Suspiria

Need another remake/reboot/reimagining of a classic horror movie that was effective because of the timing of its release... and deserves to keep its legendary status for the rest of time." Then I saw that it was 2.5 hours, and I was like "OMG, what?!" Then I watched it, and I was like "OMG, what?!" I think I'm going to watch it again, because I wasn't paying attention a lot of the time. However, this is one of those remakes/reboots/reimaginings that I respect. Why? Because it takes the CONCEPT of the original, and spins everything about, swirls and twirls it, then flips it up into itself, turning into a completely faithful representation of the term "REIMAGINING". I respect SUSPIRIA 2018. Granted, some of the makeup effects were pretty bad (especially the "old man", which I don't really think was necessary; and the silly makeup for one of the "old ladies" in the final act, which was worse). It is a little long in the tooth. It tries perhaps a little too hard to be artsy-fartsy... But it grabbed me. It pressed its filthy, dirty fingers on my windpipe in parts, and gently squeezed with wrathful intimacy. I felt dirty, yet couldn't help but feel enthralled in parts.

I will say, though, that even if this movie was a complete FAILURE of a horror remake, I will gladly praise the fact that it tried to be its own thing. It wasn't a shameless ripoff. It really, truly IS a reimagining. We just don't get enough of those these days.

WTF just happened?? I still can't figure out if I hated this movie or loved it. It is strange as hell. I guess it is a remake, never saw the original, so I don't have any incite there. I liked the premise, but hated a lot about it, but freaking loved the ending... but it took 2.5 hours to get there! Way to freaking long, I can say that for sure. Also, NOT a fan of contemporary dance.

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.

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.

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.