criterionforum.org

knives wrote: Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:23 pm The recent South Korean film The Wailing was also over 150 minutes and existed mostly to show about twenty minutes of grotesqueness. Hell, even some people liked it. There's also the excellent television movie Frankenstein: The True Story.

Ah yes, The Wailing, good point.

I did like that one, but not strongly. Definitely found it to be longer than it needed to be.

The Wailing is overlong but was very good at providing a slow burn atmospherical movie. I quite liked it, though it certainly isn't flawless.

Just remembered A Cure for Wellness (146 minutes), which managed to both bore and go spectacularly off the rails. Mia Goth was in that too.

Professor Wagstaff wrote: Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:46 pm Full Trailer

Can't really argue with these trailers. This one is even better than the teaser and does enough to suggest that the run time is going to be put to good use.

I wish I could see what you see in these trailers. It looks to me partly awful, partly slick hollwyoodian modernism that will basically upgrade the movie in something nobody asked for.

I don't see the "Hollywoodian" elements of it at all, but I do agree that this looks like a downgrade of the original film, robbing it of [literal and figurative] color. The prospect of it being an hour more on top of that, especially after seeing how Guadagnino edited the overlong (even at 125 minutes) A Bigger Splash, is concerning. But of course, could always be surprised.

An exemple would be the distorded faces, that look to me like a pointless FX just there to show off visually in a very modern way.
I'm also afraid the movie might be vastly over-explainy. Part of the appeal of the original movie is that while having a rather simple movie, it doesn't care about explaining everything that happens, why and how and what, etc, something that might be comparable to the kind of narrative differences between Paprika and Inception (if that makes my concerns easier to pinpoint).

reaky wrote: Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:13 pm Just remembered A Cure for Wellness (146 minutes), which managed to both bore and go spectacularly off the rails. Mia Goth was in that too.

I quite liked A Cure for Wellness although Dane DeHaan is a dreadful lead actor. The European bits were like something out of a Corman movie, though an obviously expensive one trying to look cheap.

All fair concerns and ones that I actually share, most definitely.

I just think the footage makes for some good trailers. I am enjoying the music and the aesthetic of them, though do miss the color (I'm assuming some color pops happen at some point in homage or whatever). I don't think they look all that Hollywood-y, I think this looks pretty distinct, but time will tell if the movie is actually more effective than it is bloated and plotty.

tenia wrote: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:30 pm I'm also afraid the movie might be vastly over-explainy. Part of the appeal of the original movie is that while having a rather simple movie, it doesn't care about explaining everything that happens, why and how and what, etc, something that might be comparable to the kind of narrative differences between Paprika and Inception (if that makes my concerns easier to pinpoint).

What are you basing this fear on? I see no evidence in this trailer to support that worry

I feel that's an often-seen trope within some Hollywood adaptation. The movie being quite long would also allow dedicated screen time for this kind of sequences.
But in this regard, it might have more to do with an overall feeling than something that I can pinpoint specifically in the trailer, though I can see it again to be sure.

I don't really think this is a "Hollywood adaptation" in the way that, say, Pulse was. Do you really think, based on Guadagnino's existent work and early word of mouth, that this won't be plenty weird and off kilter on its own? I see zero evidence of it being dumbed down or conventional

Also, MUBI has picked up the theatrical rights for this in the UK

domino harvey wrote: Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:19 pm I don't really think this is a "Hollywood adaptation" in the way that, say, Pulse was. Do you really think, based on Guadagnino's existent work and early word of mouth, that this won't be plenty weird and off kilter on its own? I see zero evidence of it being dumbed down or conventional

As I wrote, it's just a concern (and not a hunch !) based on a trailer, so it might obviously be totally wrong, but it's still made for american audiences, so it might also comes with some trade offs (jump scares, superfluous CGIs, etc etc). I'm still curious in any case, especially because having re-watched recently the Argento movie, it's pretty fresh in my mind so it'll at least make for an interesting comparison, but of course, it might just be me being too pessimistic. We'll just see !

