MovieChat Forums > Tenebre (1984) Discussion > I wanted to like this so badly...

I wanted to like this so badly...

posted 15 years ago by bunnaykrazie
11 replies | jump to latest

but I found it too predictable! I kept thinking to myself "he HAS to be the killler, but it can't be that simple, can it?" Turns out it was. I'd watched Suspiria and Phenomenon previously and absolutely loved them. This was so awful in comparison. The deaths were good, and I loved the flashbacks with the red-heeled woman, but the plot was SO cliche and straightforward. I just found myself wanting more. Plus, the movie is too long. Almost EVERYONE gets killed. I don't mind that, but if you're going that route then don't have so much downtime in-between. What I loved about Suspiria and Phenomenon was that the downtime had real payoff. The quiet moments would always build to some amazing death or set piece. Here, the downtime is just that. It doesn't build and we're left with beautifully shot but run-of-the-mill murders and a plot that has no real twist because every suspect is dead by the end but one. Am I wrong? lol

[–] CihanVercan 15 years ago

Yes, indeed you're wrong. 'Cause Peter Neal is not the serial killer. He only killed the serial killer(Jane McKerrow) and the detective. After learning this go watch it again, it's on Youtube with a so-so quality, unless you are able to rent the DVD or something.

Remember the first scene, where Peter was in the airport, his name is announced and he went there to the counter, he leaves his luggage intentionally to his alter-ego witness woman. He made a woman witness of his alter-ego murders on paper, to make her turn into reality what he dreamt to happen. In the novel Tenebre, he's wrote about all the women he hates; and thus in the real life, he manipulates a woman reader to kill all those women. Hence Jane McKerrow is the serial killer. Yet, in the final scene; chopping off her head Peter finds out that he became the reason of every murder that he's after. Thus his alter-ego beated him, he became what he wrote. He also revealed when detective Gianni pointed a gun at him that he was not the serial killer. The serial killer was Jane, who he just murdered.

[–] emo_kid3 15 years ago

Actually, I think you're both wrong.

The original serial killer was the reporter named Christiano Berti who was obsessed with Neal's books. Remember when one of the female victims was running from that dog, and she ended up in the killer's house where she found photos of the victims? And then the killer came home and killed her after chasing her outside.

Then, later when Neal and the young assistant named Gianni were suspicious of Berti and went to check out his house, it was the same house. Neal and Gianni got separated, and Gianni watched the reporter get axed in the head (and later remembered that he saw Berti mouthing the sentence "I killed them all!" before dying). Well, he was the first person killed BY Peter Neal, who later pretended that he had been knocked out from behind. From this point on in the movie, the killer is Peter Neal, because he was the one who killed the real killer.

Then, the next two murders that happen are Bullmer his agent getting stabbed in public and Jane his ex-lover getting axed to death in her apartment (with Gianni getting strangled there in the middle too, because he knew Neal was the killer). Bullmer and Jane were proven to have been having an affair, which explains why they're the next two to go once Neal is the killer.

The flashback memories that happen a few times about the red-shoed woman on the beach are all Neal's memories and relate to his suppressed sexist desires, which have been seeping into the deranged killers he writes in his novels. The fact that someone actually began to enact those same murders in real life (Berti as a copycat killer) are what caused Neal to snap, because he realized HE no longer needed to suppress those desires, and he could just murder people in real life instead of simply writing about it.

The film is actually very smart, even though the basic-level twist that "Neal is the real killer" feels like it's been done before. Watch it again.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 15 years ago

Spot on! Glad you wrote all that out just in case anyone is confused.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kausix777 13 years ago

Agreed with you, except that the flashback was actually true and not a representation of the desires. The author had manhandled that lady and had a fixation with her red shoes. This is explained towards the end.

[–] kawada_shougo 10 years ago

I think you forgot one more murder. After he killed Jane, he also killed the female inspector, just before the Detective and Anne entered the house.

[–] phatpaidx 14 years ago

Thats why I liked this movie. It felt done before but it did it in a way that i went ha nice that guy wasnt right in the head all along. good times good movie.

[–] The_Coma-Man 14 years ago

WAIT, HOLD IT...

Now you both lost me...

How is the woman supposed to be the killer?

I also thought the reporter was the killer ("I killed them all!") and then Peter took over... though some things didn't make much sense this way round either, like for example him being hit on the head (apart of if he hit himself with a rock).

And yeah, were the flashbacks just a flashback to his first, actual murder, which he hid later on? I never really got what that was all about... same with the chemist-laboratory-bit... And didn't he say previously he hated his (ex)wife and wouldn't want to see her again?
--
VOTE JACOB'S LADDER INTO THE TOP 250's!!!
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0099871

[–] sjconstable 13 years ago

'How is the woman supposed to be the killer?'

She wasn't.

'I also thought the reporter was the killer ("I killed them all!")'

He was.

'and then Peter took over... though some things didn't make much sense this way round either, like for example him being hit on the head (apart of if he hit himself with a rock).'

He did.

'And yeah, were the flashbacks just a flashback to his first, actual murder, which he hid later on?'

They were.

'I never really got what that was all about... same with the chemist-laboratory-bit...'

It was neither a chemist nor a laboratory.

'And didn't he say previously he hated his (ex)wife and wouldn't want to see her again?'

And he ended up killing her because she was cheating on him with his agent.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

This thread has been completely messed up by SeanVictorydawn who has gotten the plot wrong .

I agree with the OP. You're not wrong. The murders felt like set peices, not especially integrated with the film and whilst the shots of the murders in the aftermath were beautiful, there are better murders in other Argento films. I didn't predict who the ultimate killer was, but when that was revealed I wasn't surprised.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] JohnnyJohnson (312) 2 months ago

Well, there was no one left alive except Neal, his female assistant and the cop. The ending was a letdown.