User reviews

When Dario Argento calls "Inferno" a difficult movie, he ain't kidding. It's a feast for the eyes that's easily on par with his most acclaimed work, but also a narrative train wreck loaded with nonsense. I'd have less of a problem accepting the free-association nightmare logic of the film if Argento didn't feebly try to make it coherent (in the works of David Lynch/Cronenberg, things are far more intriguing the less they're explained). It also doesn't help that all of the characters are so thinly-defined they barely exist, and that our American lead (Leigh McCloskey) spends the film looking as confused as most viewers will be. "Inferno" is the second part of a trilogy begun by 1977's "Suspiria" (and concluded by this year's "Mother of Tears"), and in some aspects, Argento seems to be mimicking the visual (lots and lots of blue-to-red lighting schemes) and musical (Goblin is replaced by Keith Emerson) cues that made that film so successful. And while "Inferno" is punctuated by many wonderfully surreal and ambiguous setpieces (a chase through a library; a rodent feeding frenzy during a lunar eclipse; a search for keys in a submerged catacomb), the film lacks the efficiency and flow of Argento's best films, instead taking a more contemplative approach to the mythos of "The Three Mothers." While these elements make for an interesting view, the lack of a relatable human anchor ultimately keeps "Inferno" from achieving greatness.

It can hardly be denied that Italian horror film director Dario Argento is a true master craftsman. His films are often visually arresting, with many strange and horrific sounds, imagery, and bizarre set decorations that really succeed in creating atmospheres of pure dread, evil, and terror. His "giallo" (the Italian word for "yellow") murder-mystery films are what are most-known around the world to horror fans, because they combine the typical whodunit with elements of horror and the supernatural; the best film of this genre that I've seen so far is Argento's "Suspiria" (1977), though I have yet to see the other highly regarded picture from this time, "Deep Red" (1975).

Argento's 1980 feature "Inferno" is a semi-sequel to his earlier "Suspiria"; "Inferno" is the second in a loose film trilogy known as the "Three Mothers," which began with "Suspiria," followed by "Inferno," and was concluded in 2007 with the long-delayed "The Mother of Tears." This loose trilogy surrounds the legend of three ancient witches living in the present-day - one in Germany ("Suspiria"), another in New York City (this film), and the third finally in Rome ("The Mother of Tears"). "Inferno," while visually arresting with astounding production values and horrific blood-lettings, is a mixed bag with little coherence in the plot.

I did not find Argento's earlier "Suspiria" to be a particularly well-acted or well-written film. Argento is largely a director of style over substance, but his style is usually the star of the show in most of his films, hence why actors and plot often seem secondary. What made that film so horrifying was its sounds, imagery, and soundtrack (by the Italian band Goblin). It was such a uniquely unsettling horror film experience that it terrified me to the bone when I watched it for the first time.

"Inferno" is alternatively set in Rome and New York City. Rose Elliot (Irene Miracle) discovers the book "The Three Mothers" in New York City and comes to suspect that she is living in one of the buildings believed to house one of the Three Mothers. She writes to her brother Mark (Leigh McCloskey) in Rome for him to come visit her. This sets in motion a series of events that plunges them into a horrifying world of murder and the supernatural as they try to uncover the truth about the Three Mothers.

A lot of events in "Inferno" seem random and off-putting and seem to interfere with the narrative with little in the plot connecting any of the events. For example, the beautiful Italian girl (Ania Pieroni) who shows up at different points while Mark is in Rome; she never speaks, he never speaks to her, and we know nothing about her. But she provides an interesting visual element in an otherwise dark and disturbing picture.

"Inferno" is incredibly well-made, but like I said even incoherence in the plot has its limits. "Suspiria" didn't have much of a coherent story, but Argento's style and use of secondary background elements (sound, imagery, music) were able to make you "experience" the picture in ways that were more than enough to make up for the picture's shortcomings. "Inferno" does have some neat camera and visual trickery that plunge you into the madness so that you feel like you're actually there experiencing everything the characters are witnessing.

