Cult Labs

Cult Labs (https://www.cult-labs.com/forums/)
-   The 2010's (https://www.cult-labs.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=556)
-   -   Dario Argento's Dracula Anticipation Thread (https://www.cult-labs.com/forums/2010s/5548-dario-argentos-dracula-anticipation-thread.html)

plasterface 18th December 2011 12:44 AM

dracula spectacular
 
It looks hilarious, i am sad Argento seems to have lost his mojo but this looks entertaining:pound:

Susan Foreman 18th December 2011 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizarre_eye@Cult Labs (Post 147788)
I completely agree with you on the poster Demdike - it's completely dull and uninspiring.

I know we are taking about the poster, and not the finished movie, and it might be heresy to say this, but...when was the last time that Argento made a film which wasn't dull and uninspiring?

Gojirosan 18th December 2011 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suziginajackson (Post 204343)
I know we are taking about the poster, and not the finished movie, and it might be heresy to say this, but...when was the last time that Argento made a film which wasn't dull and uninspiring?

2007

Demdike@Cult Labs 18th December 2011 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suziginajackson (Post 204343)
I know we are taking about the poster, and not the finished movie, and it might be heresy to say this, but...when was the last time that Argento made a film which wasn't dull and uninspiring?

The same could be said about everyone, the majority of films covered by this forum are from the sixties, seventies and eighties.

Most new horror films are just dismissed as rubbish straight away, and those that become a success (Saw, Hostel, Paranormal Entity etc) are derided and their directors chastised.

necroluciferia 18th December 2011 06:41 PM

I'll keep an open mind until I see the film, but the trailer I've seen doesn't inspire confidence at this early stage.

Prince_Vajda 18th December 2011 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gojirosan (Post 204344)
2007

:nod:

I know that many Argento lovers will now draw their weapons, but I love Mother of Tears! It's a great movie, with a genuinely frightening atmosphere, and some really excellent scenes. It's not Argento at his peak, but pretty damn close to it! :)

Greetings!

plasterface 18th December 2011 08:42 PM

mother of tears
 
witch hazel from the bugs bunny cartoons was less silly than the 3rd mother

trench 18th December 2011 09:43 PM

Can't wait to see this now. I think it will be genuinely amazing(ly hilarious). The top comment on it is a gem : "Is the acting a work in progress too?"

Daemonia 19th December 2011 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince_Vajda (Post 204378)
I know that many Argento lovers will now draw their weapons, but I love Mother of Tears! It's a great movie, with a genuinely frightening atmosphere, and some really excellent scenes. It's not Argento at his peak, but pretty damn close to it! :)

I love your jokes, they're so funny. :lol:

Delirium 19th December 2011 08:08 PM

I really like Mother of Tears too. It's not Argento at his peak, no, nor in the same league as Suspiria/Inferno (considering it's supposed to complete the trilogy). It's not scary either, and doesn't have the trademark Argento aesthetic.

But I can't say I didn't thoroughly enjoy it. It's campy, gory, fast-paced, fun, apocalyptic mayhem - a hark back to Italian horror at its most delirious and over the top. Suspiria and Inferno are perfectly crafted arthouse horrors. Mother of Tears is a somewhat sloppy unashamed b-movie, and works perfectly well on that front, with a genuinely entertaining performance from Asia. They're polar opposite films, but work in their own ways.

So I stand by that film! Despite the anticipation, the negative press I heard was overwhelming, but I loved every second. Enough to buy the DVD and the French Blu (damned forced subs!).

I'm no Argento apologist either - I found the Card Player quite dull, didn't like his Masters of Horror stuff, and Giallo just left me incredulous.

Gojirosan 19th December 2011 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delirium (Post 204532)
I really like Mother of Tears too. It's not Argento at his peak, no, nor in the same league as Suspiria/Inferno (considering it's supposed to complete the trilogy). It's not scary either, and doesn't have the trademark Argento aesthetic.

