If you ever meet anyone IRL who dares to say this is better than the remake, kill that moron on the spot.
If you ever meet anyone IRL who dares to say this is better than the remake, kill that retard on the spot.
If you ever meet anyone IRL who dares to say this is better than the remake, kill that moron on the spot.
I only watched the remake and it was blatant crap with zoomer tier horror and writing. So based on deduction alone I recognize the original as superior.
based moron, meet me downstainrs in 5 and I'll take care of it
what? is that a reference from the movie or something?
What's zoomie horror?
The are completely different films, but the original was objectively more influential and forward thinking.
The remake is not all terrible tho, the boneitis scene in particular is really fricking scary.
>horror
Sorry, I don’t watch kids movies
I like both, what nou?
If you havent seen this with the italian dub you haven't actually seen it.
con chi cazzo credi di parlare, coglione
That's how I watched it because I didn't know wop giallo stuff was all dubbed over. I tried to watch it after dubbed and the Italian is much more soulful.
I once that read names which begin with the letter "A" are the names of buttholeS!
The "remake" (actually it just borrowed the name and very general subject) is a "horror" film made by people who don't like horror films for people who don't like horror films.
Between the pointless subplot with the old man, changing the place to Berlin solely because Berlin is better known to the hipsters who will lap this shit up, the MC's utter inability to act, the soundtrack alternating between trivial elevator music and gay wailing of some gay gay of some overrated gay band and the very silly "yeah this will TOTALLY shock people" finale, there was exactly one good scene and Tilda Swinton's acting.
You gays only like it because you're zoomers lusting for those ugly zoomer girls.
Horror fans are the biggest shit heap eaters out there, they will jerk off a shitty student tier horror film because there was one good idea and seethe about actually well made stuff because they look with disdain at things where people actually try and have self respect and instead soiface and dudebro camcorder bullshit because it makes them feel like they can too make a successful horror film without trying.
The Suspiria remake is not even that good, but critique from a perspective of "horror fans" is in itself moronic.
>The Suspiria remake is not even that good, but critique from a perspective of "horror fans" is in itself moronic.
What an incredibly moronic statement in an incredibly moronic post.
>no arguments
This would be the same thing as saying black and white movies are bad because they have no color. There are plenty of good special effects in the film which means they were capable of doing good special effects, which means the lack of blood in that particular scene was most likely a conscious visual choice.
>here are plenty of good special effects in the film which means they were capable of doing good special effects, which means the lack of blood in that particular scene was most likely a conscious visual choice.
I mean, the god biting and the bat looked like muppets, so it wasn't the only bad effect. whatever the reason was, some things looked like shit. plus frankly most of the acting is bad
The whole point of giallo is trashy stylization that combines often elaborate cinematography and settings with elements of "low" horror. It's a very particular aesthetic, and even in the context of giallo Suspiria is in a special position because of it's highly acidic visual aesthetic. It's one of the earliest films that developed the "neon tone". All of it is deliberate, and of course it depends if you like such a thing or not, but these were definitely not some accidental missteps.
You're an imbecile. I was talking specifically about the clique of self described "horror fans", it's a very specific community which I described. These are the people who are most often complaining about horror films that try different shit (even if not successful always). There's nothing actually signifying that Guadangio hates horror movies, only that he thinks you can do different shit with the horror format. Your remarks about the film also do not signify that Guadagnino fundamentally dislikes horror.
There's nothing wrong with changing the setting because the whole point of the film was to take the core elements and attempt something new instead of doing a half assed nostalgia bait. Post-war Berlin is a place with a nice aesthetic to it that also has an unnerving tone to it considering the events that only relatively recently happened. The acting from the main actress was completely fine if, admittedly, unremarkable, but "inability to act" is excessive. Soundtrack is very subjective but I do agree that Thom Yorke wailing didn't really fit the film's tone, and I personally think he should have tried to go for something more electronic and instrumental. The shit about "wow that would be totally shocking" can be said about literally any horror film. Yes, horror films try to be shocking. To people who watched a lot of horror not much can be shocking, but Guadagnino was aiming for an audience that is wider than just people who watched a ton of horror.
>The whole point of giallo is trashy stylization that combines often elaborate cinematography and settings with elements of "low" horror. It's a very particular aesthetic, and even in the context of giallo Suspiria is in a special position because of it's highly acidic visual aesthetic. It's one of the earliest films that developed the "neon tone". All of it is deliberate, and of course it depends if you like such a thing or not, but these were definitely not some accidental missteps.
