MovieChat Forums > Suspiria (1977) Discussion > Can someone explain criteria for a good ...

Can someone explain criteria for a good Horror Film

posted 14 years ago by scorseseholic
29 replies | jump to latest

I consider myself to have good taste in movies (I know so does everybody else) and someday soon will be transferring to a film school to study.

I want to broaden my perspectives by appreciating the Horror genre a little more, but I just don't get. Movies that I think are cheesy, stupid and with bad acting, Horror buffs claim it's brilliant and wonderful. For example, Suspiria, Evil Dead, and Drag Me to Hell. I laughed at the dark humor in Drag Me to Hell but I still failed to see what was so great about it and why it was praised so much.

My favorite horror films are The Shining, Carrie and Rosemary's Baby but it's mostly because of the acting, directing, characters etc. and not for the reasons as a Horror lover would say.

So please, Horror fans, explain what I am supposed to look for and what qualifies a Horror film as a good or great one!

[–] matheusmarchetti 14 years ago

Suspiria is not a film for everyone. I wouldn´t even compare it to Evil Dead (this is indeed one overrated horror film IMO), let alone other American horror films. It´s style is so much it´s own, it even stands out from most Italian movies (even though it has the genre trademarks). Here´s what I posted on it´s defence on another post:

Suspiria is often dismissed as having a weak script which I don´t think it´s true, unless if it didn´t achieve Argento´s goal as to make a film that works both as a twisted fairy tale for adults (a Walt Disney horror film, if you will) and a cinematic representation of a child´s nightmare or fantasies. Thus, it´s approach at story-telling is closer to the works of Luis Buñuel (and you wouldn´t say "Un Chien Andalou" is a poorly written film would you?) than to say, Romero or Carpenter.
The main focus of the film is to create this bewildering, haunting dream-world, through extreme images and sound. Of course, the murder scenes are part of the overall effect, but they are not what the whole films is all about (sadly, some people watch Suspiria for the murders alone based on it´s reputation, and therefore find it disappointing) it would be silly to compare them for the likes of the Saw films and such, since the latter uses tasteless, meanspirited violence to attract shallower audiences who only watch them for this reason. And on top of that, in "Suspiria" and most of his other works (save for his post-90´s outcome), Argento takes the grotesque and elevates it into an art level. Rarely in the genre has one managed to make such brutal set pieces so beautiful and almost erotic (not unlike what Alejandro Jodorowsky did with "Santa Sangre")

I´d also like to add that I don´t find the acting in this film to be bad at all. It´s sort of ruined by the poor dubbing, but otherwise the characters are supposed to act childish, since "Suspiria" was concieved, as I mentioned before, as a fairy tale for adults, and once you realize the characters are all basically "children played by adults", it makes much more sense. Regarding the film overall, it´s just a matter of how you approach it. I find it hard to believe how it went to become a more mainstream title, while it´s obviously an anti-mainstream film. Maybe that´s just the problem with it, and had it not become the hit it was at the time of it´s release, it might´ve been seen nowadays as something of a mesmerizing slice of arthouse Eurohorror that deserved more praise for what is it (not because of it´s slasher reputation)

The theater is like a faithful wife. The film is the great adventure, the costly, exacting mistress

[–] mmarkham8153 13 years ago

I do agree that this is not a film for everyone. I was intrigued by all the post and comments about the film but once I watched the film, I was very upset. I have a better understanding why the film was made and filmed the way it was. Really is a love it or hate it film. Personally hated it but understand it is very artsy and is a classic but should not be consider horror.

[–] cruisenwithpedro 14 years ago

Well firstly when approaching a film like suspira you have to take into consideration it is not like your average film. It is very non-linear and does not focus on plot as much as it does colour and atmospher and sound.

Just keep an open mind and you'l get it.

[–] obscuringrichie 14 years ago

Is your issue with these films the quality of them or the label of Horror?

I was certainly dissatisfied with Suspiria as a horror film. I didn't find it frightening. I didn't care about the characters, so I couldn't fear for them, and I don't think they did the best job of building suspense. I tend to be very effected by the scores in horror films and found this one to be too overbearing to make me feel uneasy. I think that had I gone into the movie without the hopes of being frightened it might have turned out very differently, because I can't ignore that it was visually impressive.