Is "irrational dismissiveness" a thing? It seems as though you're overstating already somewhat inaccurate concerns with American films and then applying them to an international production, and somewhere in all that have totally lost the thread of what you're trying to accuse this film of doing, sight unseen. It's... a lot of leaps to be taking all in one evaluation of something you haven't seen.

Pet peeve of mine, but the whole complaining about "jump scares" thing is such an absurd thing to have bubbled up in the last few years. It's almost as if films are knocked down a peg for actually having effectively frightening moments, as not all jump scares are "cheap" but the phrase has been applied to essentially anything in a horror film that might cause the titular effect

Agreed that there seems to have been a trend defining down "jump scare" from what I understood it to be — startle effects used for moments that otherwise aren't scary, like the classic 'cat in the cupboard' example — to refer to anything that makes a viewer jump, legitimately or otherwise. I'd guess that has to do with people who don't like those kinds of scares dismissing them in favor of creeping dread, and while I love slow-burn horror it is simultaneously true that some of the best examples of the genre are built around moments of genuinely scary/horrifying/surprising shit causing a reflexive physical reaction in the viewer:

Probably NSFW

I was referring to the film no longer relying on atmosphere and simply becoming or devolving into various grotesque set pieces to make up for the fact that they don't have narrative to use at said time. Gore features are certainly fine but none of them have ever run this long.

Movies being overlong is most certainly not an American thing!

My take on the trailers so far is that this promises to be a fascinating deconstruction of Argento's film. When I originally saw the first trailer it reminded me of nothing else but The Exorcist. Can't wait.

mfunk9786 wrote: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:15 pm Is "irrational dismissiveness" a thing? It seems as though you're overstating already somewhat inaccurate concerns with American films and then applying them to an international production, and somewhere in all that have totally lost the thread of what you're trying to accuse this film of doing, sight unseen. It's... a lot of leaps to be taking all in one evaluation of something you haven't seen.

It's very simply a certain pessimism, because the movie is an international production but that clearly looks to be as trying to americanize the movie, that I found most recent "horror" movies I've seen to be relatively mediocre and relying on "cheap" jump scares (you'd think a movie relying on silence and sound like A Quiet Place would try and go the distance to avoid that but oh no). And I certainly never thought having some concerns about the remake of a movie I quite like and consider a cinematographic milestone would lead to this kind of discussion, especially because I'm trying to remain nuanced and explain my simple concerns.

mfunk9786 wrote: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:15 pmIt's almost as if films are knocked down a peg for actually having effectively frightening moments, as not all jump scares are "cheap" but the phrase has been applied to essentially anything in a horror film that might cause the titular effect

They're not ALL cheap, but many are, on top of being often avoidable. I don't think it's a 50/50 thing, hence the/my overall dislike.
It's all the more a concern when it's about the remake of Suspiria, a movie that mostly relies on tension and sensory overload than this kind of punctual elements.

Again, nothing specific, just the hope that I'll find in the remake what I think are the things that were making the original efficient, even while trying to have its own persona.

Visually this looks far more like Zulawski‘s Possession or Polanski‘s The Tenant. To accuse this of being "Hollywood" is a kneejerk reaction to horror remakes in general which neither the trailer nor the talent involved support.

I don't so much accuse this of it than just hoping it won't be. Again, it's just a trailer anyway, and again, it's more a pessimistic concern (maybe irrationnal if you want, but concerns can be) than an accusation of anything.
But that'll teach me discussing trailers, concerns and expectations.

Guadagnino appears to have been following the various threads of discussion on this movie here, because he addresses the use of color, the pace of the film ("relentless"), and the ongoing gaslighting around Lutz Ebersdorf in his interview from The Hollywood Reporter this morning.

There's a biography on IMDb for Lutz Ebersdorf written by ... Lutz Ebersdorf.