in the film as Anke until 1 hour and 49 minutes into the runtime. Her appearance is meant to be a tribute to the original film.

Body count: 14.

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: Androrim
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Flower
    First of all, it is in serious need of editing. It is so dry and boring and drags on and on. 30-45 minutes could be excised and this still wouldn't make much sense but would be easier for some poor soul to suffer though.

    Anybody remember Friday the 13th:The Series late 80's tv show? The dancing in this mess was taken from that (episode The Maestro)...TEXTBOOK. There's another scene towards the end that is eerily similar to the pig gut puking scene in Gates of Hell...it worked there, it's just completely out of place here.

    There is no horror in this mess, there is nothing remotely scary about it, where's the atmosphere I kept hearing about? There is none. What this is as as dull as a funeral. NO character development so you don't give a toss about any of them or what happens to them. There is no lush cinematography. Where Argento created a delightful and gorgeous nightmare world, this entire mess looks like it was set in a crack den. It would have been nice if they could have decided if they wanted it to be the TANZ or The Markos school...both terms were used in the film.

    Tilda Swinton- I'm so sorry to do this to an actor but WHAT was she trying convey? She speaks in a weird tone attempting to sound mystical. She comes off a someone DEEP in a Morphine haze. She has no grasp of this character. AND she played a triple role? WOW, and not in a god way.

    Don't even get me going on Ms. Tanner..what a JOKE in this movie...NOBODY but NOBDY can play Ms. Tanner like the lovely, late Alida Valli. I knew this was coming. Madame Blanc was a joke a well. The staff looks like a bunch of old drunk slappers.

    I may as well end it here because there's nothing redeeming in this mess to actually review and like. Only reason I endured this was to prove to myself how bad I knew it was. And people have the audacity to slam Argento for his masterpiece? Only the kids will watch this junk. Two and one half hours of my life I can never get back.

    Save your time and money...this is a complete waste of both. You can find better amateur horror films for free on YouTube.

    This took utter GALL to remake the original. 7 stars for this mess? I'm guessing most of the people who gave it it such a high rating are under 30 and have no concept of what true horror is. This is not it.
  • comment
    • Author: Hamrl
    So so disappointing. Boring, slow and disgusting. Can't believe I wasted 2and half hours on this. Don't repeat my mistake.
  • comment
    • Author: cyrexoff
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Teonyo
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Burking
    I came to this movie as an average Joe who hadn't even heard of the original film who just likes a good horror movie on a dark night. This film is more physical grotesque than horror. There are no jump scares, just unsettling weirdness, Clockwork Orange rather than The Purge. To be fair, the first 20 minutes or so had a level of tense expectation I enjoyed. The costumes and colours were muted and it was a wonderful recreation of 1970s Berlin. But that's all. The rest off the movie was just a mismatch of confusing themes which never got integrated or resolved. What was the paralel theme of the Baader-Meinhof terrorism doing? What was the old doctor searching for his wife all about? I have no idea. The ending left me totally baffled, and I hadn't understood the beginning either (a dead woman being washed in bed in some religious sect in America). It's strange, but I've been increasingly aware of new level of degeneracy in movies recently (see my review of Polar), and Suspiria only confirmed my growing belief that Hollywood has gone very badly wrong somehow. Dark forces are at work. I'd rather not have this movie in my head.
  • comment
    • Author: JoJoshura
    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
  • comment
    • Author: Iraraeal
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Arar
    Possibly the worst film I've watched in the last 10 years, if not longer!!! I would rather pour chilli flakes in to my eyes than ever watch this rubbish again ...
  • comment
    • Author: Anaginn
    One reviewer gave this film a 10 stating,"I personally found Suspiria compelling and challenging! It is in my humble opinion a masterpiece." Well in my humble opinion the only thing I found challenging about this film was not turning it off. I just drags, and makes no sense at all. Basically it's trying to be abstract and artsy but ends up being long, boring, and confusing. Bottom line, a film shouldn't be "challenging", we watch films to escape reality and have a little fun doing it, this film wasn't fun, it was just......
  • comment
    • Author: Kuve
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Gholbimand
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Windforge
    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
  • comment
    • Author: Hunaya
    Throughout the film, you are constantly questioning motives and have no choice but to draw your own conclusions.

    Random flashes of grotesque images, I'm sure they have an artsy meaning or some sort of symbolism which I care little for. . Artsy, ballet dancing throughout which ultimately was a time filler as far as I'm concerned.

    Some obviously love this malarky but it was definitely not my taste.

    Would not recommend to anyone.
  • comment
    • Author: Qulcelat
    Easily one of the worst movies Ive ever seen. I was so excited to see it when I found out that Thom Yorke was doing the score. Drove 2 hours to see it in a select theater, and sat dumbfounded by the time the credits rolled.

    This is a long, confusing mess of a movie, with hardly any plot or characters. Development happens instantly and choices make zero sense. By the time you start to think you understand whats happening, the insane third act happens throws you through the windshield.

    As for pros, the score by Thom Yorke is phenomenal and made it worth it. Its too bad it wasnt utilized well when integrated into the film. The acting From Tilda Swinton is great, but everybody else feels like they are sleepwalking.

    There is a dance sequence about 2/3 the way in that was mesmerizing and easily the best part of the movie. I wish the rest was like that.

    I felt changed after watching this, like it had sucked a part of my soul and left me hollow. It's not a horror movie, it's kind of a stretch to call it a movie at all. It's just a series of barely connected scenes put together. You could watch any scene from the first two acts out of order and it would feel the same. There's no real timeline or understanding of what's taking place.

