MovieChat Forums > Giallo (2011) Discussion > Its not as bad as the trolls say

Its not as bad as the trolls say


As a long standing Argento fan I have to say not really an Argento film as anyone knows it ... But its worth a watch... There is only really one scene that would stand out as Argento and that involves a butcher and a child ... The visuals are TV Bland ... But I sat through it without having to turn it off in disgust at the complete lack of any style or talent involved, which didn't happen with Phanton, Stendahl and Card Player
So old fans ... Give it a try ... Hopefully it gave Dario a decent pay packet ... Cos its just fodder ... But the man has to eat
My advice to Dario is STOP TRYING TO BE MODERN ... Cos it ain't you

reply

That's good to hear!
Myself i like very much "Stendhal" and "The card player"...but not "Phantom".

http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

reply

Phantom is one of the few Argento films I haven't liked so much, but primarily because of Julian Sands. I've never really cared for him. I can like a film he's in, but usually despite the fact that he's in it.

Maybe he'll grow on me though. I also used to dislike both William Hurt and Jeff Bridges, and now I like both quite a lot.

Sometimes I think it takes just seeing an actor in the "right film" for them to finally click with me, and then I can appreciate their earlier performances more, too.


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

reply

It's not as bad as the trolls say...it's even worse

This movie was just plain useless.

Honestly, from cliched plot & dialogue, to a killer who looks like a deformed Bruce Springsteen (aka brody in bad makeup), I feel bad for Argento.

Not scary, suspenseful or exciting. Why bother?

reply

Profondo giallo, 29 September 2009

Author: revival05 from Sweden


At the noble age of 68, I find it honorable that Dario Argento has the will and the ability to make the films he wants to make. Any creative mind will have to find it's own way to express itself, and not get caught in what is expected. I never understood fanbase criticism of Argento's later work, specifically the idea that Argento has somehow "lost it" (lost what?) and suddenly, out of the blue, lacks any talent he mysteriously and inexplicably seemed to have 30 years ago. I can understand that a lot of people are depressed not to find his "trademark" visuals anymore, since the flamboyant flair and elegant violence was what made people like him in the first place. But I think it's quite a shallow admiration if all Argento has ever done well is killing girls in sexy fashion. In Giallo, there is a scene where the killer masturbates to his own images of his bloody murder victims. I wouldn't know for sure of course, but I think this is a self-ironic comment to these upset fans. And to the Argento of the 70's and 80's as well.

Naturally, Argento knows exactly what he is doing, and he has purposely abandoned his old style of surreal fantasy horror to make quite the opposite; thrillers, first and foremost psychologically oriented, that works on a meta level in first hand, with plot somewhere down that priority list. Style isn't even a concern. The color scheme of both Giallo and The Card Player, is gray, white and black. I can be a tad sad and nostalgic about it too, but I think it's time we get over it. It's not like Argento didn't try to keep doing movies as if "Argento" was a genre of it's own - Trauma, The Stendhal Syndrome, Phantom of the Opera and even Sleepless, in part, all express the same thing: A legendary master of style on spare fumes. They were automatic, obligatory, they all express one thing and that is that "it's over". In contrast to those titles, his latest movies are vivid, fresh, interesting, here and now. And I dare to say, once you care to take interest in Argento as a film maker, a movie like Giallo is just as interesting as Inferno or Opera. But if you just want his old, stylized gore, don't bother even watching anything he has done or will do post Opera. Rob Zobie's Halloween II is probably something you'll enjoy more, so I guess I'm actually recommending it.

The key to Giallo is Adrien Brody in the title role, a bitter cop in Italy on the trail of an outlandish killer who traps beautiful girls in his taxi to make them just as ugly as he is and then kill them. It becomes clear after a while that the movie's focus is by no means directed towards the plot (which is so straight and automatic that it seems as if it's designed for the audience to more easily get it out of the way). What the movie is about is Brody's character and the disfigured killer and the similarities they share. When you consider the invisibility of the plot in contrast to the extremely noticeable casting choices, I think it's fair to say that Argento isn't interested in doing a giallo. Rather, it seems like he is doing some serious re-evaluating of the genre: the movie is not a giallo, it's an anti-giallo named giallo - and the killer isn't smart, diabolical or effective but merely messed up, over the edge and so ugly it's amusing. He is also a buffoon, as clumsy as they come, and it basically takes one clue in the investigation to track him down. What is interesting is that he comes off as more or less an outraged victim, where Brody's cop is a mellow executioner. Both characters are results of a traumatic past, both live isolated in two separate cellars (literary speaking), they are both killers, the killer is guilty of crimes of passion and the cop, with one exception from the past, is guilty of simply just killing, without emotion or conviction. While Brody does an often amusing parody of cop language ála cigarette-by-the-autopsy-"whatawegot" (he does it straight, which even makes it subtle) the nature of his character is deeply unsettling. He has no life. And I don't mean he seems bored and unimaginative, I literary mean that he walks and talks and kills but that's it. He's nobody to root for. And besides his badge and good looks, he is no different from the killer. Argento makes that very, very, VERY clear.

Against Brody, we have Emanuelle Seigner as the character who is to deliver the emotional punch. Unfortunately, well, she sucks. And bad acting certainly isn't the only flaw in Giallo. More backstory and straight-to-the-wall suspense wouldn't have hurt. But Adrien Brody is a riot and, I found, truly wonderful to watch. Giallo becomes thoroughly entertaining because of him. While he acts it out to the limits of deliberate over-acting scene by scene, Argento experiments with parody, duality, his own heritage and the movies he has made in the past. While Mother of Tears came off as a more campy self-parody, Giallo is far more complex. One of the murder victims at one point, for no reason, screams that she's actually absent and "not in this body" or something similar. It's as if Argento for the first time acknowledge that he has always been killing vacant characters in vanity, and now actually tries to tell a story where a kill is a kill, no matter who pulls the trigger or jabs the blade into the heart.

