Rojo profundo

A slaughtered psychic sets the scene, a vicious killer that can't be seen, but Marcus Daly's on the case, to unmask the villains face, it takes some time to follow clues, more red spills in shades and hues, an author takes an unplanned facial, it leaves her feeling far from glacial, a haunted house near derelict, it's still not easy to predict, help from Gianna and her small car, the end reminds of abattoirs.

Disgraceful lizard torture scene aside (appalling if we're honest), this takes you on a fine old ride, with doubts aplenty about whodunit, the slices, cleaves, slashes and head splits. As engaging today as it ever was (apart from the lizard, which was always wrong).

Young generations might find it hard to believe ,but most of Argento's works were greeted by poor receptions when they were first released.Critics dismissed them as gaudy ,flashy,showy,you name it.

And now we are in 2005 ,and thirty years after,with hindsight ,that most fruitful part of Agento's works which begins with "Ucello della piume di cristalli"(1967) and ends -roughly- with "opera" (1987)shows how the frequently demeaned director was ahead of his time.Argento's work is art-house film!If Mario Bava or John Carpenter are,he is too.

Influenced by the former (color,lighting effects,depth of field,baroque settings),he had a strong influence on the latter,particularly for his use of music,which may seem trite at first listening but literally grows on you and leaves you completely panting for breath.

There's really an Argentesque geometry,a non -Euclidean one,and few other directors ( Alfred Hitchcock , Roman Polanski ) know how to depict a place and make it threatening for his characters.Argento,who certainly read Gaston Leroux ("le fantôme de l'opera" ) when he was young,loves the opera houses(or theater)."profondo rosso" begins on a stage where some kind of medium (Macha Meril) sees horrible things.People who have read Hergé's adventures of Tintin will notice the similarities between this scene and those pages in "the seven crystal balls" where Tintin and Haddock are watching Mrs Yamilah in a music hall."Opera" 's first scene also would take place in a theater as if the director told us "it's only a movie,do not worry" before treating us to the delight of the best scene with birds since Hitchcock's eponymous movie.

The sense of space which Argento displays is mind-boggling: depth of field,high and low angle shots,impressive lighting effects.His characters become Tom Thumb lost in the huge forest:think of the ballerina ,running away through the corridors ("Suspiria" ),James Franciscus in the graveyard ("il gatto...) ,Tony Musante in the lighthouse (Ucello ...),or Irene Miracle in the basement (Inferno).Here it's a true anthology:almost every place is memorable,from the corridor where the drama is resolved to the house where bad things happened long ago ,from the isolated house in the country -where Argento uses condensation as only a Conan Doyle,a Gaston Leroux or an Ellery Queen could have done it- to the school where weird drawings might be the final clue.To top it all,there's a sensational scene in a corridor ,which recalls Orson Welles' "lady from Shanghai.A "they do it with mirrors" trick which is still very impressive today.

Not only Argento creates fear with his disturbing settings ,but he makes us also ill-at-ease with his supporting cast:the gay with the androgynous face,the little girl who seems to be out of Fellini's "Toby Dammit" (1968),and of course Clara Calamai who was famous in the fascist years (Visconti's "ossessione" from "the postman always rings twice").

What about the screenplay?Well,like all Argento's movies I mention ,it's far-fetched and derivative ("psycho" ,"Marnie" for the final flashback).But it's delightfully far-fetched and smartly derivative .When today's horror flicks screenplays consist of one page (maybe two)of clichés ,Argento's ones have always been painstaking and labyrinthine .

It is one of the best works in Argento's much debated but absorbing filmography.No horror movie buff can ignore him.

