Dark Glasses (2022)

DIRECTED BY

Dario Argento

STARRING

Ilenia Pastorelli - Diana

Asia Argento - Rita

Andrea Zhang - Chin

Andrea Gherpelli - Matteo

Mario Pirrello - Chief Inspector Aleardi

Maria Rosaria Russo - Inspector Bajani

Gennaro Iaccarino - Inspector Baldacci

Genre: Horror/Thriller/Drama/Slasher/Giallo

Running Time: 86 Minutes

PLOT

Diana, a high-class prostitute trying to escape from a serial killer, suffers a car accident that leaves her blind and kills the family of Chin, a ten-year-old boy.

REVIEW

DARK GLASSES, the newest feature film by Italian horror maestro Dario Argento, was streamed for the first time on Shudder as a surprise screening. It was a welcome surprise, although Argento’s peak has passed him by for decades now. Personally, I feel 1987’s OPERA was the director’s last great movie, even though films like 1996’s THE STENDHAL SYNDROME and 2001’s SLEEPLESS managed to stand out for their high quality amongst the poor films he made since the start of the 1990s. 2012’s DRACULA 3D was just atrocious and probably his lowest point, which made me somewhat weary of DARK GLASSES, his first film as a director in 10 years.

But the premise had me intrigued. Not only was DARK GLASSES a film Argento had written in 2002, but it involved a blind character getting mixed up in a giallo involving a serial killer murdering prostitutes in Italy. Argento is great at giallo films. The blind lead character isn’t a new trope in horror, but it’s not one that has done a whole lot in this kind of sub-genre. Considering Shudder was making a huge deal out of this, my hopes were kind of high for this one.

Unfortunately, I expected too much out of a new giallo by a man who was a master at making them back in the day. All the elements are there - a gloved and mysterious killer, detectives trying to help a confused and vulnerable victim and nasty murder sequences. But the film never comes together for several reasons.

The main culprit is an ironic one - the screenplay that Argento had plotted twenty years ago. The film starts off well. It focuses on Diana, a prostitute who is minding her own business and is trying to survive in Italy. She has some nice and generous clients. She has some creepy ones that should send red flags. Her profession has also made her the target of a killer who has an issue with prostitutes. During her initial encounter with this killer, Diana is driven off the road into another car with an Asian family inside - killing the father, putting the mom into a coma, making the child a temporary orphan and leaving herself blind. While she struggles with her new condition, she learns to cope with it through the help of a blind caretaker named Rita [and a seeing-eye dog named Nerea] who makes her see that she can still live her life, just in a different way. Along the way, the orphaned child Chin attaches himself to Diana and helps her try to survive as the killer plans on finishing the job he started with her.

That above paragraph makes DARK GLASSES sound better than it actually is. The first twenty minutes is classic Argento giallo. We establish the main character. We get some gnarly kills - the first one being a knife to the jugular that unleashes a lot of blood. Then the car accident scene is just well-staged and really lands an impact on you at how brutal and sudden it is. Even the first scenes of Diana being blind and having Rita help her as she struggles with her condition are great stuff. 

But then the narrative just falls off a cliff for whatever reason. When Chin befriends Diana and they struggle with their new dynamic, you should feel more connected to it as an audience. But I didn’t think the two characters really had any chemistry and got annoying the more time they spent together. The characters also make some of the dumbest decisions as they’re being chased and targeted by this killer, making me wonder how bad the killer really was if these protagonists survived as long as they did. The detectives on the scene are also really stupid and it was hard to feel sorry for any of them when bad things happened to them.

What really ruined the film for me was the killer’s motive. I won’t spoil it, of course, But really Argento - this was the best you could come up with? I thought it was super weak and made me stop caring about anything that happened after the reveal. I would have taken something really convoluted over the actual lame reason why this killer was targeting these prostitutes. What a disappointing mystery that could have elevated the script.

Also, DARK GLASSES is way too short. There’s a lot going on in this film, especially when it focuses on Diana’s adjustment to her blindness and the relationships she makes because of it. Everything feels rushed and edited to a point where things can’t develop properly, making these relationships feel underdeveloped and cold to me. Even the killer is barely a focus in this film, which makes the bad motive even worse because while established, it’s not given enough depth to be anything more than laughable and ridiculous. This is a movie that could have used an extra twenty minutes to really develop plot elements to make for a stronger story. Instead, we get this abridged version of a giallo that should have been better than it actually is.

Other than that, the rest of DARK GLASSES is fine. While not as colorful or as stylish as his previous peak work, Argento still manages to show that he still knows how to direct a giallo. The first half, in particular, is his strongest stuff. There’s good tension and mood happening. The first kill is pretty nasty and increased my interest in the movie. The car chase is also well shot and thrilling at times. Even the quieter moments are handled and paced well, making the audience look around to see if the killer is still in stalk mode while Diana has never been more vulnerable. I think the film loses itself in the last half with odd pacing, weird edits, and a flat ending that does no one any favors. But Argento’s work here is better than his last batch of films, to be honest. I just wish he had a better script to work with.