There are also some creatively gruesome murders here and there (a disturbing factoid here is that Argento himself often likes to portray the hands of the killer in his films). There's even a disturbing sequence involving a crippled old man, cats and rats that is pretty extraordinary and has to be seen to be truly believed, even if it does seem a bit random. And there's another sequence involving Rose in an underwater moat that is just downright chilling.

"Inferno" is not as "hot" as I thought it was going to be. In fact, I thought it was a little cold for my liking, considering my experience with "Suspiria." Maybe it'll get better (and "hotter") on repeat viewings.

6/10

Dario Argento did some good movies back in the day. Sadly, I cannot consider this one a masterpiece. What little there is of plot feels very "mehh" and you start to feel very soon that this movie is just an excuse for Dario Argento to slap you with some red and blue while pretending that's art. Being spiritual successor to "Suspiria" you would expect a decent amount of creepy scenes, but you only get half of it, and when it starts to near to perfection, Dario blows it and it falls flat. Characters are bland and you don't really care for anybody except the final guy, which you only do because he looks cool. Also, the ending is pretty disappointing and you are like: "What just happened?". Still, it's not all that bad. That song near the end of the movie is kinda cool, there are some little disturbing moments and the movie oozes with potential. Sadly, the potential is left wasted and you just get a half baked horror movie who doesn't know what to do with itself. 6.5/10 from me! It's far from the worst thing you can watch as a horror fan, but it's a perfect fit for that "mehh" category...

This is a film about witches, ancient alchemy, and death. The atmosphere is Gothic and medieval. But the setting is modern. Most scenes take place in small, stylish interior spaces. For lighting, Argento uses the glow from indirect sources (mostly blue, red, and orange hues), and alternates this with darkness. In combination with the lighting, the film's sound effects, which alternate with silence, are appropriately spooky. And Keith Emerson's soundtrack, with all that organ music, contributes to the Gothic tone. One of the best parts of the entire film is the rock-opera opus from the chorus at the film's end, with that great beat, and lyrics that are indecipherable.

The nightmarish atmosphere, while maybe not quite as stunning as in "Suspiria", is more than adequate to induce suspense, anticipation, and a sense of danger. From out of the darkness and stillness comes "death", in all its horrific cruelty. As a "horror" film, "Inferno" is fairly pure, in that the plot is more or less self-contained. There are only brief references to the "real" world, outside the confines of the story.

The film's plot is indeed thin, and functions really as an excuse for the actors to move from one atmospheric set to the next. The script does not require great acting skills, mercifully, since great acting is nowhere to be found.

Of the various Argento films I have seen, "Inferno" is perhaps my least favorite. It does not have the conviction of Argento's other works. It seems more like a half-hearted sequel, an afterthought, to "Suspiria". Like most sequels, I find it less satisfying than the original, the soundtrack notwithstanding. Still, for Argento fans, "Inferno" is a must-see, if for no other reason than for purposes of comparison.

Dario Argento is a master of his genre, no doubt about that, but his script here is pure hokum. The film has a number of striking images (the mysterious beauty that appears out of nowhere in the classroom; the drapes being slowly ripped apart by the nails of a stabbed-to-death woman; the close-up of Daria Nicolodi's lips; the pursuer at the library's basement, whose face remains in the dark, but whose hands are clearly not human), and a very peculiar architectural design, with secret passages leading to all sorts of hidden rooms to other passages to other rooms....However, as many others have said, the film is best approached as a dream, because the plot is incoherent and there are several scenes that run on too long. It does get better on the second viewing. (**)

Sequel to SUSPIRIA is both wonderfully lit and beautifully filmed. It is also visually very much like SUSPIRIA (which can be both good as it is dripping with atmosphere and bad as I think of it as the younger sibling who wants to be just like its older brother or sister).

