In the 1600s, long before the invention of photography, a scientist named Girolamo Fumagalli was obsessed with the idea of reproducing images. He discovered that by killing a victim and removing the victim's eyeballs, it was possible to reproduce on paper the last image imprinted on that person's retinas. He named this technique 'thanatography'. Today, the same kind of gruesome ritual and abominable crime recurs within the walls of an international school of cinema.Written by
Really waited for this, but maybe was not the case...
Went to the premiere yesterday and I was a bit disappointed. Nothing new (but this is forgivable) , at time confused and rushed, with some plot holes in the writing (people start missing and die and no one cares? No one calls the police???) and the suspense wasn't always very suspenseful. Some references to the first Argento, some blood but not too extreme, and a final revelation (the mysterious "Imago Mortis") that when finally is captured on a picture my only reaction was "So what???". To say the truth someone in the theater walked away well before the end credits... But I must admit that I've liked the director's style : it's more a psychological thriller than an all-out horror. Unfortunately not all the actors were convincing in their roles (at times too much melodrama, I'm afraid) but some ideas were interesting. Maybe it's the philosophy and the bizarre science described in the story that I've liked more. Not the worst movie experience, but nothing that remains afterward. At least for me. Geraldine Chaplin was in it maybe to help the career of someone she loves: it's one of the good things in the movie, so maybe she was right. We'll see if this "Imago Mortis" will have more life. But through eyes very open...
22 of 31 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this