It is a very difficult job for me to pick between this and Suspiria as Argento's best work. Both are masterpieces in their own right. Deep Red is about a man that sees a murder committed and then tries to unravel the mystery of finding the killer. David Hemmings does a fine job in the lead as he walks the streets of an Italian city in search of this homicidal killer. As with most of Argento's work, the viewer should not try to make too much sense out of the plot, but rather enjoy the rich subtext and visual tapestry with which Argento paints the screen. The killings, most notably done with a hatchet, are inventive and decidedly gruesome. More than one time I found myself jump and wince(I suppose those are good things!) The acting, even though most dubbed, is very good. The set locations are very atmospheric as well. Argento's camera, however, is the principal character as it shows us all kinds of images related to plot and otherwise and reached into our subconscience for real meaning. This is first and foremost a visual film, and it certainly shows Argento's homage to his mentor's work, the films of Mario Bava.

An English pianist (who is not an engineer) witnesses the murder of a German psychic in Italy. While it's really none of his business (they have police in Italy) he begins to do his own detective work to track down the killer. The journey takes him all over the place, to haunted houses, to young witches and into a friendly relationship with a reporter.

This film is written by Bernardino Zapponi ("Anal Paprika") and directed by Italian horror giant Dario Argento ("Tenebre", "Phenomena", "Inferno"). And I have to say this right away: as much as I love this film and think it's one of Argento's better pieces, why is it more highly rated than "Suspiria"? Internet Movie Database ranks this in their top 50 horror films, while "Suspiria" is mysteriously absent. "Suspiria" is the better film in almost every way. But anyway...

This film really excels in the writing of both characters and plot. The lead is very interesting (Marcus Daly) even though he really only acts as a catalyst for events and as a surrogate for the viewer, taking us where we couldn't go without a guide. Much of the plot is convoluted in the version I watched (the heavily edited English version, as I don't speak much Italian like my sister does), but still comes off as very well layered.

The gore is not as bad as some may have made it out to be. Even by 1970s standards, it's nothing really shocking. But it works. One scene, involving a woman killed with hot water, was well done. Another, with a man getting his teeth bashed out on the corner of a table, was not as gruesome as it could have been but was still painful to watch. The creepiest part (I actually felt uneasy) was when there was... a killer doll! It was just really creepy in the style of the presentation.

You can't talk about Argento's films without talking about the music. The band Goblin supplies the soundtrack (just like on "Suspiria") and does a fine job. One review found the music "annoying", and I can appreciate that sentiment. They do repeat the same songs over a lot, and the music isn't as blended in as it should be. But the songs themselves are moving and very good at burrowing into your subconscious. The theme to "Suspiria" is great (I have the soundtrack and it's awesome), and these songs are also really good. There's just something about them -- horror doesn't embrace music as often as it should. Think about the great horror themes, and try to imagine the films without them. Music is essential.

I look forward to someday seeing the Anchor Bay release of this film, as I'd love to see the edited parts. But I definitely recommend you see this if you have the chance. Sure, it's older and the quality isn't that stellar. Stop whining! Films should be judged on plot, acting and vision. Don't blame a director in the 1970s for not owning 1990s equipment. This one is a winner, although I have to disagree with the IMDb voters about it being the best Argento... maybe second best (which is still better than almost any other director out there).

What's the big damn deal with this film? I've got five words about Dario Argento: Don't always believe the hype. I know I'm not the only horror fan that thinks Argento is a tad too overrated. It seems like the Argento films I enjoy are the ones that aren't so well received by everyone else. And the ones I hate, are the most well known and well loved. This movie is the strongest example of this. Deep Red is confusing, terribly hard to follow, and just plain boring. The pace crawls along l-i-k-e...t-h-i-s. Just like Suspiria, this movie starts with a bang and slowly dwindles away...along with your sanity. It's sad when I'm watching the DVD counter waiting for a film to end. I hated this movie. I think I'm going to start a scale based on how many fingers I would chop off just to never see this crap again. On the fingers scale, Deep Red gets a 7. That may sound harsh, but it's my honest opinion. But, my comments are to no avail because, just like I did, you will probably ignore the two negative comments and listen to everyone else and rent this movie.