I fully get your point, and I do admit that the movie looks visually very intriguing. but things like the slice to the neck just take me out of the movie, regardless of whether it's intentional or not. and given that there's plenty of blood in the first murder, I'm inclined to believe that it was technical limitations that led to that. and even if argento himself said it was intentional, it would still look bad imo. something being done on purpose doesn't make it automatically good. I get that it was hard at the time to fake a dog biting someone's net, that doesn't change the fact that it looks like he's getting killed by a sock puppet
This is just a difference of outlooks.
I don't treat films like something where I imagine that the events happening are real unless the film specifically aims for heightened realism. It's fine if I become "aware" that what I am watching is a movie because to me aesthetic usually goes beyond believing the events that are happening are actually happening. Like I still get emotional resonance and basic interest from seeing the mix of cartoonish and fake stuff with elaborate sets, camerawork and lightning of the film. The aesthetic was very forward thinking, the whole movie is reminiscent of rave.
fair enough, I still think some thing could and should have looked better, but I get your perspective. although at this point I question what the supposed feeling this movie should convey is. it's first and foremost a horror/thriller, and doesn't make me feel anything remotely close to what the genre it's supposed to due to all the reasons I listed here
I must say that the anon saying horror gets a lot of leeway (on things other movies wouldn't get a pass on because it's implicitly accepted that some things are bound to be ass) isn't really wrong
>I was talking specifically about the clique of self described "horror fans"
Sorry I can't look into your head and know what moronic definition you are coming up for for yourself.
>only that he thinks you can do different shit with the horror format.
Like what? Bore me out of my mind? There are enough films in that genre who have already done that.
>was to take the core elements and attempt something new
What, witches? There are a million other witch films, why call it Suspiria, then? Utterly pointless.
>Post-war Berlin is a place with a nice aesthetic to it that also has an unnerving tone to it considering the events that only relatively recently happened
Unlike in the rest of Germany or what? Dumbass.
>The acting from the main actress was completely fine
A dumb and most of the time unfitting expression is fine? Nah man, that girl can't act. In fact, the only person in that whole flick who could actually act was Swinton, but even she couldn't salvage what she had to work with.
>and I personally think he should have tried to go for something more electronic and instrumental
Yeah would have probably been better. For me it's not even the genre, but that it was just so completely unremarkable. The original's soundtrack at least stayed in your ear and did things.
>The shit about "wow that would be totally shocking" can be said about literally any horror film. Yes, horror films try to be shocking.
Wrong. Not every horror tries to be shocking. There are so many nuances and shades. A24 "slow burn" is not a meme for nothing. There is nothing inherently "shocking" about The Witch, but it's unsettling. Plus, what is "shocking" is entirely dependent on the audience.
> but Guadagnino was aiming for an audience that is wider than just people who watched a ton of horror.
Yeah so you agree it was for people who don't like horror.
You didn't have to look into my head because I described the horror fans I was talking about immediately.
Boring is extrenmely subjective, at least try to explain why it is boring. THe main character was mostly expressionless but it was a purposeful choice, she isn't meant to be emotional but cold, psychopathic and always in her head, this is building up to the twist of her being Mother Suspiriorum, her seeming apathy is just a ruse to fool people into thinking she is just a random aspiring witch .
The film takes the setup of the original Suspriria, the general idea of a witch school under a guise of an elite dancing school, the lore elements of the witches coven. Visually there's some use of color that is a bit reminiscent of original Suspiria, but it's very mild. The story in itself is a direct flip of the original plotline where the main character is genuinely innocent and battles the coven for survival. The move to West Berlin specifically also emphasizes the decadent status of the facility and, yes, is more recognizible because, again Guadagnino was aiming for an audience that is a bit wider. Which doesn't mean at all that is made for people who don't like horror. If someone isn't a binge watcher horror superfan that doesn't mean they're not interested in horror at all, and definitely doesn't mean they hate horror.
And about the shocking stuff, yes, some horror films are more muted than the others, but both excplict body horror and violence and a more balanced approach are valid. And with Suspiria it makes quite a lot of sense to go for the former. While the general visual approach with muted soft colors is not very giallo the combination of "high" aesthetic, elaborate cinematography and flashes of explicitly, grotesque violence is very much in the spirit of the movement.