However, there will always be films that are going to seem overrated. I went to film school myself and there were always people praising films that didn't move me at all. The main thing is that you have to be able to know why you don't like something. All the critics in the world can say whatever they want to about how great or terrible a film is, but as long as you know why you feel the way that you do it really doesn't matter if you don't agree with them.

[–] higgsfield 13 years ago

well said.

[–] AkrayBothorda 13 years ago

Full agreeance. I'm a big fan of film music and I think I'd have enjoyed Goblin if I didn't feel belted over the head with it. The use of colour and lingering shots gave a sense of unease that other films have to try much harder to achieve. Certainly not a hack 'n slash movie. I would probably have enjoyed it greatly if the music wasn't such an audial bludgeoning.

[–] apostasia 14 years ago

Depends on what your expectations of a horror film are. Suspiria is rather artsy and more about atmosphere and creating the feeling of being in a nightmare rather than a succession of gory set pieces (though of course Suspiria does have a couple of those) or ratcheting up suspense which is a more typical way of doing horror. It's beautifully shot with a great colour palette and I personally find the soundtrack very creepy, though I appreciate it's rather marmite and a lot of people just find it cheesy and intrusive.

Evil Dead is arguably essentially a comedy, for the most part, albeit a very gory one.

I'll certainly agree that the production values on The Shining, Carrie and Rosemary's Baby are much higher than for your typical shlockfest, and then can be appreciated for that rather than the horror.

Just a painted face on a trip down suicide row

[–] FormerTeacherOfPrecious 14 years ago

There are many different types of horror films and your personal preference will affect your enjoyment of them.

Generally, a good horror movie should follow the same criteria as any good movie from any genre. It should have convincing actors, a good script, characterization, and competent direction. The films you mentioned liking are all well-known for those qualities, as are films like "Psycho." It sounds like you wouldn't be into the sloppier, cheesy type of horror films like "Evil Dead." Some horror films focus more on gore and the scare factor than making you care about the victims or even trying to give them a personality beyond a stereotype. Generally these films are enjoyed on a more simplistic level and while no one would admit they are "good", they can be enjoyable trash. The original "Friday the 13th" is a good example. It doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a good film in terms of acting, script, etc. but it is nonetheless enjoyable to most.

"Drag Me to Hell" was directed by the same guy who made "Evil Dead" and your dislike for it as well as the films you mentioned tells me you probably look for things such as good script, acting, direction, etc.--things that make any film good. Unfortunately, not many horror films live up to that standard. You can pretty much exclude any slasher film, for example. You're most likely to find something you like if you focus on the supernatural horror genre, particularly from the 1970s, as these tend to have more of a story. You might also try some psychological thrillers, like "Silence of the Lambs." While not technically horror films, they are closely related and generally better made.

I would stay away from the whole 1980s decade if I were you. Most of the horror films made in that decade were slasher films and based on what you've told us, that doesn't seem to be up your alley. Try something from the 1970s or further back. The giallo genre is a notable mention. Just Google a giallo film and start looking some up. They're basically murder mysteries from Italy produced mainly in the 1960s-1970s, and if you don't mind some (often comical) dubbing, they usually have pretty good characterization and follow a story. The best ones mix all of that with some really cool artsy shots and cinematography as well as some of the most beautiful murder sequences captured on film.

[–] DreTam2000 9 years ago

I would stay away from the whole 1980s decade if I were you.

I wouldn't, as Poltergeist, The Changeling, and The Shining are three of the greatest Horror films ever made.

Additionally, 1989's The Woman in Black is one of the finest obscure gems I've had the pleasure of coming across.

I would also highly recommend 1982's The Sender as well as another very obscure picture from 1980 called The Appointment, starring Edward Woodward.

There's more, but these are some terrific recommendations. These range from psychological horror, to more atmospheric, or patiently-unraveling horror.

Everything else you've said is all well and good, but it doesn't touch down on the fact that Suspiria manages to almost slip entirely outside of both categories of Horror films, simply because it is a bit weak in the story regard. It's still much better than the average piece of horror that Hollywood tosses our way. It is beautifully well made, even if it makes one wish that it had an actual story or a much better climax. It's almost as if the production became bigheaded after looking back on the whole ordeal and realizing that they've made this terrific piece of art, and decided to say to hell with the rest of the criteria that could make it a well-rounded, complete experience in all regards.