The actors are also fine. Ilenia Pastorelli does a good job as Diana, convincingly portraying a woman who struggles with her sudden blindness while trying to escape a murderer. Pastorelli nicely brings about a freedom in her performance at the start, believably changing into a more introverted and frustrated persona once the blindness becomes a factor. I also liked her fear towards the end of the film, as I couldn’t imagine facing a killer blind.

The supporting cast does their job as well. In particular, Asia Argento does a nice job in playing Diana’s caretaker and friend, Rita. She doesn’t get to do a whole lot, but she brings a calming presence to the film. Andrea Zhang is okay as Chin, although he gets kind of grating by the end of the film. I know Argento was trying to build this surrogate mother-son dynamic between Pastorelli and Zhang, but I never really bought it as much as the two tried.

And special mention goes to Arnaud Rebotini’s score. Originally planned for Daft Punk before they retired, Rebotini provides music that’s loud and thumping. It’s not Goblin, but it fits the film well and adds a cool atmosphere to the film - which it needs.

THE FINAL HOWL

While an improvement over his last works as a director, Dario Argento’s DARK GLASSES still manages to be a disappointment considering all the elements are there to create a memorable giallo. Focusing more on the blind victim and an orphaned child instead of the serial killer who has targeted them and caused this trauma for them is an interesting approach for a giallo, as it should allow the audience to connect on a human level rather than just focus on the mystery and the violence that comes with it. Unfortunately, the screenplay isn’t strong enough to tell that kind of story with characters behaving in ways that make you care less about them as the film rolls on. The movie is also way too short, as it feels like an abridged version of a larger story, editing out all the character development and relationship dynamics needed for an audience to really connect with what they’re watching. And I won’t even mention the ridiculous motive for the villain of the film, which pretty much took me out of the film once it was revealed. I can’t believe Argento thought it was a good move to make.

That being said, Argento’s direction [while not anywhere close to his peak] is still pretty good, as some of the murder sequences are gnarly and the car chase scene is shot well. There’s a nice atmosphere and tension that plays throughout, although I do miss the more stylish and colorful films of his past. The actors are fine, especially Ilenia Pastorelli as the lead who struggles with becoming blind due to a killer who has targeted her and continues to do so in her vulnerable state.

I love Argento’s giallo films, but DARK GLASSES is a mixed bag for me. But it’s a way better movie than DRACULA 3D, so that’s gotta be worth something at least. Unfulfilled potential, in my opinion.

SCORE

2 Howls Outta 4

(5 out of 10)

The Bird With the Crystal Plumage (1970)

DIRECTED BY

Dario Argento

STARRING

Tony Musante - Sam Dalmas

Suzy Kendall - Julia

Enrico Maria Salerno - Inspector Morosini

Eva Renzi - Monica Ranieri

Umberto Raho - Alberto Ranieri

Renato Romano - Professor Carlo Dover

Giuseppe Castellano - Monti

Mario Adorf - Berto Consalvi

Genre - Horror/Thriller/Mystery/Giallo

Running Time - 96 Minutes

PLOT

While walking home one evening, Sam Dalmas, an American writer living in Rome, witnesses a violent struggle between a young woman and a black-coated figure in an art gallery. Dalmas attempts to intervene but is caught between the gallery’s electronically operated glass doors, leaving the woman bleeding from knife wounds. Questioned by the police, the shocked author attempts to recall every detail regarding the incident. Convinced that there is an aspect of the crime he cannot recall, Dalmas begins his own investigation - putting himself and his girlfriend Julia in line as the killer’s potential victims.

REVIEW

I couldn’t tell you the last time I sat down and watched 1970’s THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE. When it comes to legendary Italian director Dario Argento, I tend to go to my favorites like 1975’s DEEP RED, 1977’s SUSPIRIA, 1982’s TENEBRAE, 1985’s PHENOMENA and 1986’s OPERA if I need an Argento fix. But taking the time out to watch Argento’s directorial debut, I feel kind of bad for dismissing THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE for so long. It’s not one of my favorites in his filmography, but it’s a solid start for a director who would quickly find his stride for much of the 1970s and 1980s.

While not the first giallo film made, THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE helped inspire other giallo movies that would follow due to how successful its narrative structure is. Unlike later Argento giallo films where situations would get a bit more elaborate and convoluted at times, THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE is a fairly straightforward, and pretty predictable, affair. Really an adaptation of Frederic Brown’s novel Screaming Mimi, the film is more plot driven than focused on visual style. The characters and the police procedural/investigation fuels much of the film, as the movie focuses on writer hero/witness Sam as she helps the police figure out the identity of the film’s killer, while his girlfriend Julia doesn’t really want anything to do with it and just wants Sam to focus on her instead. Sam struggles with his memories of the event he witnesses early in the film while being harassed by cops, goons and even the killer themself who mocks him and the police for not figuring it all out sooner.

THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE is really told through Sam’s point-of-view, as he’s an unreliable narrator of sorts as he tries to piece together the mystery as his memories slowly continue to change throughout the film. While some of the secondary characters may be a bit too eccentric for this type of film, which makes the movie campier and cheesier than it ought to be at times, the main players are all likable and interesting enough for the audience to care and follow them from beginning to end. Later Argento films would have crazier plots that end up being more memorable in the end, but the simple nature of his debut is refreshing as it’s nice to see where his style and vision started from and how much it grew from here.

While THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE inspired later giallo films, the film was heavily inspired by some of Mario Bava’s giallo films, as well as certain Alfred Hitchcock works. While this film takes influence from Bava’s giallo classics like BLOOD AND BLACK LACE and THE GIRL WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, it’s really obvious how big of a fan Argento was of Hitchcock. A scene where Sam witnesses a crime while trapped between two windows is a slight variation of REAR WINDOW, as Sam is paralyzed between the two glass panes and can only watch the crime unfold. And there are several moments where PSYCHO’s influence is in full effect. One murder takes place within a small room, where the killer stabs their victim multiple times. The way it’s directed is how Hitchcock directed the classic shower scene, with jarring edits between the victim and the weapon that gives the illusion that what’s going on looks gorier and more brutal than it actually is. The ending, which explains the killer’s reasoning for their murder spree, also seems similiar to the final moments of PSYCHO as well. Rewatching this not only made me realize how much Argento was inspired by other directors, but how directors later on were inspired by this movie. It’s hard not to see certain scenes and shots play out in the film and not see Brian DePalma’s DRESSED TO KILL or BLOW OUT, which were released a decade later. It’s pretty cool to see.

Speaking of Argento, his direction is pretty great even at the beginning of his filmography. While he would get more inventive in terms of shots, the use of mise-en-scene and the use of colors, THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE shows that Argento knows what he was doing behind the camera to visually tell his story. The location shots are beautiful. The set pieces are visualized well, adding atmosphere to the film. While tame compared to later films, the murder sequences are shot well and have enough tension to be effective despite the lack of gore. I love the use of shadows and light, in particular to one certain scene where the film is shot just in candlelight to beautiful effect. Argento proved to be a confident filmmaker right from the start, only getting better as he made more films. The film does everything a standard giallo film ought to do, which makes the direction a success.

The acting is tough to judge considering the version I watched was dubbed. Some of the voices, especially for the supporting characters, sounded really campy and cheesy - almost as if they belonged in a spoof comedy rather than a horror film. But the main actors do well in their roles. In particular, Tony Musante is pretty good as the lead Sam Dalmas. He has movie star looks and crafts a likable hero we want to follow and root for. He’s not the most dynamic actor, but he does enough to get by. Suzy Kendall is also quite good as Julia, having good moments of distress in the film’s final act. Plus she’s quite fetching on the eyes. Enrico Maria Salerno does well as the film’s lead inspector, continuing the horror trope of a police officer not being capable of his job, letting someone random do the work for him. But he’s another likable actor who has a nice rapport with Musante, making their on-screen dynamic work. I think Argento’s casts would get more interesting later on, with memorable actors getting to work with better material and crazier set pieces. But for a first outing, the actors set the precedence well.

And I can’t end the film without talking about Ennio Morricone’s interesting score that sounds like a haunting lullaby. The “la-la-la’s” vary in different scenes, but it oddly captures the tone of the film well. Nowhere close to my favorite Ennio Morricone film score but it does it job.

THE FINAL HOWL

Dario Argento’s 1970 directorial debut, THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, is not top-tier Argento for me. But it’s definitely high second-tier, as it’s refreshingly plot driven with a standard giallo that ends up being more predictable than his later, somewhat convoluted, mysteries would end up becoming. With plot and visual elements taken from previous Alfred Hitchcock and Mario Bava thrillers, Argento crafts a whodunit that’s a fun watch due to likable characters, neat set pieces and a resolution that puts the unreliable narrator motif to great use. While nowhere as stylish or as gory as later films would be, Argento still provides interesting visuals and shot scales that show how much more confident he would be as a filmmaker during his peak period in the genre. The actors are good in their roles, even if the English dubbing can be more campy than one would like at times. THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE is a solid giallo debut from a master of horror who would improve upon his work here to provide horror audiences more memorable and crazier moments to come.

SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

Inferno (1980)

DIRECTED BY

Dario Argento

STARRING

Irene Miracle - Rose Elliott

Leigh McCloskey - Mark Elliott

Eleonora Giorgi - Sara

Daria Nicolodi - Elise De Longvalle Adler

Sasha Pitoeff - Kazanian

Alida Valli - Carol

Feodor Chaliapin Jr. - Varelli

Veronica Lazar - The Nurse

Gabriele Lavia - Carlo

Ania Pieroni - Music Student

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Witchcraft

Running Time - 107 Minutes

PLOT

In New York City, Rose Elliott (Irene Miracle) buys a book called The Three Mothers - a book that details how the author (Feodor Chaliapin Jr.) built houses for three powerful witches known as The Three Mothers. One of these houses was created for Mater Suspiriorum [The Mother of Sighs] in Germany, seen in 1977’s SUSPIRIA. After reading and figuring out the clues, Rose realizes that her apartment is a building built for Mater Tenebrarum [The Mother of Darkness]. Her knowledge, unfortunately, leads to her death by a mysterious person.