One big problem I had with the film is the plot. If you have seen SUSPIRIA then you know that the villain will be a witch. Here two siblings Rose (Irene Miracle) and Mark (Leigh McCloskey) are investigating killings that are taking place only to find that a coven of witches is located in Rose's building. Okay, so the plot is not exactly non-existent, but there is not much to grab hold of at times. Some of things that take place as well in the film border on silly. Not to say that you should not see this film. As I mentioned earlier it contains lots of atmosphere that many horror films do not take the time to create. Maybe you will love it, but don't be surprised if it doesn't strike a chord like some of Dario Argento's other earlier work.

Pretty good score by prog rocker Keith Emerson. Also starring Daria Nicolodi. Followed by MOTHER OF TEARS.

Dario Argento is a filmmaker whose work is stunning and memorable. Suspiria is a beautiful vibrant work that encapsulates what an Italian horror is. In the same way Phenomena is an enthralling effort with a monumental soundtrack and horrifically beautiful visual display. I wanted to check out the rest of The Three Mothers trilogy and Inferno was the next on cue. I knew what type of film to expect and while this isn't his best film, I did enjoy experiencing it.

The film starts with a story in a book about The legend of the Three Mothers who are three evil sisters and how they live in different houses in different places. From there we immediately follow different characters as they start meeting their gruesome demise at the hands of a concealed figure. Mark is the main focus of the film, as he travels out to New York to get in touch with his missing sister. He soon learns about the legend of the Three Mothers and the violence that is occurring around him.

This is no Suspiria (or Phenomena). The characters are one dimensional, give ordinary performances. You don't have a young Jennifer Connelly or Jessica Harper to boot. The film gets a little muddled in its Three Mothers mystery. For a long time there isn't much going on besides watching different characters getting killed off slowly. I know that Argento is known for his shots and his vivid imagination of colors on screen but he is technically more style than substance. This film is the prime example of that.

With all that said I still really enjoyed this. its a joy to behold. Its pure Argento; the set pieces, the framing of the scenes, the gruesome but beautiful violence, and the pure suspense of what will happen. its quite good. It doesn't have the strength of a powerful soundtrack or a notable character but there's still beauty in it yet. I am probably going to watch the final film in the trilogy soon. I'm not expecting much because modern day Argento isn't all that (see Dracula 3D).

7/10

Okay, here's the deal: If you need a coherent movie with an algebraic plot, skip this one. If you are interested in Dario Argento but haven't seen any of his films, start with something else. If you are a fan of Dario Argento, do yourself a favor and buy this one. Inferno is weird, makes no sense, but is a gorgeous horror film. I loved it.

Inferno, Dario Argento's second film in his Three Mothers trilogy, features some great death scenes and inventive set-pieces, and yet the film remains my least favourite from the Italian auteur. Whilst individual moments certainly impress (an underwater scene at the beginning is particularly scary), I find the film as a whole something of a disappointment.

My first major issue is with the plot (or lack of one)...

Leigh McCloskey plays Mark Elliot, a man searching for his sister Rose (Irene Miracle), who has gone missing whilst investigating the legend of The Three Mothers—three wicked witches each living in a different part of the world in specially designed buildings. Mark discovers that the apartment in which Rose was living is situated in the building created for Mater Tenebrarum, the cruelest of the Mothers, who is keen not to be disturbed. So much so, that she kills anyone who comes close to discovering her secret hideout.

Which leads me to ask the question 'why don't people just leave her alone?' Seems to me that if you don't go poking your nose where it's not wanted, you won't wind up the as the victim in one of Argento's elaborate death scenes.

Throw in some rubbish about a cat-hating antiques dealer (who gets attacked by rats and is killed by a hot-dog seller), an unnecessary appearance from Daria Nicolodi, and a confusing finalé, and you have one of the least satisfying stories that Argento has ever committed to celluloid.

The other big problem that I have with Inferno is the damn irritating lighting: I'm sure that many Argento fans feel that Inferno is a visual triumph—a feast for the eyes that actually transcends the need for a logical storyline—but I cannot stand the constant overuse of primary-colours . I would have much preferred a plot that I could understand over the blatant lighting nightmare that drenches practically every frame.