    I honestly cant reccomend this movie to anyone, although my boyfriend loved it. Just treat yourself to the soundtrack and leave it at that.
  • comment
    • Author: Fenrikasa
    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!
  • comment
    • Author: MisTereO
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Vizil
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: superstar
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Thetath
    After watching the original as a teen falling in love with Goblin,s soundtrack and knowing the lack of fantasy that is a reality in todays movie business ...I longed to see one of my beloved horror films been shot again with all the goodies todays tech provides......what I saw was an incoherent plot far below the unsamble of a dynamic cast and a boring reference again to the poor victims of "concentration" camps...if anything..... the dark characters would be running the camps performing whitchcraft instead of putting tortured minds at ease......what a mess...and at 2 1/2 hours...... a rather long one
  • comment
    • Author: Narim
    This new remake or new version or whatever you want to call it is a disester from the beginning. It's like watching an art snoozfest at the Cannes. The director if you can call him that might Just have escape from an insane asylum or something. This awful remake of a horror classic is a mess.
  • comment
    • Author: FLIDER
    I just finished watching this and I have no idea what I just watched. The only thing I can say with any certainly at all is that with numerous poorly integrated story lines, some extremely ugly choreography, and a running time of nearly two and a half hours they forgot to make the damned thing scary.
  • comment
    • Author: AfinaS
    I saw this movie in Venezia and I don't know why anyone will say it is good unless they are paid to say it. Which makes me think that is really what could be happening here (some of the reviews seem laughable and totally contrived and prewritten by someone working for the production) and perhaps this director seems to be living in his own make-believe illusion of himself. Luca Guadagnino is no auteur, but someone who just seemed to have hired a good cinematographer to get some beauty shots, while he was doing something else, but who knows what. The mise en scene is good, but that's about it, but there's more to enjoying a movie than how they set up the shot. I found no elegance to the actual direction, only some flourishes, some sizzle but no steak. It's really unfortunate because movies are magical and evocative, but this director doesn't offer anything new to cinema at all. I've watched three of his movies and this will be the last. They all feel like film school projects, not multimillion dollar pieces of cinema.

    The acting is melodramatic and unconvincing (that he tries to persuade us that the Psychiatrist is a man and not Tilda Swinton is such a middle finger to his audience, and thereby insults himself as a director. It's such a lame marketing attempt and makes me weep for the future of cinema if such a childish gimmick is what we can now expect to be where cinema is headed.)

    Auteurs have depth and know how to direct the story itself, invite audience respect, and are able to capture a theme, to pull from actors and crew something more than what they can give themselves alone. I didn't see that at all here. The movie seems lazy and without purpose, flawed - and it was so boring my friend fell asleep in it.

    There's a lot of jumbled ideas, faux symbolism and seems stolen from artists who were far better at original ideas.

    It was cool to see Thom York score a film, but it's unfortunate that it was for this movie instead of something that has actual artistic merit instead of a movie trying too hard to convince us that it has that merit.

    There were parts of this movie that took itself so seriously, and no one was behind the scenes saying "its not coming across as artistic, it's coming across as funny and if you do that, the audience will laugh at you."

    Which is exactly what my friends and I did when we left the cinema. Sad that movies are now being made this way. At least the original is known to be or meant to be trashy. This one seems to think it's high art, when it's more of a mockery of other great art, and somehow had no idea how messy and boring it actually is. Alighieri has a great quote: "you were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge." This movie is lost in its own inferno because it trades self knowledge for a self aggrandizing myth of wasteful proportions.
  • comment
    • Author: Androwyn
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Adrierdin
    The 1977 version had good storytelling, atmosphere, mystery, creepy eerie sounds and music. This version has nothing of that.

    In fact, the only thing these two movies have in common is the title and that the story takes place at a dance academy.

    If you can't tell a story properly in 2,5 hours then movie making might not be your cup of tea. It's a total mess of confusing, irrelevant information thrown at you in a slow pace. Poorly acted, directed and edited. You're never told who's who and what's what. Zero character development, it just felt overly long, sterile and boring. Oh, and the choreography is hideous.

    The first incident that happened at the academy I was like "oh my god" repeatedly, not meant in a good way, I shook my head in disbelief. Yes, it was that bad. It made me real angry right there, then it went even more downhill.

    Stayed till the end just to find something, anything good. But no...



    Note to self: Never ever watch another Dakota Johnson movie.
  • Cast overview, first billed only:
    Chloë Grace Moretz Chloë Grace Moretz - Patricia
    Tilda Swinton Tilda Swinton - Dr. Klemperer / Madame Blanc / Helena Markos (as Lutz Ebersdorf)
    Doris Hick Doris Hick - Frau Sesame
    Malgorzata Bela Malgorzata Bela - Susie's Mother / Death (as Malgosia Bela)
    Dakota Johnson Dakota Johnson - Susie
    Angela Winkler Angela Winkler - Miss Tanner
    Vanda Capriolo Vanda Capriolo - Alberta
    Alek Wek Alek Wek - Miss Millius
    Jessica Batut Jessica Batut - Miss Mandel
    Elena Fokina Elena Fokina - Olga
    Mia Goth Mia Goth - Sara
    Clémentine Houdart Clémentine Houdart - Miss Boutaher (as Clementine Houdart)
    Ingrid Caven Ingrid Caven - Miss Vendegast
    Sylvie Testud Sylvie Testud - Miss Griffith
    Fabrizia Sacchi Fabrizia Sacchi - Pavla
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com