Before Rose’s death, however, she wrote and sent a letter to her brother Mark (Leigh Mccloskey), who is studying abroad in Rome. Realizing that his sister is missing and in trouble, Mark arrives in New York to investigate. What he encounters are a series of supernatural events that lead to a bunch of murders within or around the apartment building that may make him a victim of The Three Mothers.

REVIEW

In the 1970s, Italian maestro Dario Argento could do no wrong. Films like THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, DEEP RED, and especially 1977’s SUSPIRIA brought a lot of attention to Italian horror from all over the world. The success of SUSPIRIA in the US market inspired Argento to quickly capitalize on it with a sequel titled INFERNO, the second part of a proposed trilogy that would showcase each of the Three Mothers. 20th Century Fox, riding high from SUSPIRIA, quickly offered to co-finance the production [along with Italian and German consortia] with a budget of $3 million. Co-writer, actress, and then-Argento flame Daria Nicolodi was inspired by her stay at Central Park for the film’s main setting, while legendary Italian horror director Mario Bava, Lamberto Bava, and William Lustig helped fill in during production to create a good atmosphere and finish shooting scenes when Argento fell ill during production.

INFERNO was released in 1980 in the United States in a very limited theatrical release, which was the total opposite of SUSPIRIA’s release. Apparently, Fox had a change of management at the time, leaving INFERNO’s fate in limbo. The film, outside of Italy, was pretty much unseen until 1985, where it finally went straight to video. The reception at the time wasn’t all that positive, leading to Argento waiting to finish the trilogy in 2007 with THE MOTHER OF TEARS. While the reception of INFERNO has grown more positive over the years, it’s easy to see why this sequel isn’t as beloved as SUSPIRIA. It’s also not as strong as Argento’s earlier films, or later works, such as 1982’s TENEBRE, 1985’s PHENOMENA [aka CREEPERS] and 1986’s OPERA.

That’s not to say that INFERNO doesn’t have great things going for it. The direction, mostly by Dario Argento, is fairly solid and what you would expect from the Italian maestro. If you loved the style of SUSPIRIA, INFERNO will be right up your alley. Like the previous film, the lighting and colors pop extremely well, with many scenes shot in vibrant reds, blues, and greens. In fact, several scenes seem to have been taken right from SUSPIRIA, just with different actors involved. One example is Eleonora Giorgi sitting in a cab as the rain downpours around her, shot in red and blue lighting. It’s totally reminiscent of Jessica Harper’s Suzy at the beginning of SUSPIRIA. It’s a nice throwback that fans will pick up. Same with the film’s final act, which is a shorter play at SUSPIRIA’s ending, but still very effective and fun to watch. Like with many of Argento’s works, the direction comes across as surreal, elegant, and awkwardly titillating when you least expect it. That being said, one of the film’s best scenes wasn’t even directed by Argento. The gorgeous opening sequence involving Irene Miracle diving into a water hole in a cellar, leading to a corpse floating right by to frighten her, was shot by Mario Bava after Argento had fallen ill with hepatitis. It’s well crafted, as the scene slowly builds to that reveal for our first scare. Regardless of who directed what, INFERNO is visually stylish as one would expect.

Adding to the awesome visual presentation are the perverse death sequences that only Argento could picture in his head. The guillotine death, with the use of a window being slammed over a victim’s throat, is pretty brutal. Another person gets stabbed viciously before being mauled to death by a group of cats. And probably my favorite kill - a crippled man falling into water by a sewer [in order to drown cats in a bag], only to get attacked by hungry rats before getting stabbed in the neck multiple times. It may be overkill, but it’s pure Argento and I love it. We also get bizarre imagery, like women hanging, paper dolls getting decapitated, and beautiful women creating a wind and sound distraction in a lecture room. None of these things seem to connect to anything, but the imagery is bizarre and somewhat creepy. Honestly, the direction and visual presentation for INFERNO are the best things about the film.

Another highlight is the musical score. Unlike many of Argento’s other films, INFERNO is not scored by Claudio Simonetti of Goblin fame. Instead, the musical duties were given to Keith Emerson of prog rock group Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. While not as memorable as Simonetti’s themes, Emerson provides a nice rock and synthesizer score that reflects the turn of the decade from the 1970s to the 1980s. I do think that the music wasn’t used in the proper moments in some cases, creating a jarring effect that hurt these scenes more than help them. Watching a woman sit in a taxi shouldn’t have an upbeat, high-energy rockin’ tune going with it, especially when it hasn’t earned that and only makes the moment silly rather than poignant. And some of the suites are a bit hokey at times. But for the most part, the score works and I liked it. It’s one of the few things that set it apart from SUSPIRIA, so I’m okay with it.