But I can't say I didn't thoroughly enjoy it. It's campy, gory, fast-paced, fun, apocalyptic mayhem - a hark back to Italian horror at its most delirious and over the top. Suspiria and Inferno are perfectly crafted arthouse horrors. Mother of Tears is a somewhat sloppy unashamed b-movie, and works perfectly well on that front, with a genuinely entertaining performance from Asia. They're polar opposite films, but work in their own ways.

So I stand by that film! Despite the anticipation, the negative press I heard was overwhelming, but I loved every second. Enough to buy the DVD and the French Blu (damned forced subs!).

I'm no Argento apologist either - I found the Card Player quite dull, didn't like his Masters of Horror stuff, and Giallo just left me incredulous.


I heartily agree. I thought it was great fun.

I've never thought of myself as an Argento apologist, but reading on here has made me feel like just that. I simply don't find most of his films anywhere near as bad as almost everyone else seems to. I can only call Phantom Of The Opera and Giallo bad films. And thought Giallo was perfectly watchable, being ruined by Adrien Brody and a shoddy script not by Argento's job!

OK, so he pays the price for having made such good films early in his career, but you can say that of many directors, none of whom seem to get the battering that Argento does. Argento has not made anything anywhere near as bad as My Soul To Take or Cursed, for example, but where is Wes Craven's beating?

None of his latter films are as good as The Bird With The Crystal Plumage or Suspiria - but then not every Hitchcock was a Shadow Of A Doubt or Vertigo either. Most of his supposedly bad films, seem perfectly entertaining and very well crafted bits of low budget entertainment. Some of them (The Stendhal Syndrome, Sleepless...) are even better than that, and I suspect that time will do wonders for their reputations as it has for Inferno, Tenebrae and Opera - none of which were especially well regarded and were unfavourably compared to Bird, Suspira and Deep Red upon release.

Demdike@Cult Labs 19th December 2011 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gojirosan (Post 204535)
I heartily agree. I thought it was great fun.

Argento has not made anything anywhere near as bad as My Soul To Take or Cursed, for example, but where is Wes Craven's beating?

None of his latter films are as good as The Bird With The Crystal Plumage or Suspiria - but then not every Hitchcock was a Shadow Of A Doubt or Vertigo either. Most of his supposedly bad films, seem perfectly entertaining and very well crafted bits of low budget entertainment. Some of them (The Stendhal Syndrome, Sleepless...) are even better than that,

Like Hitchcock, even Dario's lesser films are quite watchable, and people will have their favourites amongst the so called lesser films. I adore The Trouble with Harry for example and i too think Mother of Tears is very good entertainment. On the other hand i really don't rate Trauma at all.

Sometimes i think people moan about his more recent output because they think thats the thing to do. Giallo and Mother of Tears must have had pretty good sales from the amount of people who say they are terrible. I would watch either of them again before seeing the extremely dull Cat O' Nine Tails. Thats just me though.

As for Wes Craven, he's just a hack in my opinion. Only seven out of his twenty nine films are any good. It could be eight but i haven't seen My Soul to Take.

Daemonia 20th December 2011 12:07 AM

Okay, my turn to invoke the wrath of those who liked Mother of Tears. This is a review of the film I wrote for another site, and it will certainly offend fans of the film. Sorry!

Quote:

Throughout the 70's and 80's Dario Argento was the king of Italian cinema. Films such as Suspiria, Deep Red, Inferno and Tenebrae wowed audiences throughout the world with their sheer visual spectacle. The maestro, once dubbed the Italian Hitchcock, could do no wrong. However, in the late 80's, with the arrival of Opera, Argento began losing his touch. Whilst Opera is still held in high regard amongst genre fans, myself included, it was not well-received with Italian audiences. Throughout the 90's his career seemed to flounder, with Phantom of the Opera being a particular low point – not only a bad Argento film, but quite possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen. Stendhal Syndrome was certainly a step up from this disaster, but still bereft of the man's genius and again wasn't well-received. Things seemed to look promising with the arrival of Sleepless which, in my opinion, is a damn fine Giallo and shows that Argento is still capable of making great films. Then came The Card Player and the TV movie Do You Like Hitchcock? – both of which, if I'm honest, are mediocre Euro-thrillers. It was then with some excitement amongst genre fans that Argento was prepping the final instalment of the Three Mothers trilogy – preceding it were Suspiria and Inferno. But it was also with trepidation that the fan community awaited this film, considering Dario's recent track record. Would he be able to pull something special out of the hat? Well, the short answer is 'no'. But read on…

