Argento's movies are not all well paced, most, not all, but most of them are boring, with little atmosphere in them to m
-
The_King_of_Cool — 18 years ago(July 04, 2007 12:09 PM)
Agree and disagree on the scripts from Argento flicks.
I don't think they are bad, but some aren't as good as they could be.
But The Bird with the Crystal Plumage & Deep Red are very well written, Plumage in paticular.
I tried doing that once, making every minute count. It gave me a headache- Adrian Monk -
jriddle73 — 18 years ago(June 30, 2007 06:13 PM)
Argento and Fulci are clearly streets ahead of all of their european counterparts, and in my opinion 99% of the American horror director fraternity, but which one rules the roost?
Your question is crippled by your premise, right out of the gate. Asking who is the best, between Argento and Fulci, is like asking who is the best between Orson Welles and Uwe Boll. Fulci is, as so many have said before, a talentless hack, ranking among the least of the "name" European fantasists (at the bottom of that barrel alongside the likes of Bruno Mattei and Umberto Lenzi). Argento can be frustratingly uneven, and even lousy, but at his best, he's a great filmmakerFulci isn't even a moderately passable one on his best day. -
DrLenera — 17 years ago(April 21, 2008 07:25 AM)
I think it's actually hard to compare the two. Fulci made alot of films in many different genres,some were awful,[especially towards the end of his career],some were okay,some I thought were realy good. I think that sometimes he really cared about what he was making [for example The Beyond,The Psychic,Don't Torture A Duckling] and sometimes didn't. His reputation isn't helped by the fact that he's best known for his 80s gorey horror movies and yet some of his best films were made well before those-they're just not as well known to the general public.
Argento made alot less films and,with the exception of Five Days In Milan and some TV stuff they're all extremely similar,even the supernatural films like Suspiria feature a killer killing people in stylized death scenes. Now as a techni2000cian I do think Argento was better than Fulci,which means that Fulci probably never made quite as good a movie in my opinion as,say,Suspiria,Deep Red or my favourite,Opera. However,Fulci was more diverse,there's no getting away from that. He tried different things,Argento rarely does. How many Argento films feature a head crashing through glass? Lots do. Watching,for example, Sleepless is just like watching The Bird With The Crystal Plumage or Trauma again. Watching The New York Ripper is nothing like watching Beatrice Cenci or City Of The Living Dead except maybe for the use of extreme violence and gore and there are plenty of Fulci movies which don't even have that. Some of Fulci's movies also have a depth that Argento never strained for as well.
Maybe I prefer Argento,I find his movies so thrilling to watch. However,Fulci was [some of the time] very good too. In my opinion though,Mario Bava was probably better than both! -
claptonisgod53 — 17 years ago(October 05, 2008 03:42 PM)
Fulci for gore and drama
Argento for suspense and crime
Both are good directors, and they're both good at their own style. I perfer Argento, but that's because I perfer suspense to gore. I also feel that Argento had more above average attempts at making good films. Only about 7 of Fulci's films are truly well made, while Argento has over 13 good films in his filmography.
For in depth horror reviews, check out my youtube page: Horrorreviews123