The acting is pretty okay as well. I thought Daria Nicolodi did a good job as Elise, a tenant inside the cursed building that Mater Tenebrarum controls. She’s obviously comfortable working for Argento due to their personal relationship. Plus, she co-wrote the film and knows where her character is coming from. She doesn’t get a whole lot to do, but she’s always a welcome presence. Sasha Pitoeff is also fun to watch as Kazanian, the bookstore owner. His hatred of cats and how it ended up leading to his fate was handled well, and Pitoeff is great through it all. I also thought Feodor Chaliapin Jr. was great in his short role as Varelli, the author of The Three Mothers. I did feel that Leigh McCloskey wasn’t the most captivating male lead in the world and he doesn’t even get to do a whole lot until the film’s final act. His performance was kind of bland in my opinion, but it’s not a performance that ruins a film. I think the acting is much stronger in other popular Argento films, but it’s still pretty good for the most part.

My real issue with INFERNO is the film’s story. Argento’s films have always been more style than substance, even with his classic gialli and supernatural films having flawed storytelling that you can forgive because it’s a fun ride getting to the film’s conclusion. Unfortunately, INFERNO can be a bit of a chore to sit through at times because the way the plot is presented is really disjoined. The film takes place at multiple locations, going back and forth between them as the narrative plays out until the film’s final reveal. There’s nothing wrong with this - that is if we had characters we could care about. Besides Mark, Rose and Sara, the other characters appear in and out without much character development. Some of them just seem to be in the film in order to die a vicious death. That’s great for a slasher film, but not for a supernatural movie that’s the sequel to a classic. In fact, we’re not even really sure why Mater Tenebrarum would even want to deal with these unlikeable people. What’s her purpose? It’s not like killing these people adds to anything she may be planning. When she finally appears, it doesn’t make much of an impression because the storytelling is all over the place. The mystery and the journey solving it should have been stronger. Maybe it’s because Argento fell ill during the production, or because he felt pressure in topping SUSPIRIA. But INFERNO could, and should, have been better than it is if there was more going on in the narrative. There’s definitely an interesting idea underneath INFERNO and it presents itself during the film’s best moments. It’s just a shame it’s not expressed better. I think even if it had a wider release back in 1980, fans probably would have left wanting more.

THE FINAL HOWL

While not as strong of a film as SUSPIRIA, INFERNO still manages to be a good watch for anyone who is into Italian horror. It’s also a decent continuation of The Three Mothers trilogy started in SUSPIRIA. The film has a lot going for it - great kills, that beautiful Argento visual style, and cool music by Keith Emerson that probably could have been used better at certain points in the film. Unfortunately, the story is all over the place. The characters are weak and things seem to happen in order to fill a gap needed to move the story along. That being said, INFERNO has a ton of atmosphere and a vibe that is sometimes missing in horror films. INFERNO is a classic Argento film that works more than it doesn’t, making it worth a look if you’re a fan of the man’s work.

SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

Midnight Confessions Ep. 129: "Italian 80's Horror Double Feature"

It’s not quite Halloween yet, but we’re feeling the vibes and what is October with out a least a few Italian horror flicks? The two in question this episode are Dario Argento’s classic, TENEBRE (1982) and the more elusive, SPIDER LABYRINTH (1988). 

Plus music by: Baltimora, Goblin, Jack Hammer, and Raf.






 

Like "Midnight Confessions" Facebook Page: Midnight Confessions Podcast

Follow us on Twitter @MC_Podcast!

Subscribe on iTunes! - Midnight Confessions

Visit our archive stuff - MC_PodcastVault

We're now on Stitcher! - Stitcher Version

ITALIAN HORROR WEEK 2014: Tenebre (1982)

DIRECTED BY
Dario Argento

STARRING
Anthony Franciosa - Peter Neal
John Saxon - Bullmer
Daria Nicolodi - Anne
Veronica Lario - Jane Neal
Giuliano Gemma - Detective Giermani
John Steiner - Christiano Berti
Christiano Borromeo - Gianni

Genre - Horror/Thriller/Mystery/Giallo

Running Time - 100 Minutes


**Part of Doc Terror's ITALIAN HORROR WEEK 2014**


When it comes to Italian Horror, Dario Argento is the first filmmaker that comes to mind. It was through Argento that I learned what a giallo was, which led me to other films of his - as well as films made by other Italian directors such as Mario Bava and Lucio Fulci. While Argento's most recent fare haven't been so well received - I personally think 1987's OPERA was his last great work - Argento's filmography still manages to make him one of the premier artists in the genre.

Dario Argento really made his mark on audiences through his giallos. Films like THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET, and DEEP RED really captured audiences, as well as help inspire the American version of the giallo, the slasher film. For a while though, Argento was more focused on supernatural stories, such as SUSPIRIA and its sister-film, INFERNO. But 1982's TENEBRE was Argento's return to the giallo sub-genre, proving to many why he was the master of these certain types of films. Personally, it's not as good as DEEP RED or SUSPIRIA. But it's definitely top 5 material for sure.

PLOT

Peter Neal (Anthony Franciosa) is an American novelist who is known for his controversially sensationalistic stories that have been criticized for their misogyny and violence towards women. He arrives in Rome for a press tour, but his arrival sparks murders within the city that seem to be copying scenes from Peter's latest book, "Tenebre". Peter becomes involved when he starts receiving notes from the killer, taunting him and using his own words against him. Who can the killer be? Is it someone Peter knows? Is it an obsessed fan?