I didn't really like Suspiria, and enjoyed Inferno even less. Which means that I may be the only Argento fan that isn't looking forward to his next film: the Mother of Tears—the last in the Three Mothers trilogy.

Inferno is Dario Argento's masterpiece. For once, he abandoned the idea of a coherent storyline altogether and made a movie that is simply a series of beautifully made setpieces. Many people have criticized Inferno's plot; such people are completely missing the point. Inferno is no more concerned with plot than Luis Bunuel was with movies such as The Phantom of Liberty; where Bunuel was concentrating on images and ideas, Argento is concentrating on images and emotion, specifically fear.

Each scene features a character or characters running afoul of the Three Mothers, entities introduced obliquely in Argento's previous movie, Suspiria, and developed considerably here. The third movie in the Three Mothers trilogy remains unmade. Each scene is carefully coded by judicious use of colour and sound. All the best setpieces in the movie feature no dialogue whatsoever (most notably the scenes in the underwater chamber and the lecture theatre). Much of the most significant dialogue is whispered offscreen by unseen persons.

Inferno is that rarest of breeds: pure cinema. Not only could it not have succeeded in any other medium, it cannot be adequately described in words. Anyone who is seriously concerned with artistic cinema must see this movie, as should most horror fans. Anyone who has trouble getting their head around movies that push beyond the conventional three-act storyline will almost certainly hate it.

When reading the back of Inferno's DVD-cover, it looks like you're holding Argento's most ambitious piece of writing in your hands. A well thought-out thematic sequel to 'Suspiria' and the second part in the 'Three Mothers' trilogy. A young lady becomes petrified by the thought that the building she lives in is one of the buildings owned and ruled by the Three Mothers, of which she read about in a devilish book. She alarms her brother in Rome but by the time he gets there, she has mysteriously vanished. She's not the only one by the way…everyone who even attempts to unravel the Mothers' mystery dies a horrible, violent death. Now, it may look like an outlandish super-thriller but the plot is confusing too often and, at times, even entirely incomprehensible and utterly uninvolving. Luckily Argento has the talent (or luck) to loudly insert an abrupt plot-twist or violent murder every time the film tends to loose your interest, so that you're awake and attentive again.

But – and this is what counts most - Dario Argento's Inferno is yet another stylish masterpiece! You cannot be but thrilled by the man's talent for sound, image and movement. This film is a beautiful series of bizarre set pieces, edited together by stunning camera-work. Then add some of the most impressive murder-sequences you ever witnessed, and you'll totally forget about the plot-holes and illogicalness. Italian horror-freaks know it already: Dario Argento has the gift to make sadistic violence look like beautiful art. We see how a throat is horizontally speared by a knife, how a young woman is slowly guillotined by a piece of broken window or how Daria Nicolodi (Argento's wife at that time) is completely devoured by ravenous cats. There are several more outrageous death scenes, but it's up to you to check them out. I think 'Inferno' is Argento's most successful attempt to bring a compelling murder mystery with depth and range. To me, it's a lot better than the slightly overrated 'Suspiria' and it even ranks as his third-best film. I'll always prefer 'Opera' and 'Tenebrae' but you can't really compare those with 'Inferno'. They're more like slick gialli whodunits. One final remark goes out to the terrific musical score. The end-credits song will haunt your head long after you finished watching this film. Outstanding piece of pure Gothic music.

One thing that has always bugged me enormously about Mr. Argentos films, are his blatant disregard for decent scripts and good actors, preferring to focus solely on visual and auditory extravaganza. Considering the latter aspect, I can not help but to applaud the man for being somewhat of a master when it comes to creating a sinister atmosphere. Few can match him here. I think my favourite films penned by him have to be Suspiria, Phenomena, and Trauma. Of course, as all his films are ultimately marred by bad script and acting, the aforementioned films are sadly no exception. But what these films have going for them, (unlike his lesser films) ,especially Suspiria, are a twisted and dark atmosphere that tends to overshadow the fact that the lines delivered often seem to be spoken by robots. I really enjoyed Suspiria, and in my opinion, it is probably one of the most atmospheric horror-flicks out there, in addition, the murders are delightfully inventive here.

