I don't know if this question has been posed before on this message board, but what t5b4he hell!
-
torturechamberlain — 20 years ago(March 29, 2006 03:54 AM)
Well, I've only seen very few movies from both directors, so I'll judge from that. Opinion subject to change.
Fulci- First I saw was Zombie Flesh Eaters. By far my favorite zombie movie, after Night of the Living Dead. Acting was of course quite horrible but I have a strong distaste for dubbing and as already mentioned, there are precious few actors that can even partially recreate the intensity of their original performance in the studio. Kinski being one of the few and the only one that springs to mind right now. Okay, back to ZFE- The gore was impeccable. I like how Fulci throws these totally odd little bits into his movies that aren't conventionally scary- just weird. Like the worms all over the cabin, the zombie fighting the shark etc. Of course kudos has to go to the eye scene. Wow.
House by the Cemetary- Amazing film. Again, the acting is a problem, but apart from that this movie rules. The plot is completely ludicrius and has a totally beep up internal logic that plays like a nightmare. Love it.
Argento- First I saw was Phenomena which did nothing for me. A film with a girl who can communicate with bugs and a razor-wielding chimp should at least be entertaining in a beep up sorta way but it isn't. In some way, Argentos hyper-controlled visual, if frenetic, universe takes the strangely compelling out of these otherwise original elements and turns them into craftmanship instead of the twisted art for wierdoes that figures in Fulcis movies.
The Stendhal Syndrom- Off to a good start with the girl kissing the fish (deliciously bizarre) this field simply took a nosedive into beep and set up residency there. Overlong although at least Asia is quite the looker.
Suspiria- "Oh, come on. You can't possible rag on Suspiria as well?" Yes, I bloody well can! Probably the most overrated horror movie ever, which of course is not to say it's bad. So to clear things up, I'll say it now: It's bad. In fact, I think it sucks. There, I said it. Let raging hordes of pimply faced virgins and chubby, lonely horrormongers wield their wrath upon me. I honestly don't give a flying mother beep The Music: Not that it's really any worse than other horror movie music, but it's certainly not that much better and it's so horribly overused. The only suspense it generates is when I'm waiting for those triggered doublepedal bassdrums and the distorted guitar to kick in and play me some black metal. Sadly, it never happens. And people seem to praise it to the skies every chance they get. Acting? Horrible, although the italian version is considerably more bearable then the english. The mindnumbingly stupid characters (the locked-in-the-room-jumping-into-barbwire scene, for instance). The awful dialogue. The beep zooms (wtf do we need to see a shot of her mouth for in that scene in the bathroom where the gals are talking about the blind guy dying?). The well, almost everything. Alot of his visuals would be interesting if he either didn't overdo em or if he had had the stones to go completely all out beep with it.
Seing Argentos films has me feeling like I'm walking around in another man's headache. Seing a Fulci film makes me feel like being in another man's nightmare.
Oh, and another thing. Me not being too crazy about chrisianity, has Fulci winning over Argento as well. I have a hard time swallowing the witches beep in Argento films. For those not in the know, witches (as in evil speelcasting women out to cause death and misery) were invented by christians as an excuse to burn innocent people for whatever reasons. So making a horror movies in all seriousness with witches as the culprits is about as messed up as making a horror movie with a money grubbing, child eating, well poisening jew as the baddie. "It's just a damn movie" you might say, and s7eco it is. And this is just a damn rant. -
torturechamberlain — 19 years ago(April 16, 2006 07:43 PM)
Dude, it's not a question of belief, but of opinion.
"Try to do 10% of what he did in Phenomena"
You mean, I should try recreating a portion of a movie I didn't even like? Yeah, I'll get right on that. -
romerorulz — 19 years ago(April 18, 2006 04:20 PM)
They are both really visionary directors. THey both have great films and both have VERY bad films (The bad films come towards the end of their careers). A lot of people look down on Fulci because he "only shows gore". Yes he has a lot of gore but he is also a great visual director. Argento's films seem more polished and Fulci's films seem more rough around the edges. I love both directors and I can't decide. I actually own more Fulci movies but a lot of them are bad like Demonia and Conquest. Both directors get thumbs up in my book and they are both on my top 5 favorite directors list.
