|
Post by lazario on Aug 12, 2007 14:26:35 GMT -5
I think it goes without saying that Dario Argento is one of the greatest visionaries in all of horror cinema. He truly puts art and horror together. He melds the graceful together with the vicious, the vulgar with the beautiful. And all with sometimes just 1 single idea. Yet, the horror of Argento does not come from monsters or creatures. But always from our own humanity. The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1969) Deep Red (1975) Suspiria (1977) Inferno (1980) Tenebre (1982) Phenomena (1984) Opera (1987) (aka- Terror at the Opera) Trauma (1993) The Stendhal Syndrome (1996) Masters of Horror: Jenifer (2005)
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Aug 12, 2007 14:58:34 GMT -5
the only movie of his that i didnt like that i saw was trauma..it was to predictable for me..his masters of horror episodes arent anything special tho either
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Aug 12, 2007 15:24:04 GMT -5
I just don't care for Argento. I'll admit his technical work is top notch, as well as the gore. However every movie of his I've ever seen is just too low on plot for me to care.
I'd compare his movies to Citizen Kane. No, really. From a technical standpoint, Citizen Kane is one of the best movies ever made. Unfortunantly, the story is so boring, that I'd rather just watch something else. Argento isn't quiet as boring, but his movies still just never fully capture my interest. I can forgive a bad movie that's entertaining, far easier than a good movie that is boring.
I realize that even though he has lots of loyal American fans, he makes his movies for a European market. This is why his cut of Dawn of the Dead is like a completely different movie. He edited out all the character development, and most of the story. Romero says that Argento just never understood the movie, and wanted it to be all action, instead of a satire on consumerism. It's why his cut is vastly inferior to the US theatrical release and the so-called Director's cut. I am kind of interested in seeing that bootleg, German cut that combines the best of all 3.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 13, 2007 0:22:47 GMT -5
Well, I say if you're meant to be a fan of his, you just kind of accept that the little plot helps to enhance the style, atmosphere / mood, and overall strangeness.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Aug 13, 2007 0:32:22 GMT -5
Whether you like Argento or not (personally I LOVE his work), you have to admit that nobody blends horror with pure beauty the way he does. Not before his era, not during his era, and certainly not after his era. He's simple one of those directors who has his own style that is simply unmistakable for anyone else. And i've always believed that's one of the highest compliments a director of any genre can receive. Much like Kubrick, Cronenberg, Welles, etc. you always can pick out an Argento film without ever seeing the title or boxart for the movie.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 13, 2007 1:15:32 GMT -5
the only movie of his that i didnt like that i saw was trauma..it was to predictable for me..his masters of horror episodes arent anything special tho either Cool. Though I think if you've seen even 1 Argento film, you can pretty much predict the ending. I don't feel Trauma is any more predictable than 60% of Argento's giallos. I also feel a special, strong preference for Trauma on at least one level. I thought he used the film to treat anorexia and drug use with a sense of art. It was kind of an Argento love story, using perhaps some strong sense of neurosis to connect 2 really screwed up people and have them fall in love with each other's vulnerability. I mean, all Argento's movies are about obsessions. But with Trauma, I felt like he finally found a good emotional basis for those characters to be obsessed with each other. And now, he can say he made a film where all his classic archetypes have 1 big thing in common: trauma. The hero (that guy), the fragile and victimized female (Aura), and the killer. Even the red-herring characters had their own versions of obsessions (Judd/Jedd/Jared? the guy with the Neckbrace). So, everyone was linked, and not just for the purpose of making everyone look suspicious either. It was for a legitimate story reason. I think many of Argento's films have a real heart behind them. Especially Trauma and Phenomena. Maybe I'm just a romantic at heart, under all the crustiness. But I think that adds a whole other level to it.
|
|
fiendflug
scum
Good, Bad, Im The Guy With The Gun
Posts: 57
|
Post by fiendflug on Aug 18, 2007 23:24:48 GMT -5
Yeah the only argento films i have seen is suspiria and the masters of horror episodes. Wow if i liked the Masters of Horror episodes, and TS said they were lacking, then his other movies must be really good.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 19, 2007 13:31:39 GMT -5
Oh YEAH. They're that good, alright. Too bad Tenebre and Phenomena are out of print, though. They're both really excellent. Phenomena was the movie that really made me fall in love with his movies.
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Oct 31, 2007 21:33:30 GMT -5
I have yet to see Tenebre or Crystal Plumage but own most of his other stuff.No complaints from me buddy.Missed him Toronto this year but maybe another time...I hope The 3rd Mother gets released soon.
|
|
vincentprice
drug dealer
This mask is jolly tight!
Posts: 201
|
Post by vincentprice on Nov 1, 2007 4:10:39 GMT -5
I've seen a few of his movies but to be honest, the only two that completely stick out are Suspiria and Opera.