The Three Mothers are representative of the three faces of sorrow: sighs, shadows and tears. The title of each face, personified as witches, are Mater Lachrymarum, Mater Suspiriorum, and Mater Tenebrarum - Mother of Tears is concerned with Mater Lachrymarum. The film opens with the uncovering of an ancient burial site in Rome and a strange casket is discovered. The priest overseeing the reburial of the bodies in the cemetery takes the casket and sends it to the nearby museum to be examined. There, once the casket is opened, the malevolent force of Mater Lachrymarum is unleashed upon the world. Soon hordes of witches start arriving in Rome to celebrate the new birth of the Mother of Tears. Violence and lawlessness begins to erupt across Rome and it is left to Sarah (Asia Argento) to fend off and ultimately defeat this evil.

I know what you're thinking, you think it sounds great. Trust me, it isn't. It sounds better on paper than it does in actuality. The film itself is a muddled mess with a paper thin plot, and is executed so badly I can hardly put it into words. This didn't seem like an Argento film at all, but rather some cheap and shoddy b-movie that deserved to be hidden away in the straight-to-DVD section. His signature colour palette was absent: no soaring visuals, no hidden-but-obvious metaphors on screen and, finally, no talent in front of the camera. Even the gore set-pieces were badly handled and the usually reliable Sergio Stivaletti provided sub-par FX work. Claudio Simonetti's overblown score is just ridiculous and the script was so poorly written an infant could've penned it. If I heard Asia say 'What?' one more time I swear I was going to jump through the screen and kill her myself. Now, I know all this sounds rather harsh, but I'm an Argento fan, which makes this film all the more insulting. I know the genius he is capable of, so why is he delivering pap like this? I want the Dario Argento I love to make a film, not this shadow of his former self.

So where did it all go so wrong? I've no idea, really, the opening murder was very explicit and bloody and I was beginning to think 'Right, this is more like it' and then it just veered off into…nothingness. And that's the whole problem, the film is just…nothing. It goes nowhere, it doesn't even tell a proper story, it just sort of ambles along doing absolutely f*ck all. Daria Nicolodi's appearance is utterly laughable too, she pops up like Casper the Friendly Ghost (and almost looks like it too) to help her daughter along, but it's just utterly ludicrous. Don't get me wrong, horror movies are nonsensical at the best of times, but they do operate on some basis of logic, however silly that logic that may be. By comparison, The Three Mothers isn't working from any kind of cohesive logic and just flies around wildly from one improbable scenario to another. It becomes apparent that the writers who assisted Dario (Adam Geirasch and Jace Anderson) have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the whole Three Mothers concept and tried to Americanise the whole thing, which resulted in this disaster of a movie. No offence, but I believe that Europeans have more of an intuition about the whole Gothic horror genre, being steeped in history as it is, which is the European's heritage – and make no mistake, the Three Mothers trilogy is gothic horror at its finest. Well, at least the first two parts were, anyway.

So, to sum up…erm…just avoid it. As far as I'm concerned the final instalment of the Three Mothers trilogy still hasn't been made, because this definitely ain't it. In fact, I am attempting to wipe all memory of it from my consciousness, it's traumatised me that much. I'm in shock – I can't believe that Dario would dare present us with this travesty as being the long awaited conclusion to this series. The film is certainly horrific, but for all the wrong reasons – and Asia's appalling performance is probably the most horrific thing about this film, sad but true. Sorry, Dario, but I know you can do far, far better than this. I can understand that there would have been budget constraints, so why then write in ambitious stuff like Rome erupting in violence and then simply show about three dudes smashing up a car. It's hardly apocalyptic and certainly doesn't convey what was intended. Then there's the hordes of witches arriving in Rome – apparently - but I only counted about five, all of which sported dire Goth garb and looked decidedly non-scary. Even the great Udo Keir ends up just being a parody of himself and he looks very out of place in this movie. I just cannot put into words how bad this movie is. Save your money – or buy an earlier Argento, if you haven't seen them; Suspiria is as good a place to start as any.

This film is inexcusable rubbish from a once-great horror/Giallo director. It's lamentable to see him come to this. I really hope for his sake that he comes back from this with something that will awe us once again. But I doubt it. I'd love to be proved wrong, though. In the final analysis, all I can say is avoid this and go watch one of his earlier, magnificent works – but not this diabolical mess of a movie. Sorry, Dario, I'm not sure I can forgive you for this. Did I say I hated this? Well I did. I never want to see this film again as long as I live. Harsh…but that's my reaction to it.

plasterface 20th December 2011 09:46 AM

tears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemonia (Post 204580)
Okay, my turn to invoke the wrath of those who liked Mother of Tears. This is a review of the film I wrote for another site, and it will certainly offend fans of the film. Sorry!

i thought you were been way too nice, its a shit film made even worse that its the end of a trilogy , its just plain awful

Daemonia 20th December 2011 12:56 PM

And just when we thought it couldn't get any worse, he delivers Giallo. How low can he go? Will Dracula 3D be even worse again? Will I watch Dario's Dracula? Of course I will, but expectations are extremely low. Extremely low.

James Morton 20th December 2011 02:03 PM

First poster for Dario Argento's Dracula
 
I will be looking forward to Argento's version of DRACULA when released on dvd next year
MOTHER OF TEARS was great gory fun, yes it had its faults, but a lot of 'critics' were asking where were the colours and visuals etc of his previous SUSPIRIA and INFERNO
Argento has said, he has moved on and is making his films HIS way
I found GIALLO disappointing, but was really expecting that
MOT on the other hand, despite the dumb reviews from the so called experts, I enjoyed nevertheless and sold the bare bones UK Optimum for the R1 w/extra
As its been said by somebody, even the great Hitchcock made bad films imo TROUBLE WITH HARRY, TORN CURTAIN, FAMILY PLOT, THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY etc
I still have a lot of his films on dvd/blu ray, the R1 2xdisc Universal Legacy dvd of VERTIGO being the best version around of my fave Hitchcock film
Argento has always been my fave horror director despite TRAUMA, THE CARD PLAYER and GIALLO
once again going to buy DRACULA.....

Daemonia 20th December 2011 04:06 PM

I hear what you're saying, James. And as a film in its own right I might have been more forgiving. However, try this: watch Suspiria, Inferno and then Mother of Tears in immediate succession. You'll quickly see how it's gone to shit with the final instalment. It's an embarrassment to the trilogy. To conclude such a magnificent series with this turd is what I found most insulting.

The Reaper Man@Cult Labs 20th December 2011 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demdike (Post 147786)
This is the first poster for Dracula 3d as directed by Dario Argento.

It stars Rutger Hauer as Van Helsing, as usual Asia Argento has a lead role. The film is said to be very faithfull to the novel.

In my opinion the poster is a little underwhelming. What are your thoughts on the poster and the film, do we need another version of Dracula, if we do is Dario a good choice after his version of another classic novel in Phantom of the Opera.

****,a lot of thought and effort there eh?:tsk:

Crimson Blade 20th December 2011 05:07 PM

Can't say i was very impressed with the Mother of Tears either tbh. It felt more like a Troma film than an Argento. And the gore effects were quite frankly, ridiculous, esp the strangulation scene with the woman's intestines. Awful.

