Summary:
A reporter and a retired blind crossword puzzle writer collaborate to solve a slew of crimes.
My Thoughts:
Argento (“Suspiria”, “Deep Red”) is my favorite horror director, though, if I’m being honest with myself, I don’t believe he has made many movies that would be considered ‘Great’ by other cinephiles. Argento is an acquired taste, as is the genre he most frequently dabbles in: the Giallo. Giallo films are stylish and violent- the killings can be drawn out and incredibly over the top. Oftentimes, their plots are incredibly farfetched and might even involve the paranormal (though this one doesn’t). Honestly, there is a fine line between total schlock and a great giallo film, and I think for the earlier parts of his career Argento really knew how to ride that line well, and some of the films that he made are absolutely dazzling.
While I personally love Argento, I know a lot of people find his movies to be, for lack of a better word, cheap. They might think the farfetched killings and ridiculous plot twists ruin the believability, and that’s true, but Argento isn’t trying to make realistic films, he’s trying to entertain us, and in my opinion, he’s a master of entertainment. “Cat o’ Nine Tails” isn’t Argento’s best film, but it’s certainly one of his good ones.
“Isn’t there something fishy in all our lives?”
After Franco Arno (Karl Malden, “On the Waterfront”), a blind middle-aged man, and his young niece Lori (Cinzia De Carolis, “Night of the Devils”) witness a man fleeing the scene of a murder, they contact a reporter named Carlo (James Francisus, “Beneath the Planet of the Apes”), whom has been tasked to investigate the crime. As Carlo and Franco investigate, bodies begin to pile up. Can they stop the murderer before it’s too late?
Let’s get the bad out of the way first. Dialogue is something that Argento always struggles with. Never, in all of his movies, has Argento been able to write a natural sounding conversation. I know I’ve already said this before, but Argento’s work is an acquired taste, so for me, the stilted dialogue was something I expected, and it honestly doesn’t bother me as much as it might you. There are plenty of lengthy monologues, and exposition dumps (particularly in the first half of the film). Some of the dialogue sounds akin to stuff M. Night Shyamalan (“Glass”, “The Happening”) writes into his films. It takes some getting used to, but if you can look past that, the film really does start to shine, particularly in the second half of the film. There are some pacing issues, but again, those pacing issues fade away near the middle point.
Now on to why I love Argento…
So, really one of the things that makes Argento stand out is his totally unique supporting characters. While Argento’s main characters are good-natured reporters or investigators (“Deep Red”, “Tenebre”) or innocent yet inquisitive young girls (“Phenomena”, “Opera”) who wander into trouble, his side characters are usually pretty farfetched. In “Bird with the Crystal Plumage” there was a cat-eating reclusive author; in “Phenomena” there was a doctor with a monkey butler; in “Suspiria”, Argento himself played a weird mute assistant… This movie has a blind crossword puzzle author. Argento’s unique characters often add a little pizzazz to his films, and that just adds to the charm, and the unpredictability, which is what I’d like to address next…
Argento is a master of subverting your expectations. There are so many scenes in this movie in particular where you think something is going to happen, but then something else entirely happens. There are moments where you think you’ve figured out the killer, and then something alters your entire perception of the film, and it’s absolutely great. It makes the film feel like a roller coaster; the first act you climb the hill slowly, and then you plunge into madness and are whipped back and forth until the ride is over, the credits roll, and you’re able to relax. I will be the first to admit that sometimes subversions work better than others. I mentioned above that Argento’s films are farfetched, and sometimes, when subverting your expectations, he takes things beyond the realm of believability. Again, that doesn’t bother me, in fact, that’s part of Argento’s charm. For me, it works, for you, it might not. It’s all a matter of taste, I suppose.
In comparing this film to Argento’s others, I think this is probably right in the middle of the road. It’s not as bad as some of his later works, but it’s not as brilliant as some of his work that would come later in the 70s. This film isn’t nearly as violent or graphic as “Suspiria” or “Tenebre”. Honestly, it might pass for a PG-13 movie at this point, but it would be a close call. This movie is far more thriller than it is horror.
Verdict:
I love Argento, and as we approached the Italian leg of our World Tour page, I knew that I wanted to watch another one of his films. Again, this wasn’t my favorite Argento film, but its one that I believe is a great example of the giallo genre, and another satisfying thriller. If you like this film or if you want to know more about Argento’s films, I urge you to check out our Dario Argento Spotlight.
Review Written By: