Suspiria

The original 'Suspiria' by Dario Argento was a treat for the senses. It was a visual masterpiece. This version of 'Suspiria' has no similarities with the original. It is more arthouse with a completely different tone. The atmosphere is sinister and eerie. The elaborately choreographed dance sequences are macabre and invoke a sense of dread. The movie is not outright scary like conventional horror but more along the lines of psychological horror. Also, Dakota Johnson's performance as Susie was quite good. At 2 hours 30 minutes, It is a lengthy movie but it is worth it.

While I really liked the weirdness of the Original (you can't really put your finger on it and what it tried to tell us), this really steps up to the task. I know that just writing this or just the rating will have some fans of the Original riled up. Now I'm not trying to take anything away from your memories or your taste, so if you are reading on, I thank you for being open minded.

For anyone unaware of the original, you do not have to have seen it, to enjoy this. But you can watch both, because they differ on enough levels to make them both enticing and interesting to watch. Even a double will would be something that made sense. And whichever order you want to watch them. Though I think it would make sense to watch Argentos Suspiria first. We have different characters here, we have an amount violence and depicted visual explicit pain enducing scenes, that this is not for the faint of hearted. If you are squeamish, do not - I repeat: do NOT watch this! But if you stomach the visceral and painful moments (there are not that many and they are mixed well with the story), you will love the rest too.

Great storytelling and a weirdness that can hold up to that of the original. And really great acting to go along with everything.

I've seen the original and can tell that this remake goes one step further. While the old 'Suspiria' from 1977 has strong atmospheric suspense, his one has less of it, but becomes real bloody at the end. What drives me mad is the run time. 2 hours 31 minutes for a story that could be easily told in 1 hour 45 minutes. So I lost a lot of time for a mediocre story. I would have given even a worse rating, if it wouldn't get so gory shocking scenes at the end. That's the only point it can really score with - as a horror movie. The story is too long winded.

I cannot put my finger on it completely, but something is off with this movie and I don't like that I cannot give it a 9 since the acting was great. As always, Swinton can carry any movie single-handedly on her shoulders. And her doubling as the Doctor was unexpectedly good. Simply, I think the casting was great.

The writing, storytelling and maybe the editing seems to be decent but perhaps holding the film back a bit. So I'm unfamiliar with the historical backdrop of the film, but that's ok because I think there is enough gloom and doom feeling that I get the mood it's trying to set. But then all the flashbacks or sharp cuts to all these random pictures and scenes gets muddy. I get that maybe it was supposed to bring this elevated artistic thriller element but it failed because it was overused and just too random at times. The pacing was a bit slow as well or maybe it was the long runtime that made it feel like it was ongoing forever.

In all, I think it's a 6, but it could have been an easy 8 with at least better editing and shorter runtime.

Large groups of people seem to either be awed by this film or utterly revile it. I, however, am willing to go against the grain and take the middle ground. This is neither a masterpiece, nor is it a disaster.

It's a highly ambitious remake that attempts to weave political and artistic themes together into one cornucopia of fantasy-horror-historical expression, and unfortunately it only succeeds some of the time. Does this film bite off more than it can chew? One could argue that, but sometimes I'd rather a film try to do too much and partially fail than play it safe and thereby come out less memorable.

What tends to give this film more bite is its ferocious dance sequences. I can only imagine how much work went into that aspect of the filmmaking. There is also a wonderful recreation of the sterile bleakness of late 1970s Berlin back when the city was still divided during the Cold War. As far as performances go, there isn't a false note. Dakota Johnson gives a nuanced turn as an aspiring American dancer who comes to Berlin in 1977 to join a world-renowned dance company, which just might be dominated by a host of witches. Tilda Swinton gives an equally disquieting turn as one of the dance instructors. Chloe Moretz Grace turns out to be under-utilized.

Although some scenes don't feel as artistic as they could have been, this is still an arresting cinematic experience overall. Putting its inconsistency in execution aside as well as a seemingly winding conclusion, I recommend this film for those looking for something ambitious and off-the-wall.