Suspiria

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.