Sure, complexity alone doesn't make Giallo a masterpiece. However, I liked it as intelligent entertainment. And if the stabbing is still more important to you, feel free to watch Suspiria for the 45th time. I'm awaiting the DVD release for Giallo with excitement.



http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

reply

Kick a$$. Thx for this heads up man. Tell these Rob ZOMBIE's to come up with an original movie and not a crappy remake. I didn't care for his music (if that is what you called it). I think it has to do with the PC thing going around who makes these reviews that bash DARIO because he kills mostly women and not the other way around as in the HALLOWEEN re-craps who the chick made Micheal Meyers look like a fool. Like the man says, I'll pick up the dvd. I loved the hammer scene. I'll debate with no one for this statement I made. Go bash someone else who cares on IMDBPC.

reply

At first I was thinking, "jeez, don't write a whole essay for the imdb boards," but I gotta say that was pretty insightful. Thanks for the alternate perspective.

reply

I've been an Argento fan for over 20 years, & I have to say i'm so dissappointed in this...with a title of Giallo, i figured it would be a fun throwback to what was best about the genre....this was not the fun i was looking for. it was mostly a bore, with a lousy script & acting with a villain who looked like Rambo & Jimmy Durante's lovechild...it was almost hard not to chuckle everytime he talked or apeared on screen...as goes for Adrien Brody whose acting was atrocious. Im a huge fan & own just about every film he's done & have to say it's his worst.

reply

[deleted]

I thought the movie was quite enjoyable. Its gratifying to still see Argento producing new films.

reply

[deleted]

We're not sure that Argento disowned GIALLO,AvrilForLife,Argento was just frustrated it seems by the fact that he didn't write the script and produce the film,like 95% of his others films!
At last Argento said that he liked working with Brody on the set.

http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

reply

[deleted]

"the title is very misleading indeed"

It is somewhat better than GIALLO isn't a...giallo!
Argento already made a tribute to giallo films with SLEEPLESS,why repeat himself??

http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

reply

I thought the title was a stroke of brilliance as its meaning was unexpected, it connected Giallo with his condition of suffering. The use of Brody as a doppelganger was just as inspired perhaps the makeup was a bit off but the idea is good- there's always a ridiculous element in Argento's films.

This film contains the same elements we've seen many times, a couple searching for a killer, the police detective. Traumatic life changing events that effect the psyches of the characters...the ending was decent as well. People have such high expectations, or the original vision was compromised...

reply

"People have such high expectations"

I agree with you Zarch-3!
People expect too much with each one of Argento's new works,so almost all the time these works are bashed because they can of course never reach the peaks of his 70's,early 80's works..."Phenomena","Trauma","The Stendhal Syndrome","The Card Player","Mother of Tears" and now "Giallo" were all bashed because of the eternal "it's not as good as before","it's not as beautiful as DEEP RED and SUSPIRIA"...

http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

reply

[deleted]

Isn't 'Giallo' bashed because of the killer, who many thought was uninteresting, the poor acting and script?


I'm pretty sure all Argento films have poor acting and ridiculous scripts. I mean, people aren't checking out Tenebrae for Anthony Franciosa's sterling performance or the convincing character development; it's all about beautiful women in peril, high style, creative violence and head-scratching (i.e. implausible) plot twists. These days the high style has vanished unfortunately, but the other elements are still there.

As for the killer being uninteresting, I'm not so sure. In general, the theme wasn't developed very well, but I think Argento made this film because it ties in with his usual interest in traumatic events, and how they shape the lives of his killers. Think about the psychological motivations in Tenebrae, Opera and The Stendhal Syndrome.

I think what he was trying to do with Giallo was to underline the similarities between hero and killer; both driven to murder, both shaped by decisions made by their mothers, etc. Again, it's not very well developed, but even from the small sketches of details, there's an interesting thread to pick out, and one that seems even clearer when placing Giallo into the context of Argento's larger career.

reply

"I think what he was trying to do with Giallo was to underline the similarities between hero and killer; both driven to murder, both shaped by decisions made by their mothers, etc. Again, it's not very well developed, but even from the small sketches of details, there's an interesting thread to pick out, and one that seems even clearer when placing Giallo into the context of Argento's larger career."

Very true...what is the most interesting in GIALLO is the mirroring between the two leads,so Brody's idea to play both characters was good in my opinion and in this way the ending especially delivers.



http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

reply

The acting is bad but that is not the problem. All of Argento's films have bad acting. The film is just a complete bore. There is nothing interesting at all in this and it ony has some fans cause of the director. It was like a long episode of CSI. Nothing more. I did not see any cool style in this either.

reply

The butcher scene was so good and when Celine was screaming at Giallo that he was ugly, taunting him.... that girl wrapped in plastic who unexpectedly revives...cool. The body crashing through the skylight. Loved the locations... the gritty gasworks compared to the elegant interiors was a study in contrasts, the film did have themes

reply

damn,can't wait to see it!
a theatrical screening...pleeassseee!

http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

reply


Th original cast was to have included Vincent Gallo as yellow, Asia Argento and, oddly enough, Ray Liotta as the detective lol.

reply

I admire Dario Argento's consistency. Every couple of years he manages to make a movie even worse than the one before.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

No, it's even worse. Beyond anything one could possibly imagine.

This must have been a cemetery for the... Spanish conquistadores!

reply