 
REVIEW
TENEBRE is an interesting film in Dario Argento's filmography. For one, TENEBRE was inspired by a stalker who had harassed Argento once he found fame in Italy. Also, it also seems to express criticisms towards Argento's previous works, especially where it concerns supposed misogyny towards women. The Peter Neal character seems to be TENEBRE's representation of its director - a man who just simply wants to entertain, but seems to be blamed for things he didn't intentionally do. These themes drive the story forward, showing that works of art are there to entertain most, but possibly inspire others to do bad things due to their minds not being able to wrap around reality.

Also, TENEBRE seems different from Argento's other gialli in the sense that the narrative is much more coherent than anything that has come before it. The murder mystery is pretty straight forward, leading to a logical conclusion that makes sense once you realize what's going on. I like how Argento attempts to make any character in TENEBRE seem like the killer. They all have something pretty shady about them - some more than others - making you wonder who's a red herring and who is the copycat killer. The story just builds and builds until you're aching to see where it'll end up, and it does not disappoint. I liked how the main characters seemed intelligent when it came to the situation, with some of them acting pretty suspicious about the whole murder deal. With ex-wives, cheating scandals, and other shady stuff going on, you're never sure where the narrative is going to take you, which makes TENEBRE a lot of fun to watch while you're putting the jigsaw puzzle together.

The puzzle is more interesting due to random scenes involving a flashback of a young, beautiful woman in a white dress wearing red pumps. It's obviously from the viewpoint of the killer, but we don't know what this means until the final act. The scenes just come across as surreal and pretty creepy, as you're just left wondering what the hell is going on. Who is this woman and how does she figure into things? And why is she shoving a red heel into a dude's mouth? Pretty strange stuff.

I do feel that the mystery aspect did hinder some of the characterization. Sometimes it's hard to like any of these people because Argento attempts to make each one of them seem suspicious. Also, I felt there were too many characters in the film, taking away the focus from the more major players. It's as if Argento attempted the body count aspect of the slasher film [which was major during this time], while attempting to maintain the aspects of a true giallo. I get what Argento was going for, but I do think it brings TENEBRE down a bit.

The death sequences in TENEBRE are quite memorable, and pretty bloody. The killer either likes to slice people with a blade, axe them to death, or even strangle them in a car from behind. There are a lot of cool death scenes, including one where an axe amputates a character's arm, gushing blood all over the nearby white walls, as the axe impales into her torso for added effect. We also get a great scene involving a dog attacking a character, leading her towards the home of the killer, who decides to make her night quite horrific as she struggles for help. Probably none of the sequences match up to anything from DEEP RED, SUSPIRIA, or even OPERA. But they're very effective and well done.

The direction by Argento is just fantastic. He injects a lot of style into the film. One scene, probably my favorite, involves this really elaborate crane shot that pans and tilts an entire apartment building in one continuous shot, just to set up a classic murder sequence. Apparently doing this caused a lot of headaches during production, but the final result is so worth it. We get some great POV shots from the killer's perspective. There's a lot of attention to detail thanks for cinematographer, Luciano Tovoli, making us pay close mind to any hints that may linger for us to solve the mystery. The tension and suspense is top notch. I do miss the colorful look that Argento is mainly known for, but it probably wouldn't have fit in well with the film's story and tone. TENEBRE is one of Argento's finest achievements as a filmmaker - one I'm sure he's definitely proud of.

The acting is hard to rate since I watched the English dubbed version of the film. Some actors, like Anthony Franciosa and Daria Nicolodi, come across as hammy due to the voice actors. But that's part of the charm, and they both are good actors, so I can't say anything bad about their performances. I really liked Giuliano Gemma as Detective Germani. He just came across as one cool customer, and pretty intelligent as well. We also get a bunch of hot women who are there to be murder victims, and they all run and scream quite well. And John "The Man" Saxon is awesome as the sleazy book agent. Any film he's in is worth watching, in my opinion. 

And I can't end this review without talking about TENEBRE's score. Argento is well known for collaborating with electronic rock group, Goblin, on many of his features during the 1970s. Unfortunately by the time TENEBRE was being produced, Goblin had disbanded. But Argento still managed to get three of the members - Massimo Morante, Claudio Simonetti, and Fabio Pignatelli - to contribute a synth score that would drive the narrative forward towards its tense conclusion. I personally love Goblin, and even parts of the group still manage to make great music. It's not as good as SUSPIRIA or DEEP RED, but the score does fit within the tone of TENEBRE.

 
THE FINAL HOWL
While DEEP RED and SUSPIRIA are still my favorite Dario Argento films, TENEBRE is definitely up there for me as well. It's not a perfect film, but it's still manages to be an entertaining thriller that will keep you invested from beginning to end. I think technical wise, TENEBRE is one of Argento's best, although I do miss the more colorful look of his previous works. If you care about perfect storytelling, then TENEBRE will probably disappoint you. But if you prefer more of a visual experience with good amounts of gore and stylish filmmaking, then TENEBRE is right up your alley. 


