MovieChat Forums > Suspiria (2018) Discussion > Brilliant film. Better than the original...

Brilliant film. Better than the original.

posted 6 years ago by MrH31 (27)
33 replies | jump to latest

Sure, it is slow moving. But unless you have the attention span of a toddler, that shouldn't be an issue.
It's a long film, so it makes sense there will be some slow parts.
But this was a brilliantly made, atmospheric, sinister horror film unlike any other I have seen before. The score was also brilliant.
Some horror fans will be disappointed....But cinema fans will like it.
It was vastly better than the poorly acted original film that literally had nothing good about it other than the soundtrack.
Sorry guys. Just because something is original, does not automatically make it better.

[–] Evoken (1405) 6 years ago

Totally agree, it was better than the original in nearly every way.

Dakota, Tilda and Mia were great in their respective parts and blow away the acting in the original.

[–] distroy (275) 6 years ago

This version sucked. Not because the original was good, but because it failed at so damn much. The story was a mess, the makeup was horrible, the CGI was even worse, the end part made no sense at all. No, this was just a sorry excuse of a remake.

[–] MrH31 (27) 6 years ago

Well, we can't all have good taste in film! Don't feel bad though, you are probably better with sports or something.

[–] distroy (275) 6 years ago

Did I hurt you with what I wrote? You sure seem butthurt with a reply like that.

[–] MrH31 (27) 6 years ago

I was joking with you, man. No need to soil your pants lol

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 6 years ago

Another butthurt response lol

[–] mokomakin (3) 6 years ago

CGI blood works were an eye sore. Why use software when you can have a makeup crew. Puke.

[–] Scape (527) 6 years ago

I know, man... I absolutely hate CGI blood. It’s just lazy. They almost always mess up when characters in the scene with the CG blood never seem to get any of the blood on them...
The scene at the end, people were dancing, slapping their hands in it then touching themselves, & no blood was on them.. Not a fan of CG blood. No to mention it almost always looks off.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Ah, you did not watch it. Understandable.

[–] distroy (275) 6 years ago

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 6 years ago

... and yet, coincidentally, you are posting this glowing review of “Suspiria” at the same time that the film has leaked online.

Did you watch this in a cinema, “cinema fan”, or did you pirate it?

[–] MrH31 (27) 6 years ago

Haha yeah because it totally makes a difference.....Actually I downloaded it from itunes. You presumptuous fool.
And how would you even know that it leaked online unless you download pirated copies yourself? LMAO
Simpleton.

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 6 years ago

I guess you aren’t a “cinema fan” if you don’t think watching a pirated version of a film makes a difference.

Also, even if you downloaded it from iTunes, that release doesn’t have any subtitles for the foreign language dialogue. Yet you’re still saying it’s a “brilliantly made, atmospheric horror film unlike any other I have seen before”?

Even without being able to understand the dialogue???

LOL

[–] MrH31 (27) 6 years ago

Actually I downloaded English subtitles and added them to the copy so I did understand the dialogue.

"I guess you aren’t a “cinema fan” if you don’t think watching a pirated version of a film makes a difference."

I am referring to the art of cinema.....Not a cinema like a theatre lol.
So no....It makes no difference.
I am afraid you are just going to have to deal with the fact that there are people in the world who do not share your opinion on a film....

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 6 years ago

I am referring to the art of cinema.....Not a cinema like a theatre lol.

I was also referring to the art of cinema. You aren’t supporting it by downloading and watching crappy pirated versions of a film, you pretentious fool LOL

[–] MrH31 (27) 6 years ago

Who said anything about supporting it? lol
I said I was a fan of it....The point is that I am a bigger fan of the art of cinema, than I am a fan of horror. Get it?
How I watch cinema...Makes no difference. You unintelligent, salty, little bitch LOL.
It isn't my fault you have such poor taste in film.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chilone (17883) 6 years ago

Now girls, stop with the name calling.

[–] mitzibishi (1857) 6 years ago

its on itunes. without subtitles. I missed loads of the dialogue

[–] mitzibishi (1857) 6 years ago

I enjoyed it. really good, different to the original. Was sceptical at first because it wasnt getting great reviews by the critics so never went to see it at the cinema but saw it last night and loved it.

Its not better than the original though, better acting for sure

[–] MrH31 (27) 6 years ago

Acting is important to me. The original is unwatchable to me because the acting is so awful.
It just takes me out of the film.

[–] mitzibishi (1857) 6 years ago

I was into the original because of the visuals, soundscape, atmosphere. I dont think the acting or dialogue mattered to me after being lavished with such beautiful shots.

The remake holds its own in that area. I loved being in that post war wall Germany. The decadent 1930s boom architecture that was crumpling apart.

[–] thelioncourt (20) 6 years ago

Agreed, most of the ones criticizing it are for it not being a carbon copy of Argento's version.

- It's too long.
- Where are the colors?
- The Goblin soundtrack.
- It's boring, political, Tilda plays too many characters.
- It's confusing.

Lord.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I liked them both very much, although if I were pressed to make a decision on which I thought was better I would have to say the original. But again, that's only if I was being forced :-)

The original has been one of my all time favorite movies since I saw it in the theater when it first came out. I found it to be truly frightening, as well as visually stunning and I've seen it many times throughout the years.

This remake, which I was reluctant to see, turned out to be excellent I thought. It was frightening in some parts and held my interest throughout. It was so different from the original that it didn't really feel like a remake. Everything about this film was so different from the original it was, to me, a remake in name only.

[–] chilone (17883) 6 years ago

Agreed. To me, even the story line seemed almost completely different. Gonna re-watch the original to see if I'm right.

[–] TheArgentinian (7090) 6 years ago

I watched the original last a Friday night and the remake the following night. I had high expectations for the original because of the classic status and low expectations for the remake because of the mixed reviews and bad word of mouth. I ended up being disappointed by the original and pleasantly surprised by the remake.

[–] TribalFunkster (62) 5 years ago

I was pleasantly surprised with the remake and would consider it the last well-made horror film I have seen. The original had some creepy and creative visuals but overall it was really just gratuitous giallo dressed in cheesy acid technicolor. This remake on the other hand, though more confusing and convoluted, was fascinating, disturbing, and complex. I would go even further by stating even the remake's soundtrack was better. I do dig some Goblin, but Thom Yorke's score was memorable as it was versatile; ranging from unsettling dissonance to hauntingly beautiful melodies. Although far from perfect, this film embraces the true essence of horror.