tomgillespie2002 Trauma is a particularly significant horror in that it was the first film to be made by Italian genre master Dario Argento on American soil. Following a string of eye-catching, kaleidoscopic gialli and superior supernatural tales, Argento found himself at the door of Hollywood, an industry which, at the time, was struggling to churn out much in terms of originality in the horror/thriller genre. While he had employed English-speaking actors before, such as Jennifer Connelly, David Hemmings and Karl Malden, their roles were often crudely dubbed, and Trauma offered the director a chance to reach a broader audience with his unique - if obviously Hitchcockian - blend of build-up and terror.Disappointingly, Trauma, if anything, represents the beginning of Argento's drastic career decline. The opening is full of promise, as a familiar black-gloved killer stalks a victim before killing her in a brutal and stylish fashion, here with a device which allows the victim to be garroted with relative ease. Bolstered by a POV style and traditionally great effects work by Tom Savini, it's a scene that could have easily been taken from one of Argento's native works. However, as popular as the giallo craze was, it didn't quite reach the general American audience, and so Trauma gets watered-down and peppered with horror clichés in an attempt to cast a wider audience net. While the tropes are there - an everyman (Christopher Rydell) is forced into sleuthing while dodging the police - it does little but frustrate as you realise that somewhere, deep down, there's probably a great giallo trying to get out.So while the film has it's odd moment, the result is an incoherent, and somehow quite boring, mess of ideas and clashing styles. Starting promisingly, the story goes on to place anorexia sufferer Aura (Asia Argento, the director's then 17 year-old daughter) in the hands of illustrator David (Rydell) after her parents are murdered by the masked killer, and it is during this period that the film does nothing but lay out a string of red herrings, as well as creepily leering at Argento's youthful beauty. The final third is an exhausting conveyor belt of anti-climaxes, before the ludicrous (and not in an entertaining way) reveal that feels like it was made by a sub-par Tobe Hooper or Wes Craven arrives. While it's nowhere near the level of atrociousness that Argento would vomit out in 2009 with Giallo, Trauma feels like it was made by a once-great visionary who had tiredly given in to the producers' voices in his ear.

Rindiana Dario Argento scraping bottom.As the director's stylistic flourishes seem to be muted by the American setting - although there are some small moments here and there that work -, you're left with one of those silly giallo plots full of cheap and exploitative psychology, random narration, amateurish performances - the only decent acting's done by Brad Dourif - and no logic at all.There's a certain fascination to be gained watching rubbish like this. At least, it's Argento rubbish! There is a hypnotic quality to all his movies... even to the most atrocious ones such as this.2 out of 10 talking heads

acidburn-10 "Trauma" is definitely not the best film he's ever done, and by no far the worst either, but it's just not up there with (Deep Red, Suspiria, Tenebre and A Bird With A Crystal Plummage).The set up is good and the acting is top-notch especially Asia Argento, she's a talented actress. The movie starts off good and the storyline is interesting and has a good twist at the end, it's just the middle I found a bit muddling. TRAUMA is occasionally a pleasingly twisted film, but whilst watching it I couldn't shake the feeling that it could have been all the more gloriously twisted if it were not for one thing- that it was trying to please its (perceived) American audience. As I've said (several times!) there is no way you can disguise Argento's intrinsic strangeness, but here it seems, well, kind of muted. Explaining why it fails somewhat, the film (and hence Argento) seems uncomfortable in its setting; especially in its attempts to transport some of giallo elements to a foreign setting.All in all "Trauma" isn't a bad film, just mediore at times.

Cristi_Ciopron An appropriate way of underscoring Argento's merits as a director is to say that he allowed Dourif make his best in his cameo from Trauma (1993).I felt this,I knew this,but I only understood it fully when I realized how badly manages to treat the character actors in his movies another famous director—Lynch. I was thinking about Lynch and his way of showcasing moral teratology and about the villains he casts; Lynch had Hopper and Stanton in the cast of some of his movies—and look how muddy ,mucky makes Lynch their performances look.Dourif's cameo in Trauma (1993) is one of the most striking and sharp things to be seen in a horror ever—like Spacey in Seven, for the thrillers. Dourif gives an accurate idea of what an electric performance means—the pinnacle of sharpness .There is an electric austerity and limpidity —his small role being played in a straightforward way. His role is simultaneously sharp and electric and impressing and snappy—a snarling and snared man.Moreover, Dourif's cameo fits the movie. Or,the movie is not below this cameo. (For a counterexample ,I will name Robert Picardo in Stargate Atlantis; I enjoy much that series, and I have seen Robert Picardo doing a cameo in its third season—it seemed to me that he did not belong to that set—he was too god, too strong and subtle and vigorous and skilled for the role and for the movie.)A performance much better and more stylish than the movie is not only useless—it is bad. Argento knew how to frame Dourif's role.I would not even like that Dourif's role here was bigger; it is striking at this size.You can see that Dourif does not save himself;on the contrary,he gives himself fully,and with over-measure.He is one of the best living actors. Within the character performances, he has found real universality. "Trauma" is a good movie—despite the lack of success; and the very best thing in it is Dourif's cameo.An authentic B film is not directed to the crowds; it is directed to the genre's fans, or to the director's or the B actors' fans—if there are any. Sometimes, it is directed to no one especially. So, something interesting may be achieved.B movies seem to promise much, because there is the hypothesis that the director will be free to do what he wishes. The B cinema promises this fantastic opportunity. You can publish fine things as pulp; you can film beautiful things as B films, away from the impediments of the mainstream. There is, or at least there seems to be a certain degree of creative freedom. Commercially, these movies are so hopeless that one might find a chance to hit the jackpot in another way—by creativity and intelligence. It may result at least a thing of fun—of unrestricted and unconventional fun. A B movie, an independent one,or sometimes even a TV one may achieve this. On the other hand,the B is, of course, only the chance, the opportunity. One might try to be independent here. Unfortunately, most often the director seems not to wish anything. The greatest B movie is the one we dream about. In the Argento movie here, there are a few strong scenes, the best of this film—those with Dourif.I am a fan of Argento's cinema, and also a fan of this film.