I'm still hoping that one day he'll find his form again, but i won't hold my breath. :(

Demdike@Cult Labs 20th December 2011 05:37 PM

Nice review Daemonia. So did you like the film or not? ;)

Prince_Vajda 20th December 2011 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemonia (Post 204671)
I hear what you're saying, James. And as a film in its own right I might have been more forgiving. However, try this: watch Suspiria, Inferno and then Mother of Tears in immediate succession. You'll quickly see how it's gone to shit with the final instalment. It's an embarrassment to the trilogy. To conclude such a magnificent series with this turd is what I found most insulting.

I haven't commented on all this Mother of Tears criticism yet, as this is exactly what I am going to do before Christmas. Expect some extended reviews of Argento's Three Mothers pretty soon! :smokin:

Greetings!

James Morton 20th December 2011 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemonia (Post 204671)
I hear what you're saying, James. And as a film in its own right I might have been more forgiving. However, try this: watch Suspiria, Inferno and then Mother of Tears in immediate succession. You'll quickly see how it's gone to shit with the final instalment. It's an embarrassment to the trilogy. To conclude such a magnificent series with this turd is what I found most insulting.

no way is MOTHER OF TEARS is insulting, just entertaining imo in Argento's style

no way a turd, but I can think of a lot of so called horror films that are....

Paul@TheOverlook 20th December 2011 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemonia (Post 204671)
I hear what you're saying, James. And as a film in its own right I might have been more forgiving. However, try this: watch Suspiria, Inferno and then Mother of Tears in immediate succession. You'll quickly see how it's gone to shit with the final instalment. It's an embarrassment to the trilogy. To conclude such a magnificent series with this turd is what I found most insulting.

I couldn't agree more, spot on there, bud.

Delirium 21st December 2011 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemonia (Post 204671)
I hear what you're saying, James. And as a film in its own right I might have been more forgiving. However, try this: watch Suspiria, Inferno and then Mother of Tears in immediate succession. You'll quickly see how it's gone to shit with the final instalment. It's an embarrassment to the trilogy. To conclude such a magnificent series with this turd is what I found most insulting.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that it's unsuitable for the third in the trilogy, but I disagree that it is a bad film.

Take the dates, Suspiria ('77), Inferno ('80), Mother of Tears ('07). I'm sorry, but I just wouldn't expect a film made 27 years later from when the director was at his peak to be exactly the same - so watching them back to back, when it's clear the director has drastically changed his style, seems somewhat futile. Again, it's his fault for making it the third in the trilogy and I wouldn't argue that.

But on its own terms - which is how I personally prefer to take the film - it's great fun. Despite my reverence of the first two films, I can't ignore the basic fact that Mother of Tears still entertains me no end.

Gojirosan 21st December 2011 01:57 PM

I'm not entirely sure that Inferno comes out of it very well if you watch it straight after Suspiria! :lol:

Daemonia 21st December 2011 03:59 PM

Yes, I realise Argento's style has changed a lot between Inferno and Mother of Tears. However, if this is Argento's idea of 'moving on' then it would have been better to have remained firmly rooted in the past. Personally, I think Argento's 'new style' is rubbish. My argument is this: when you watch Mother of Tears do you really believe you're watching an Argento film? Be honest, if you didn't know it was Argento, the film is so generic, you'd think just about anyone could have made it, but you certainly wouldn't accredit it to Argento (well, I wouldn't, anyway, if I'd been shown the film with no idea who made it). That's my problem with Argento's new films. They're not unique. They're films that could have been made by almost anyone. Gone are his trademark signatures and directorial flair. They're bland, uninventive and dull. I know some don't agree with me, and that's fine, but that's my view and opinion.

Delirium 21st December 2011 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemonia (Post 204927)
Personally, I think Argento's 'new style' is rubbish. My argument is this: when you watch Mother of Tears do you really believe you're watching an Argento film? Be honest, if you didn't know it was Argento, the film is so generic, just about anyone could have made it.