>no arguments
You have no arguments. "HURR DURR HORROR FANS DUMDUM" - by your logic, Rings of Power and Witcher must be good, because the people making them didn't respect or like the source material or the fans.
The absolute seething!
>but critique from a perspective of "horror fans" is in itself moronic.
thats the target audience. youre complaining that horrorfans shouldnt complain about horror movies and call others moronic? take your meds, man.
so all of your argument boils down to "old good, new bad". I could reply that the original is trash because it's boomer-core. I'm not even saying that it's a terrible movie, but some of its flaws are simply baffling. there's a close/up of a throat getting sliced and there isn't a single drop of blood coming out, for frick sake
This is a stupid critique because the point of giallo is that it's extremely stylized with purposefully unrealistic violence.
or you could say that that particular special effect fricking suck, you can like the movie and admit that some things aged like shit or were shit to begin with
>so all of your argument boils down to "old good, new bad".
No, not at all. Nowhere was is stated that the remake is bad because it's new. I never even said the original was good, and it doesn't even matter anyway. NuSpiria is a piece of shit, simple as.
>Nowhere was is stated that the remake is bad because it's new.
>zoomer girls
>nu-spiria
very inspired and original thinking you got there
At least old Suspiria was nice to look at. The new one is not only a shit movie, but visually fricking horrid as well.
susq
The remake is literal fricking garbage.
It had pretty good body horror
Im inclined to agree. I cant member much about it so Its probably not great.
Original was meant for the cult crowd. The second one was a solid horror drama for the wider public. They're not that comparable.
>If you ever meet anyone IRL who dares to say this is better than the remake, kill that moron on the spot.
I know a guy who looks like this. Actually now that I think about it, I sold him to the BBC cult. Glad to see he’s healthy now
original stomps remake so bad it's not even funny
It goes without saying, but you should be killed.
idk why people pretend one or the other is a masterpiece in the first place. watched the original suspiria it was a boring ass flick. watched the new suspiria and liked that much better but it was still very flawed, especially the Thom Yorke vocals on the soundtrack (I like Radiohead but it just didn't fit)
This has to be bait, the remake is really, really cringe, on a rewatch I dropped it on the very first scene where Tilda is pretending to be an old man and Chloe is pretending to be an actress. The original is highly memorable kino with one of the best intro to any film ever, it will stay with me forever, the remake is just some bad disrespectful and try-hardy hipster bait.
I'll indulge you, can you explain me why you like the original so much? Ignoring the music and the use of colours, which are great, what do you like about it? It's not scary, it's not disturbing, the acting is often bad, some of the effects are atrocious, the murders look laughable. It's visually very compelling but there's nothing to latch on for me. even the most disingenuous homosexual here has to admit that the remake at least had good body horror. everyone here cries about tilda playing the old man when half of the cast of the original look clinically moronic.
>even the most disingenuous homosexual here has to admit that the remake at least had good body horror.
It has exactly one body horror scene, and that's all it has going for it.
I haven't seen it since release, but I remember the chick getting killed halfway through and the ending
The original is better but it's a case of unfulfilled potential. The remake does not capitalise on that potential at all.
The remake is forgettable on account of being stripped of the original's most charming point: its beautiful visual style
If you want to see an actually bad giallo watch most of Argento's other films, like Inferno, which after the opening 10 minutes is pure nonsense
Remake was great.
Out of the Argento movies I've seen, Tenebre is the best. Admittedly, I still need to sit down and watch Susperia...
>Tenebre
That's the only one I've seen and thought it was very bad. Apart from great OST and hot babes, that is.
ive only seen the remake and i really enjoyed. i also love thom yorke and the music of radiohead
Oh and forgot to mention, I'm also trans
i transracial, yh
HEE HEE
The original is absolutely fricking NUTS!!! Just saw it for the first time last night.
i liked the dance scene with the bones breaking
The remake sucks dick while the original is a decent horror flick.
I like the remake well enough, but it's bloated and it's a completely different film from the original. The original will always be the superior film.
frick you you stupid b***h, i would beat the shit out of you if we ever met, original suspiria is the best horror movie ever made, while the remake is the worst
The only thing worse than a horror fan is a pseud art house horror fan.