So what to say then about Inferno, the follow up to Suspiria? One thing is certain; I refuse to join the choir of appraisal, for the sole reason that, compared to the brilliance of Suspiria, this is really nothing special at all. Sure, he creates some striking visuals yet again, and I absolutely love the many times mentioned underwater-scene. But all in all, this is quite an forgettable film, with forgettable murders, shitty acting, and with an ultimately forgettable atmosphere. One thing that I fail to grasp though, is the fact that many seem to view this film as confusing, which, in my opinion it is not. Quite easy to understand, if you ask me. I think this film would have been much better, if Argento dropped all the dialogue, and created a lot more tension and more sinister visuals( ala the underwater scene). As it stand now though, it is a boring experience. Plain and simple.

Definitely a Dario Argento film here. No question about it. The film's plot concerns a young girl ,having read a book about three "mothers" who live in France, Germany, and her hotel in New York, investigating the place she lives in for a key. The girl contacts her brother going to school in Rome - anyone buy Leigh McCloskey as a student of musicology? - asking for help. The three mothers are...well, if you know you are a step ahead of me.

This Argento film is very problematic. On the one hand its genius cannot be denied when it comes to visual artistry and suspense building. Argento paints a scene like no other film maker I know, with the exception perhaps of Mario Bava(who worked on this film...his last). The vibrant colors used throughout the film are surreal, and some of the scenes are lessons in scene building. The underwater sequence is an awesome scene, yet its has virtually no place in the film's plot. Another scene involves a crippled man falling in water and slowly being devoured by rats. His cries reach a diner cook working late, who runs outside to stick a knife in the poor man's throat. His character or an explanation never come. How about the key? Never mentioned again. Visual brilliance cannot make this a good film, though it really works hard at it. I found myself not really understanding what was going on yet loving the scenery. As with most of Argento's work, we get plenty of bloody deaths, particularly young girls and crippled older men. Inferno is not a bad film nor is it a great film. It has many qualities found in Suspiria, but that film made a great deal more sense and had some actors that had a bit more talent than those involved with this. McCloskey's stage presence is akin to driftwood. He is a very poor lead. Alida Valli is back as a permed hotel manager. She gives a good performance though her part has almost no real significance in the film. I guess my gripe is that how can a director with so much obvious talent like Argento just cross the line too much between reality and imagination. If your audience doesn't have SOME guidance then how are they going to know what you are trying to achieve. Some reviewers say you need to watch this film many times to get its point. Balderdash! I could watch it ten more times and still would not be able to make the aforementioned connections in the plot. I could easily sit through the film again though, because of Argento's style of using film as a canvas. If Inferno had a better constructed plot, something along the lines of Suspiria, this very well could be a minor masterpiece. It is definitely worth a look; however, though it pales in comparison to Suspiria in every way.

This film is best enjoyed as a purely visual film. The plot is convoluted, the pacing is poor, some of the acting sucks. But, as a purely visual, abstract, dreamlike experience it mostly works. There are some really mesmerizing, scary sequences, and others that fall a little short of Argento's genius. Its not quite as good as "Suspiria", although it is a very similar film. Argento is an amazing talent, but some of his films, like this one, are somewhat of a mixed bag. As a purely visual director, his attempts to embellish plot and character usually sort of throw a wrench in the works. It would be great to see him direct a film that has little to no dialog and story and strictly focus on imagery.

Dario Argento's Suspiria is a masterwork - a true work of visionary art. It's a shame his sequels have left so much to be desired. While not quite the style-free abortion that Mother of Tears is, Inferno keeps the colorful palate and nonsensical dream logic of Suspiria, but forgets to give us anyone to relate to.

The story of Inferno is...well, what story? It's more of a series of well executed set pieces strung together without any humanity whatsoever. I'm fine with style over substance and it's not like Suspiria had a brilliant screenplay, but Inferno consists entirely of a bunch of random characters running around or exploring where they shouldn't and being dealt with my some angry witches.

