I find I dont like Argento

[BrokeNads]

Is for many years now take me to see some Argento so I never make opinion in one way from this. Recent I see Deep Red and now I think I see enought from Argento movies to make a say from this and I say I dont like.
I see on time big opinion in Argento about people say he is amaze so I start to look out. First movie I see is Trauma and I enjoy very much so I think maybe he is amaze. Next movie I see is Suspiria and I say What! I dont like this. Next movie I see is Phenomenina and I say What? Take away!
I see now is Deep Red and I say What?!? Is like Trauma but worst version. Is my opinion but is see to me is cheap in acting and stories and confuse. I dont now. Trauma is for me the one is mostly consentrate to make a story. Is truth is the style he make but is not meant when story is confuse and acting is not to watch. Is my opinion and I only want to comment because I only find in myself that I dont like Argento and I always want to enjoy this man because I like Trauma. Is any films more of Argento that you think can change my mind about? Also is anyone think about Deep Red and Trauma is similar. Is almost like is continue or remake.

[Grim]

I like Argento, but I have found that I can't get into most of those giallos with the five bajillion word titles that a lot of people love, so I can see how someone might not like his stuff. In terms of Italian horror, I really only like Argento, Fulci, Bava (both of them), Saovi, and some Lenzi.

[BrokeNads]

I like some Fulci but is for a reason. When I see movie from Fulci I now I am to see maybe a bad movie and many crazy gore and is why I watch and is some times story is intrest but in Argento this things I think I am to like and I dont. So for Trauma I like the story and is not factor in director styles. In other movies is note director styles but is nothing else I like.

[Ash28M]

I think you may have enjoyed Trauma more ironically because it's a lesser film that's allot easier to digest in one viewing. His better films need 2 or 3 viewing each to fully absorb and appreciate IMO.

[mcchrist]

Not necessarily, I find Argento's work wears out its welcome over time. I have a hard time sitting through his work these days.

[Mutilated Prey]

To me some Argento is pretty good, but some is horribly boring and too, dare I say, "artsy". You really have to be in the right frame of mind to enjoy his work I think.

[allmessedup]

I like some of his work, but even his best stuff seems more like an academic exercise instead of a proper movie. I'm not really a fan. Fulci I can watch any day--I have to be in the right mood for Argento, and I seldom feel interested enough to re-watch his films.

[Cydeous]

I love Argento movies, and I love his more artsy moments. To me, he is definitely AMAZE

[Anaestheus]

While I am not going to try to explain why you should think Argento is a genius, I will attempt to explain how I came to love him.

The Italian horror aesthetic, in general, is very different from other countries. And it requires a different approach from the viewer. For the most part, Italian horror tends to discard the importance of plot and character development and focus on stringing together a collection of set pieces designed to create a particular mood. In many ways, this is a more mechanical way of producing a film as the characters and plot are just devices to get from one set piece to the next. So, the plot becomes secondary to the rhythm of mood shifts that the director is trying to create from scene to scene.

I think a lot of this goes back to Bava. With "Blood and Black Lace" and "Bay of Blood" he stripped the narrative down to its bare minimum to get to the images he wanted to put on the screen as quickly and efficiently as possible. Instead of using dialogue to define the characters, he used lighting and framing. To him, the image was much more important than anything in the script. In many ways, his films function more as visual poems of horror, rather than stories put on the screen.

Argento is obviously aware of what Bava was doing and expanded on that in his own way. In particular, by creating far more elaborate set pieces with virtuoso camera movements and composition. But, also with a greater willingness to sacrifice the script to get those images on the screen.

In many ways, the Italian horror masters appear to be bad film makers. But, to those who can get into the aesthetic they are working from, there is extreme genius at work. The best analogy I could make is that it's like complaining that Stockhausen or Glass can't write a good melody.

I'd definitely suggest you give Suspiria another go with this in mind. If you can get yourself into this groove, I think you'll begin to understand why it gets such high praise. If not, at least you can say you gave it the good try. You also might want to give Opera a chance. When I first got into Argento, it was my favorite for a long time. The music can be bad, but the visuals are stunning.

[BrokeNads]

Originally Posted by Anaestheus

While I am not going to try to explain why you should think Argento is a genius, I will attempt to explain how I came to love him.

The Italian horror aesthetic, in general, is very different from other countries. And it requires a different approach from the viewer. For the most part, Italian horror tends to discard the importance of plot and character development and focus on stringing together a collection of set pieces designed to create a particular mood. In many ways, this is a more mechanical way of producing a film as the characters and plot are just devices to get from one set piece to the next. So, the plot becomes secondary to the rhythm of mood shifts that the director is trying to create from scene to scene.