See, I don't think it is generic, as other than an affectionate and glorious hark back to 70's/80's Italian horror it's still a wild and out there film. It appears to reference (intentionally or not, who knows) everything from Fulci to Bava to Argento himself - the ending is particularly Fulci-esque, and there's a few nods to Argento's earlier work, even if it has been stripped of the visual aesthetic we're accustomed to. It's less Argento trying to emulate himself (and if you want to see a modern interpretation of that visual aesthetic, I recommend Amer) than ironically winking at the whole scene and having fun with it.

stefanmetal 21st December 2011 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper@Cult Labs (Post 204688)
****,a lot of thought and effort there eh?:tsk:

It looks like the sort of knock off film that you would typically buy in Poundland.

sjconstable 22nd December 2011 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gojirosan (Post 204894)
I'm not entirely sure that Inferno comes out of it very well if you watch it straight after Suspiria! :lol:

Yeah it does, it has more occult atmosphere, it's brilliant.

Daemonia 22nd December 2011 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delirium (Post 204938)
See, I don't think it is generic, as other than an affectionate and glorious hark back to 70's/80's Italian horror it's still a wild and out there film. It appears to reference (intentionally or not, who knows) everything from Fulci to Bava to Argento himself - the ending is particularly Fulci-esque, and there's a few nods to Argento's earlier work, even if it has been stripped of the visual aesthetic we're accustomed to. It's less Argento trying to emulate himself (and if you want to see a modern interpretation of that visual aesthetic, I recommend Amer) than ironically winking at the whole scene and having fun with it.

Okay, granted, it has that kind of 80's throwback feel. But more of a late 80's Italian-cinema-in-decline vibe. In that context, and I was shown the film, I'd think it was a Bruno Mattei knock-off of an Argento-styled film. But certainly not from Argento himself. In fact, Mattei could probably have done better. ;)

The thing is, the film isn't 'wild and out there', it's incredibly restrained and dull. Not 'out there' at all. Unless a couple of goth-wannabe-witches and three people smashing up a car is considered apocalyptic and 'out there'. Sorry, I don't buy it. It's inexcusable rubbish form a former master of horror. Put against his classic works, it pales in comparison and shamefully goes and hides in the corner. :lol:

James Morton 22nd December 2011 01:33 AM

First poster for Dario Argento's Dracula
 
each to their own..........

Slippery Jack 22nd December 2011 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Morton (Post 205138)
each to their own..........

Nah, carry on debating, I'm not tiring of it at all ;) . . .

Delirium 22nd December 2011 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemonia (Post 205132)
The thing is, the film isn't 'wild and out there', it's incredibly restrained and dull. Not 'out there' at all. Unless a couple of goth-wannabe-witches and three people smashing up a car is considered apocalyptic and 'out there'. Sorry, I don't buy it. It's inexcusable rubbish form a former master of horror. Put against his classic works, it pales in comparison and shamefully goes and hides in the corner. :lol:

Well as you once again compare it to his earlier works, then it doesn't stand a chance - you've made your choice. As I said before I take it on it's own terms and you wouldn't find any argument that those films are in a league of their own.

And I always thought it was quite wild, unless you don't consider babies being dropped of bridges, mad monkeys, Daria Nicolodi's white witch, Udo Kier, plenty of nakedness and some good, gory kill scenes wild - not to mention the goth witches. Sure it's camp of the highest order - but I like that. I notice that scene crops up a lot from the detractors of the film. It certainly isn't boring, but I wouldn't argue that point as taste is subjective after all.

James Morton 22nd December 2011 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery Jack (Post 205160)
Nah, carry on debating, I'm not tiring of it at all ;) . . .

you're right there...
carry on arguing!

Daemonia 24th December 2011 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delirium (Post 205230)
Well as you once again compare it to his earlier works, then it doesn't stand a chance - you've made your choice. As I said before I take it on it's own terms and you wouldn't find any argument that those films are in a league of their own.