Inferno gives us a whopping 3 lead characters before it finally settles on one to follow around about an hour in to the movie. Unfortunately, this character is easily the most boring out of all 3 and the actor seems to literally be sleepwalking through his performance. Maybe that was the intention, but it sure is dull to watch. We don't really care about these people, so there's not much investment in their survival.

Despite a bizarre narrative and no interesting characters to follow, Inferno still gets some high marks for some daring and beautifully grotesque imagery. Honestly, that's the only reason to watch the film.

Inferno is worth watching for its cinematography, production design, and gore alone, but it's too bad that they didn't aim to be a little more interesting from a narrative standpoint. At times, one gets the distinct feeling that the creators were either bored, making up as they went along, or both.

After showing with Profondo Rosso and Suspiria how much logic matters in his visualization of a theme, Argento apparently annoyed a number of people by junking it altogether with perhaps the movie in his filmography that provokes the most divided reactions from viewers. If Suspiria followed a fairy tale structure, Inferno's structure is more that of a fever dream...it has no logic at all, except for that of a nightmare.

Essentially, this movie is a series of scenes, and not much more. One does not lead sensibly into another in the way we commonly associate with a "plot". But what scenes...the accentuation of the visual in this film is so profound and thorough that it in some ways represents the culmination of what Argento was trying to do with the visuals in Suspiria, although without that film's more audience-pleasing aspects and accessibility. The sheer number of arresting visuals crammed into the running time is staggering.

And the pace? Problematic. There isn't any cohesive central character (Mark, the ostensible lead, literally doesn't do ANYTHING until the finale). It's mostly on the order of "introduce a character, kill him/her a scene later". Moreover, the first hour of the film is so packed with intense and beautifully realized scenes that it has no choice but to peter out before it hits the finish line.

Even a number of the film's staunchest defenders find the climax a bit of a letdown. The fact that the whole "woman turns into Death" scene was devised by Mario Bava, though, makes perfect sense; it just doesn't fit as well into a film that is otherwise so idiosyncratically Argento's.

That said, though, it is definitely a film that improves with repeated viewing. The score takes a little getting used to (especially when it breaks into mock-Omen choral rumblings), but most of all one has to adjust to the fact that film isn't SUPPOSED to make sense. And anticipate that Leigh McCloskey's performance will not be involving (while Daria Nicolodi, Alida Valli and Irene Miracle will make unfortunately only brief appearances). And it makes an excellent double feature with Suspiria.

In New York, the poetess Rose Elliot (Irene Miracle) reads an ancient book called "The Three Mothers" that she bought in the bookseller and antique Kazanian close to her building. The architect and alchemist E. Varelli, who tells that had designed and built three buildings for three mothers,in Rome, New York and Freiburg, wrote an impressive story in London. These threes wicked mothers, called Mater Suspiriorum (the oldest one), Mater Lachrymarum (the most beautiful) and Mater Tenebrarum (the youngest and cruelest), intended to rule the world with sorrow, tears and darkness. In accordance with the book, there are three keys, each one of them hidden in one building. Rose realizes that she lives in one of the buildings, and decides to look for the second hidden key in the cellar. From this moment on, weird things happen to her and she decides to write a letter to her brother Mark Elliot (Leigh McCloskey), a student of musicology in Rome, and asks him to visit her in New York. Mark never meets his sister and finds who the three mothers are indeed.

This is the beginning of "Inferno", one of my favorite Dario Argento's movies, with an intriguing and frightening story and great atmosphere. There are many flaws in the screenplay; the characters are not well developed, so their motives are not clear; and there are lacks of explanations for many events, so the viewer does not understand why the evil mothers attack the characters of the story, but anyway it is a cult Gothic movie. With some improvements in the screenplay, this movie would be a masterpiece classic. I have already seen this scary movie four times in a VHS I have recorded a couple of years ago from cable TV, and unfortunately it has not been released on VHS or DVD in Brazil. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Mansão do Inferno" ("The Mansion of the Hell")

Note: On June 23rd, 2009, I saw this movie for the fifth time in an imported DVD.