I think a lot of this goes back to Bava. With "Blood and Black Lace" and "Bay of Blood" he stripped the narrative down to its bare minimum to get to the images he wanted to put on the screen as quickly and efficiently as possible. Instead of using dialogue to define the characters, he used lighting and framing. To him, the image was much more important than anything in the script. In many ways, his films function more as visual poems of horror, rather than stories put on the screen.

Argento is obviously aware of what Bava was doing and expanded on that in his own way. In particular, by creating far more elaborate set pieces with virtuoso camera movements and composition. But, also with a greater willingness to sacrifice the script to get those images on the screen.

In many ways, the Italian horror masters appear to be bad film makers. But, to those who can get into the aesthetic they are working from, there is extreme genius at work. The best analogy I could make is that it's like complaining that Stockhausen or Glass can't write a good melody.

I'd definitely suggest you give Suspiria another go with this in mind. If you can get yourself into this groove, I think you'll begin to understand why it gets such high praise. If not, at least you can say you gave it the good try. You also might want to give Opera a chance. When I first got into Argento, it was my favorite for a long time. The music can be bad, but the visuals are stunning.

I understand how you say is a difrent way to make movies. Susperia is a movie I see maybe 5 times because I like Trauma and I see this movie many times again. I see Trauma because I enjoy and I see Susperia becuase I try to enjoy like Trauma. For me is important to have the story for main thing and is maybe why is not to my way to enjoy. If movie is very much in style I think is still can come from the story. If I can see more Argento I will make another chance maybe for Opera and maybe Inferno but only if is cheap used dvd. I show my girlfriend Deep Red when is piano man talk to Daria and do the arm wrestle and she say what is this? So bad she say. Ha ha.

[Anaestheus]

I'd definitely recommend Opera before Inferno. Inferno is less coherent than any of the films you have seen so far. While I doubt they will do much to help you acquire a taste for his stuff, I'd think you may like Stendahl Syndrome and maybe even Card Player or Do You Like Hitchcock. For those films, Argento does focus more on narrative and less on style. But, again, he may just not be to your liking. They certainly are not for everyone.

And, if you haven't seen the Bava films, I do highly recommend them. Outside of being pretty damn good in and of themselves, I think they kind of help ease someone into getting the groove for Italian stuff. Both the plot and the acting are much more restrained and consistent than in Argento's films and they don't have quite the lunacy that Argento has, for better or worse.

I've been an Argento fan for about as long as i can remember. His early output is definitely in a class all it's own visually and stylistically. Sadly, his later efforts seem to want to trade in almost all of his signature trademarks for more obvious and linear plot development and gratuitous gore. I recently tried to give Mother Of Tears another chance because I had only watched it once and frankly was greatly dissappointed...I fell asleep 3 times in 3 nights before the closing credits every time......Italian horror is definitely an acquired taste, and to be sure, is not always good. In my opinion what makes Argento's films work is their visual asthetic. They don't always make the most sense, but usually they look and feel creepy and unsettling. One of my all time favorites is Suspiria. I love to put that one on late at night with all the lights off, especially if it's a rainy night! The mood that is created by Argento's use of clever camera angles, garrish lighting and Goblin's ultra sinister score is second to none in my book. By the time the climax rolls around and some of the gory set pieces come into play I've got a smile on my face every time. Give his earlier stuff another chance, you may come to appreciate it more over time, maybe not. For the record, I too thought Trauma was a good Argento film, not his best, but definitely solid.

[vampyr789]

well it also depends on the movie, and if you are watcing the Cut or uncut version. Deep Red, the uncut versions is boring. really it is, boring. the Cut version has much better pacing. IMO, but what Ash said above, some if his better films do take a couple viewings to digest. i agree with that

[Ptflea2]

I've always been on the fence with Dario. I'm not really a big fan, but can clearly understand his appeal. Some of his movies I like (Opera, Tenebre) some I don't (Stendahl Syndrome, Trauma) and some, dare I say, I feel are overrated (Suspiria). Regardless, I think he's an important filmmaker to the genre and would never suggest his works not be seen by horror film enthusiast.

[dave13]

i remember the first time i saw deep red (in its cut vhs form of the hatchet murders) i didn't think anything of it, and thought it was actually quite bad indeed. that was about 15 years ago. since then my tastes have changed and its now my favorite of his works. i agree with most here in that it does take a little while to appreciate his stuff.