SCORE

3.5 Howls Outta 4     

Opera [a.k.a. Terror at the Opera] (1987)

DIRECTED BY
Dario Argento

STARRING
Cristina Marsillach - Betty
Ian Charleson - Marco
Urbano Barberini - Inspector Alan Santini
Daria Nicolodi - Myra
Coralina Cataldi Tassoni - Julia
William McNamara - Urbano

Genre - Horror/Giallo

Running Time - 107 Minutes


As a sometime filmmaker, I get asked that dreaded question that ticks me off quite a bit: Why do you want to direct horror films? By just reading that out of context, it doesn't sound like such a big deal. But when you have people who consider CITIZEN KANE and LA DOLCE VITA the greatest films ever made, they'll present that very question with a condescending tone, as if wondering why anyone would want to make movies involving disturbing and disgusting images to scare people. Even when I tell people that John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN is my favorite film, I get weird and slightly disappointing looks as if they were expecting a better answer. Hey, I love THE GODFATHER as much as anyone else, but I can watch it probably once or twice a year while I could watch HALLOWEEN any time I want and never get bored by it. Some people are just made differently, I guess. But a little respect would still be nice.

In a way, I feel for musical director Marco in Dario Argento's OPERA. Here's a man who is a prolific horror director trying to step out of that genre to create a magnificent opera show with mystery and intrigue. Yet, he still gets no respect for his work because he's a "horror director". It also doesn't help that people keep dying around him and his lead actress, forcing them to live a "real-life" horror movie. But without it, OPERA wouldn't be as entertaining as it is. One of Argento's best and most memorable films, let's see why the fat lady won't be singing any time soon.

PLOT
An opera, based on Guiseppe Verdi's Macbeth, is being directed by a horror film director named Marco (Ian Charleson). Marco is gaining attention for the production due to his ambitious vision that includes live ravens, laser beams, smoke machines, and magnificent costumes. The production hits a snag when the former lead actress gets injured, leaving Betty (Cristina Marsillach), her understudy, to take over.

Betty is having major issues with this role, mainly because legend says that any theater version of Macbeth is cursed. While some of the production team considers that superstitious, strange things do start to happen right from opening night. For example, someone kills a stagehand and a light fixture almost crushes the nearby audience. Even though both are considered just coincidence, the terror grows as Betty is attacked by this mysterious masked assailant, who ties her up and places needles under her eyes so she can watch the killer do his thing. Eventually, people working on the Macbeth production begin dropping like flies. Will Betty be freed by the insanity of this masked murderer?

REVIEW
OPERA is considered to be Dario Argento's "last great horror film" as a director. While I can't speak for any of his films after OPERA [since I haven't seen them yet], I will agree that OPERA is a great movie that uses the giallo tricks quite well to create memorably tense moments. The movie may not be as good as his classics such DEEP RED, INFERNO, or SUSPIRIA, but the film is definitely a must see for giallo freaks.

As in every giallo, the narrative of the film isn't the strongest or deepest in the world. Watching OPERA for its story would be pretty moot since Argento is more of a visual director than a filmmaker who relies on the words of his screenplay to do the work for him. Still, the narrative does have flaws that keeps OPERA from being truly awesome, even if it's pretty straightforward to follow. For one, the killer's motive seems a bit farfetched, even for giallo standards. As you watch the film, it's easy to see why the killer does what he does - to prove his love to Betty. That's why he kills people that are close to her in someway. That's why he makes her watch his murders. The killer wants Betty's attention and affection, even if he has to torture her to make it happen. It's like Argento himself - he must "murder" in order to impress his audience. In a way, the killer represents any horror director, while Betty represents the horror audience who can't get enough of these grisly scenes on film. It's an interesting metaphor for the horror genre that I believe works well for OPERA.

Apparently, the killer also shares a history with Betty's mom, who was supposedly into sadomasochism - which is why he ties up Betty and make her suffer with needles under her eyes. Even though I understand why the killer is doing these bad things, it just comes across as pretty flimsy and the ending sort of suffers because of it. In fact, that final sequence is just bizarre and doesn't really need to be in the film. It doesn't really add anything to the story but confusion.

Speaking of the killer, it's easy to figure out who this person ends up being. With such a short list of characters that appear in the film, this character just sticks out like a sore thumb. As a matter of fact, when the killer first appears as a civilian, the mystery is gone. I remember watching this film for the first time when I was 11 years old, and even then I figured it out the moment I spotted the killer outside his/her costume. Other giallos craft a better mystery, even if the resolution doesn't make total sense. But at least it manages to keep you guessing. OPERA doesn't manage to do that.

Also, the character of Betty is a pretty weak protagonist. Unlike most horror heroines, especially in Argento's films, Betty doesn't do much of anything but act scared. She doesn't solve the mystery. She doesn't know how to protect herself, allowing others [who may be the killer] take care of her. People around her die and she acts like it's an everyday occurrence. The fact that she's dumb enough to let someone into her home after she's just been attacked and semi-blind due to eye drops makes her a character I can't really root for. Being naive is one thing, but acting stupid is another. Like I mentioned earlier, I get that she represents the audience. But I kind of feel she insults me because she's just so weak and helpless. I have trouble relating to someone like that.