On June, 4th 2015, I saw this movie again.

Dario Argento's INFERNO contains the least plot I've seen of any Argento movie; despite the minor presence of the usual black-gloved killer in a couple of sub-plots, the majority of this movie sees characters wandering around a spooky old building and invariably finding themselves bumped off by supernatural means.

It's a frustrating viewing experience in some ways, steadfastly refusing to tie up loose ends and supply meaning. Instead, Argento goes all out for the surreal and the nightmarish, supplying bravura sequences in which protagonists are stalked and slashed by mysterious figures.

It's a visually arresting movie and one that works well. Yes, some scenes make you chuckle instead of scream (I mean, that whole thing with the roadside chef...what was THAT about?), and the acting never ignites the screen in the same way the special effects do. Nevertheless, Argento is on top stylistic form here and the resultant piece of film-making is a technical marvel and an atmospheric nightmare. I liked it, if not loved it.

"The Three Mothers" are a trio of nasty, unseen witches/sisters whose rein of terror leaves behind a string of bizarre, grisly murders stretching from Germany to Italy to America. A young woman (Irene Miracle) renting out a room in a multiple-story, Gothic mansion in New York City (also head quarters to the witches) becomes obsessed with a book on the sisters and ends up meeting a gruesome demise for her meddling. Her brother (Leigh McCloskey) receives a distressed letter and returns from musicology studies in Rome to investigate, is thrust into a series of grisly murders and coming face to face with the spirit of death itself!

Argento's follow-up to SUSPIRIA is poorly acted by the leads and often confusing and senseless. However, it's also surreal, beautifully atmospheric, gorgeously photographed and strikingly colorful. Keith Emerson's thundering keyboard score another plus. Beware the Key/20th Century-Fox VHS version that's missing over twenty minutes.

Lamberto Bava was the assistant director. His father, Italian horror stylist Mario Bava, in his last film (he died in 1980), gets credit for both shooting it and FX.

Two years after he shot his masterpiece "Suspiria", horror director Dario Argento made "Inferno", a sequel, of sorts. Unlike it's predecessor however, it meet lots of bad reviews and it didn't get a proper release. Which is a shame really, considering how it's one of Argento's finest works, containing two of his most beautiful screen moments (Rose's descent into the flooded ballroom and the scene at the lecture hall with Mark). While it may not be as good as it's predecessor, it's still more than a worthy follow up, specially when compared to "Mother of Tears", the god-awful second sequel to "Suspiria". Again, with have a gorgeous color palette and brilliant set design, there is a haunting atmosphere of dread throughout, a great soundtrack (Keith Emerson replaces the Goblins in this one, and does a pretty good work), some very creepy moments and of course, the brilliant death scenes, Argento's trademark. The film also excels in creating a dreamlike feel that surpasses anything remotely surreal that we've seen in "Suspiria". "Inferno" is probably the closest thing to a recorded nightmare I've ever seen. It's also much different than the other genre flicks of it's time. In fact, it's feel much closer to the work of Alain Resnais or Luis Bunuel than to the films of say George A. Romero or even his Italian contemporaries such as Fulci or Bava Jr. Of course, the film is not without it's flaws. The biggest flaw of the film is the protagonist. Argento shows us three candidates for the role of the protagonist, only to kill each and everyone of them in brutal and mean-spirited ways (they were clever twists, I admit). At the end, we are left with the one guy we'd never expect to be the 'the final boy'. That is, Leigh McCloskey as Mark. The thing with this character is, it's badly written and badly acted. Maybe it was Argento's intention to have the main character look high from the beginning to end, possibly to enhance the film's state-of-dream, but it simply doesn't work. Also, there are some surprisingly cheesy and unintentionally funny lines that are almost impossible to seat through. Still, the film has more than enough redeeming qualities, and it is one of the greatest masterpieces of the macabre - a definite acid trip to Hell. Even if it's not for everyone, it should be seen by anyone interested in horror.