And I always thought it was quite wild, unless you don't consider babies being dropped of bridges, mad monkeys, Daria Nicolodi's white witch, Udo Kier, plenty of nakedness and some good, gory kill scenes wild - not to mention the goth witches. Sure it's camp of the highest order - but I like that. I notice that scene crops up a lot from the detractors of the film. It certainly isn't boring, but I wouldn't argue that point as taste is subjective after all.

It's hard not to compare it to his other works. As with any director, comparions will be made, observations on how it fits in with the whole body of work. So yes, I think it's acceptable to draw such comparisons. And when you look at how Mother of Tears fits in with his body of work, you can clearly see that it's an inferior work. So, compared with what he's capable of, it's clear to see that it's rubbish. In my opinion, of course.

plasterface 24th December 2011 09:09 AM

tears
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemonia (Post 205585)
It's hard not to compare it to his other works. As with any director, comparions will be made, observations on how it fits in with the whole body of work. So yes, I think it's acceptable to draw such comparisons. And when you look at how Mother of Tears fits in with his body of work, you can clearly see that it's an inferior work. So, compared with what he's capable of, it's clear to see that it's rubbish. In my opinion, of course.

the very fact that its a sequel to the excellent suspiria is a valid reason to compare it to his earlier work. Its a sad fact of life that sometimes your favourite things go bad like red dwarf and frank miller comics. You just got to appreciate them at their best and not dwell on their worst.

The Reaper Man@Cult Labs 24th December 2011 10:37 AM

I like Madre as well....as I've said on umpteen occasions,compared to his earlier films,it's a disaster,but then again,what later film DOES stand up to his earlier output?:)

Daemonia 24th December 2011 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper@Cult Labs (Post 205618)
I like Madre as well....as I've said on umpteen occasions,compared to his earlier films,it's a disaster,but then again,what later film DOES stand up to his earlier output?:)

Very little of his post-90's output is any good. Sleepless and Stendhal Syndrome are fairly good, but still a far cry from classic Argento.

doolahrock 24th December 2011 12:25 PM

I'll continue to have high hopes for Dracula but I've had high hopes for all of his recent output. The first 30 minutes of Giallo and I thought we were gonna get something pretty damn good. All kind of fell apart after that though.

MOT would be a great 'with loads of beer' film if it wasn't for the fact it is actually an Argento film. I honestly believe if it had been directed by someone else the majority of haters would have an entirely different outlook on the film. However, it is an Argento film and therefore we all have certain expectations.

I understand his interest in making a 3D film but the idea falls apart for me as I can't see many people actually getting to see it in 3D unless you have the appropriate home cinema set up. Might get a couple of one off screenings in the UK but the type of cinema that might show the film is unlikely to have the necessary hardware for 3D. I would have preferred they forgot about the 3D aspect to be honest.

Delirium 24th December 2011 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemonia (Post 205585)
It's hard not to compare it to his other works. As with any director, comparions will be made, observations on how it fits in with the whole body of work. So yes, I think it's acceptable to draw such comparisons. And when you look at how Mother of Tears fits in with his body of work, you can clearly see that it's an inferior work. So, compared with what he's capable of, it's clear to see that it's rubbish. In my opinion, of course.

And you're welcome to that opinion - it was indeed a mistake to make it the third of the trilogy. But there's a world of difference between 'inferior work' and 'rubbish' - I concur with the former, but disagree with the latter. Considering the time between the films - 27/30 years - and the fact that during that time we've seen the director change considerably, I simply didn't expect another Suspiria or Inferno. I was surprised by how much I actually did enjoy it (trust me, I was prepared to hate it).

But I also can't write off what is also a wonderfully entertaining film in its own right (IMO), based on the fact it doesn't stand up to a film from 27/30 years ago. But again, I wouldn't argue that as it's all down to personal taste and I fully respect your opinion in not liking it.

Good discussing with you. Merry Christmas!


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright © 2014 Cult Laboratories Ltd. All rights reserved.