Then again, analyzing the narrative of an Argento film is pretty much a waste of time since he's more focused on creating memorable scenes that will overshadow all the plot holes in the script. And we definitely get some classic moments here for sure. My favorite moment is when one character looks through the peephole and gets a bullet right to the eye and through the back of their head. It just looks awesome and makes the killer look like a total bad ass. In fact, that whole apartment sequence is some of the best work Argento has ever done as a filmmaker. It's so full of tension that you're on the edge of your seat watching it. Another moment is when the seamstress swallows something that will incriminate the killer. The killer finds her, kills her, and cuts the evidence out of her while Betty watches in horror. Wonderfully crafted scenes like these makes OPERA stand out from a lot of horror films. While I will say it's Argento's direction that makes these scenes work, they wouldn't exist if it weren't for a script.

In fact, OPERA is a pretty brutal movie at times with the murders. The make up and special effects team did a fantastic job creating some really gruesome stuff. We get a lot of stabbings, knives going through necks and exiting out of mouths, fun with scissors, bullets through the eye, and even birds pecking at people and pulling out eyes before eating them. For horror fans who like gore and blood, OPERA is definitely a good watch to satisfy that need.

Dario Argento directs a great film here. OPERA is a very surreal film at times and Argento plays that aspect up. We get scenes with very vibrant colors that remind me of SUSPIRIA. We get stylish shots in almost every scene. High angles, low angles, 360 shots, shots not in focus - Argento brings it all. I really love the POV shot from the raven while he flies over the scared audience during the opera. When it starts swooping down, it creates massive amounts of tension. We also get Argento's obsession with extreme close ups on eyes. The first shot of the film is an extreme close up of a raven's eye and it doesn't stop. We get a lot of shots of Betty's eyes, especially when she can't blink due to needles under them. We get shots of the killer's eyes while the rest of his face is covered in a black mask. We get the infamous shot of the bullet going through the eye from the peephole. And a character loses an eye. Argento is obviously portraying the eye as the way to view the horror and terror that the killer is instilling into these characters. They're scared because they see the destruction happening around them. We watch horror films with our eyes, unable to look away at the gore and horrible sights that play in front of us. While sound is a huge factor in making horror films work, they would be nothing without the sense of sight. It's as if taking away our eyes will leave us not only vulnerable, but "dead" in the sense that we can't be horrified by what we see without them.

Speaking of the music, the piano score used is pretty chilling and works to invoke emotion out of the viewer. I love the opera music. It brings a touch a class to what is perceived as a classless genre. However, I didn't really dig the heavy metal soundtrack used here. I love heavy metal and for some films, it can work. But using them during murder sequences is a flawed technique because it doesn't do much of anything for the scene and/or for the viewer. Plus it dates the film heavily, which doesn't help either. Also what was up with those shots of brains and stuff? I wasn't really sure what that was supposed to imply. Was it a reflection of Betty's mental state? Was it a dream sequence? It kind of took me out of the film at times. Still, Argento does a wonderful job creating a memorable film for the most part.

The acting is hard to critique due to the fact that the actors are dubbed, which can make or break even a good performance. Cristina Marsillach is okay as Betty. Not my favorite lead actress in an Argento film, but she does alright with her material. I don't think she acted scared enough for me, because she seemed pretty calm during the film. I'm not sure if that was Argento's decision or Marsillach's, but it wasn't convincing to me. Still, she's a pretty girl and wasn't at all horrible. Ian Charleson as Marco is probably the best actor in the film. He has a quiet charm that makes him very appealing to watch on film. Daria Nicolodi does well with her short, but memorable role as Betty's agent, Myra. She acts like she's somewhat nervous, which I like. And Urbano Barberini, of DEMONS fame, is pretty creepy as Inspector Santini. The rest of the acting was okay and worked in favor of the film.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE AUDITIONING TO BE ONE OF THE THREE TENORS

- "Macbeth brings bad luck." Looks like Mel Gibson made the right move in playing Hamlet instead all those years ago. Obviously, nothing negative is going on in his life...

- Making love supposedly relaxes one's vocal chords. I guess that's why Britney Spears sounds so great live. You would think she was lip synching or something!

- The killer threw an iron to Julia's lower back. That's one way of branding her with a tramp stamp.

- The killer shot a bullet through a peephole to murder Myra while she looked through it. Sometimes it's not worth living up to your name.

- The ravens revealed the killer by attacking this person during a performance. While the killer may not have appreciated it, this attack was just caws.

THE FINAL HOWL
While it's not his greatest work, Dario Argento's OPERA is still a great giallo even with its flaws. The film has memorable moments, great death scenes, and as usual fantastic direction by Argento. Sure the mystery could have been stronger and some of the characters could have been more interesting, but the movie is still very enjoyable and watchable. You don't need to be a Phantom to enjoy this OPERA.


SCORE
3.5 Howls Outta 4