I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

[–] memorandom 13 years ago

your favourites are some goodies. i like my horror a bit more like the exorcist and rosemary's baby than all the schlocky gorefests that pass for horror nowadays. there's a lot to be said for unnerving, psychological horror, it's certainly more scary than simple gore, which is just lazy filmmaking

[–] cyberbaboon 13 years ago

take time to learn about the backgrounds to these films. yes the acting in suspiria seems stilted, remember all italian films from this time have this atrocious dubbing, even when they're in italian. they would use actors from all over the place, some would talk in english some in italian, all quite carelessly dubbed later in several languages, totally gung-ho.
there are historical reasons for this so research it, and then watch the films again with this in mind, because you have to forgive them for this, you have to accept it as part of the aesthetic.
with dario argento and many of the italian masters it is all about mood, lighting, camera angles, violent operatic set pieces etc, the dialogue, characters and plot all take a back seat, so my advice here would be to focus on their strong points, their dream logic and atmosphere and vivid imagery. also the amazing italian architecture and interiors, italy is so beautiful that you can point the camera anywhere and it will be visually interesting.
then with something like the evil dead, this is a horror comedy made for next to nothing by an extremely young group of then-nobodies, and it managed to be extremely new and inventive and exiting, it isn't really comparable to something like the shining, which was a big studio production involving the likes of jack nicholson, stephen king and stanley kubrick.
what i'm saying is that if you wish to study film rather than just enjoy it as entertainment then each film needs to be understood within its own context, even watching some making ofs and listening to some commentary may well deepen your appriciation for these films.

[–] Tom_Cruises_Testicles 13 years ago

If you like it, it's good.
If you hate it, it's bad.

Hope that helps.

[–] pick_bass 13 years ago

i think a good horror film is a film that could have worked just as good if the horror was removed...

the exorcist for example is just as good a movie as it is a horror, the character arcs and stories would have been just as effective if there was no shock horror and no in your face proof that regan is possessed

and the mystery of The Omen would still make the movie great even if it didnt involve murders (the idea of somebody beleiving a girl is possessed or the idea of a boy being the devils son are both great stories without the horror)

compare it to the likes of the friday the 13th sequels which if you were to remove the horror....is just people getting drunk in the woods...the story cant carry itself its all about the murders

---

The Good the Bad and the Ugly is the greatest movie ever made...

[–] drizzleinc 13 years ago

"they would use actors from all over the place, some would talk in english some in italian, all quite carelessly dubbed later in several languages, totally gung-ho."

For example Udo Kier

[–] Parks 12 years ago

Horror is one of the most personal genres, in which one man's meat is very much another man's poison. I've always been terrified by The Exorcist while other people who's opinions I admire find it laughable. Equally, I've never been in the least scared by Suspiria, but I know people who consider it one of the best horror movies ever made.

To me, "Suspiria" is like "Hausu" - a symbolic, super-saturated, adult fairy tale. Plot is of secondary importance as is acting ability. And that script! The scene where one expert introduces a SECOND expert so he can explain the plot to Jessica Harper's character is just dreadful. But I have to admit that it is a beautiful film to look at, and manages to maintain a brilliant off-kilter atmosphere for the whole running time. Plus, that final confrontation with the Mother of Sighs IS very well done.

It sounds to me like you prefer horror movies where you are more engaged with the characters and not pushed back by over-stylishness or humour (as in Sam Raimi's films). You might find some of Cronenberg's less clinical films (The Fly, The Brood) more satisfying. Failing that, try "Don't Look Now", "The Haunting" (1960) or "The Omen".

[–] the sphynx 13 years ago

Watch the 1959 French film "Eyes Without a Face". That's a horror film even non-horror-buffs like me can admire tremendously. Eerie, sad, horrifying, and very beautiful.

[–] Pythe 13 years ago

Given that you haven't replied to any of these posts my guess is that you didn't really want to be educated; you just wanted to complain. Well, good for you. You have immaculate taste in movies and you're a fine specimen of human being because of it. Not like these base, repulsive "Horror fans."

---------------------------------
"It was night. I could tell because it was getting dark."