.
Terrible movies don't live up to their hype as often as you'd hope. And even when they are quite terrible enough thank you, for every delightfully horrible Troll 2 there's a bash-your-skull-against-the-wall boring Birdemic. Dario Argento's Giallo is every ounce as awful as I'd heard, but it willfully denies you the camp factor too. Actually that's narrow-minded of me - it denies you everything. Like attractive people (it makes Adrien Brody and Emmanuelle Seigner look monstrous) in shots you like looking at, or a story that's even trying to make sense, or the feeling as if someone was paying attention to what was going on at some point, whether while putting the movie together or while filming it or afterward when all that footage is sitting there asking to be put together into a thing called a movie. None of these things are anywhere to be found. Indeed it seems so purposefully void of anything worth looking at it seems diabolical, as if it were a dare. Let's all hope that nobody ever double dares Dario Argento then.
.
Posts
4 comments:
You are correct on all counts. At times it looked like it was filmed on a phone.Was there an attractive shot in the whole movie?
It makes me really sad to see Argento's movies now. I was bored to tears trying to watch 'Do You Like Hitchcock?' and I don't even want to think about the crushing disappointment that was "The Mother of All Tears'. It's like he's not even trying anymore.
You're so right regarding Brody too.
He looked terrible and while he usually commands the screen, that wasn't the case here. It's painful and embarrassing to watch. My poor Mr. Brody. Such an unflattering mess.
I have always had some trouble with Argento's plotting and writing, but visually some of his things have been pretty interesting if not spectacular. I don't know where I heard about Giallo, but I rented it and couldn't agree more with these opinions. It's gonna take a lot to make me spend another 2 hours with a new Argento film.
Post a Comment