-
christianjlarocca — 17 years ago(October 06, 2008 05:02 PM)
New York Ripper is a bleak and relentless film. It's also a pretty entertaining giallo-meets-slasher story with some horrifying scenes. It's been beat up a lot by fans and detractors, alike, but I rank it among the best Fulci films (and yes, I've seen them all!)
-
jrandazzofilms-1 — 19 years ago(May 28, 2006 12:11 AM)
Better than 99% of American horror directors? You must5b4 mean Argento, because as much as I love Fulci's work, he will NEVER touch John Carpenter or George Romero.
They are both Italian directors who make gory movies but that is where the similarities end. Argento is brilliant, Fulci makes some cool gore films but they can never compare to Argento. -
leathermusic — 19 years ago(July 04, 2006 11:07 AM)
I believe Fulci is the greatest italian director of horror films for his zombie quartet alone (zombie, house by the cemetery, city of the living dead, the beyond). Argento is amazing, but his films are slightly less gory AND slightly less scary. Also, Fulci tried out more genres and had less money. Fulci rules.
-
Martialhorror — 19 years ago(July 13, 2006 04:43 AM)
Argento.
Fulci can possibly be better than Argento in his best works, but his crappier movies bring him down heavily.
Take Conquest, his directing sucked there. Four of the Apocalypse was okay, but nothing special. House of the Dead and New York ripper didnt have amazing visuals nor had a good story,although the directing was fine.
But Fulci's movies are either good or bad, Argento's usually to me, are good-to-average.
"I hate PG-13 horror flicks"- THIS IS MY SIG GENIUSES! -
Martialhorror — 19 years ago(July 14, 2006 01:38 PM)
Except the directing sucked as well.
Its possible Lucio to Conquest was like Craven to Cursed. But that doesnt change the fact he let his directing suck.
The lighting(and that stupid fog), the fight scenes, and alot of the cinematography sucked.
Also, the gore felt distracting and uneeded. Fulci should have left those early gore scenes out if he wasn't going to use them for the rest of the film. It was uber unneeded. But as I said, if the entire movie would have been like that, it would have been fine. Sort of like the ending death in "Dont Torture a duckling".
Pointless.
"I hate PG-13 horror flicks"b68- THIS IS MY SIG GENIUSES! -
Jiiimbooh — 19 years ago(July 15, 2006 08:51 AM)
I didn't think the directing was that bad. It was the script and the music that brought the movie down. Some scenes were somewhat suspensfull because of the good directing. The best directing in the movie was probably a quite early sequence in the cave. That sequence was in itself really good, even if the movie as a whole was disappointing.
The fog was a bit overused. If it had only been foggy in some of the scenes it wouldn't have been a problem. It actually contributes a bit to the fantasy landscape and atmosphere Fulci wanted to create with a really low budget.
"Cinematography by
Alejandro Ulloa (as Alejandro Alonso Garca)"
He's the one you should complain about if you don't like the cinemotography. Of course Fulci would have some say in the matter, but Ulloa was the one who was suppose to have the talent to make Fulci's vision come true.
"What does it do?"
&5b4quot;It doesn't
do
anything. That's the beauty of it." -
Martialhorror — 19 years ago(July 15, 2006 05:34 PM)
which cave scene? The one with the girls? I didn't like that any more than the rest of the film.
Things I did like
-The creatures: They looked cool.
-The scene which the young dude gets dragged down into the caves(dies not long after)
But unfortunatly, Fulci's directing served the script, which was beep House by the Cemetary and City of the Dead had lame scripts, but Fulci saved those with his directing.
Four of the Apocalypse had a REALLY beep script yet Fulci made that into a fairly good movie.
So you can't blame the script.
"I hate PG-13 horror flicks"- THIS IS MY SIG GENIUSES!