I did love both his Masters Of Horror episodes and I enjoy his movies overall, but the two above are easily my favorites of his.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Nov 1, 2007 23:27:11 GMT -5
My Argento favorites are Suspiria, Tenebre, Deep Red, and The Stendhal Syndrome. Inferno was pretty good, but not my favorite, and I didn't care for Opera at all. I've yet to see The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, Phenomena, and Trauma. As for his work in M of H, I've got both seasons downloaded, but haven't got around to watching either one as of yet. I like to watch series all at once right in a row, and right now I'm working my way through Deadwood Season 3, but I'm planning on taking the Masters of Horror plunge after I'm done with that.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 8, 2007 17:08:36 GMT -5
My favorite is Phenomena. But I also love Tenebre, Suspiria, Opera, and Deep Red. Clearly he's my favorite horror director. He's just a god of horror in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Nov 9, 2007 0:59:15 GMT -5
When it comes to pure style and originality, it's pretty hard to argue that anyone's ever done it better.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 9, 2007 6:30:07 GMT -5
And more than that, he just puts a movie together like no one else. Even the ones people often toss aside like Trauma and The Stendhal Syndrome. Those films were just more psychological or emotional than his other films. And when he goes down those roads, even then he's still making something impressive. Not entirely impressive, plenty of flaws in both to be sure. But it's the little details that really stand out. The things a lot of people don't pay attention to.
I haven't seen any of his movies after Stendhal though, so now that I've ordered Phantom of the Opera, what people call his worst film, I'll see how that changed him.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Nov 9, 2007 6:58:18 GMT -5
the card player and do you like hitchcock..2 of his newest movies were not all that good
the thing i hate about him is his movies are to predictable
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 9, 2007 7:20:09 GMT -5
I haven't seen a huge amount of Italian giallos and such, but Argento is a filmmaker whose style is so unique... he is one of the most Individual and interesting directors in history.
One of things people love about him is that his movies aren't like anyone else's.
If, when you say Predictable, you mean: his movies are a lot ALIKE... Yes. They are. But that's what people want. The reason people have favorite directors is that when they go to see one of their movies- they give them something no other director would.
They have Trademarks. Argento is not predictable. He just uses his own Trademarks. When they come up, you've seen them before. But the way Argento stylizes them is amazing. And again, he just made more Contemporary masterpieces than any other horror director I can think of.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Nov 9, 2007 7:26:51 GMT -5
when i say predictable i mean i always know how its gonna end and whos the killer..
but i really wasnt saying it in a bad way..because i do like alot of his movies..but i would like to be surprised once ina while
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 9, 2007 8:24:52 GMT -5
when i say predictable i mean i always know how its gonna end and whos the killer.. Really? Because I never know in an Argento film who the killer will be. I don't spend my time thinking about who the killer will be. I'm too busy paying attention to what's happening currently. And Argento's movies are never just about who the killer is. In fact- most of Argento's movies are about main characters who are obsessed with something. Which is one of my favorite movie themes. So, I can see that very well. I think obsession is a very abstract thing for most people, so that's why a lot of people don't like his movies (it's true- cruise the horror boards online and you'll find a ton of people who are Argento haters, that of course is just combined though from all the different boards - and most people like him, at least a little bit). But there's also issues of social structures, and themes of the outsider- people who don't belong or fit in, and oppression / repression. Oh, and most of his main characters are artists (dancer, musician, writer) or students. But I don't get why people even try to guess the identity of the killer. I did it twice, that I can remember. Scream and Sleepaway Camp. I was wrong with Scream and right with Sleepaway Camp. Did I win a prize? No. Do I even care who the killer is? No. That's why you really have to try not to guess who the killer is. It cheapens the movie somehow. But also remember - Horror movies to me are a lot about ART. It's more fun to guess who the killer is in a Crime / Detective Thriller movie. Or to go through things like motive and plot twists and yadayadayada. Wild Things is a good one to guess on. But is Wild Things a horror film, a slasher film? No. So, you really have to skip the guesswork and just concentrate on the production values, actors, atmosphere, music, special effects... That stuff is much more fun than: "Who dun it?"
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Nov 9, 2007 12:19:58 GMT -5
And more than that, he just puts a movie together like no one else. Even the ones people often toss aside like Trauma and The Stendhal Syndrome. Those films were just more psychological or emotional than his other films. And when he goes down those roads, even then he's still making something impressive. Not entirely impressive, plenty of flaws in both to be sure. But it's the little details that really stand out. The things a lot of people don't pay attention to. I haven't seen any of his movies after Stendhal though, so now that I've ordered Phantom of the Opera, what people call his worst film, I'll see how that changed him. Absolutely! I've always fealt the same way. Even the movies he's made that I didn't necessarily enjoy on a personal level, I still respected because of how damn well they were made. He's one of those directors whose movies I can watch more than once just to stand in awe of how good he is at constructing them from a technical standpoint. Basically, even if you aren't entertained by one of his movies, at least you get to see how a horror movie should be made. The man is genius in my book.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Nov 9, 2007 18:05:37 GMT -5
i dont really try and guess the killer..but ill use trauma as an example..that was so obvious to me..i almost thought it was to obvious to even be true
|
|