This man is a hack
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Lucio Fulci
solmaquina — 19 years ago(May 10, 2006 08:57 AM)
His films are slow and boring with a few (but not enough to make up for it) good moments here and there. The acting is bad, the films are shot appallingly, the special effects suck. Why are all the zombies in the films buried about 1cm deep? It's ok in the foriegn country in Zombi 2, but what about at the start of City of the Living Dead?
What's worse is that all this guy does well is gore. Excessive gore (although it's often so fake, it's laughable) -but gore doesn't make something good. Gore can be good if done properly. For example, gore made Braindead good because it was used to bri5b4lliant comedic effect. Gore alone is not good, if anything it's boring.
Also, Zombi 2 was a cheap, cash in attempt to steal credit from George Romero and his classic Dawn of the Dead. Dawn of the Dead is a fine example of how to do a zombie film. Infact, it's possibly the best example out there.
Lucio Fulci's films suck ass. They're not THAT awful, but I'm sick of people comparing him to the likes of Geroge Romero. He is inferior to George in every way.
Really? Worst film you ever saw? Well, my next one will be better. Hello? Hello? -
EmilioLargo — 19 years ago(May 17, 2006 05:45 PM)
Fulci's films are certainly not for everyone. His films appeal to those with a deep imagination and an appreciation of sensory stimulating visuals. Unfortunately, there is a strong chance that if you have seen a Fulci film it has probably been edited and heavily censored for American audiences or just accidentally butchered. You also you run into copies with bad dubbing. These two flaws can be no fault of Fulci's directing.
Fulci had the challenge of making films by popular demand (whatever was selling at the time). Zombie movies were hot and Zombi 2 was sold to investors as a movie poster before any work had begun.
What separates Fucli from other directors is that he would take a genre and put a personal signature on the film to give it personality (some films were much more successful than others) creating masterpieces in terror. Also, part of the surreal charm of these films is the non-sequital dialogue.
Comparing George Romero to Lucio Fulci is like comparing John Cassavetes to David Lynch. The two directors had/have two completely different cinematic goals. One (Romero) is a social commentator who uses a setting resembling real life, while the other (Fulci)(although,there are moments of social commentary) gives the viewer strong visuals of terror and sexuality that creates an atmosphere of pure horror within itself.
I hope that helped. -
Lightman42 — 19 years ago(May 24, 2006 09:39 PM)
I think Fulci is respected and has a fan base because he made so many movies, and while they're hardly good, they always seem to have something in them that sparks the imagination. I'll give the beyond a knod for being mostly good, but even in the beyond there is some rediculous crap. While many of his movies are cheesy and poorly shot, there's something imaginative in terms of plot and tone that pulls you in (if you are willing to forgive the often terrible dubbing, crazy zoom-ins, and bad FX). I just watched New Gladiators last night. While I laughed at most of it, I found the Fulci feel so out of place in a sci-fi action movie, it made it interesting to watch.
-
solmaquina — 19 years ago(May 27, 2006 06:34 PM)
I'll give him that. He does have a unique style and his films are all very "Fulci". BUT the same can be said for Ed Wood. It's not enough to make his films good. So, I guess you're right.
Really? Worst film you ever saw? Well, my next one will be better. Hello? Hello? -
cat_sidhe — 19 years ago(October 11, 2006 02:13 AM)
Ed Wood's movies are so bad, they're cult-greats. If that makes any sense at all.
Frankly, what I WANT from a Fulci movie is gore, no matter how it's done. I also look for that special something that's prevalent in quite a few of the soundtracks. And that vibe.
But that's just me. I happen to like what he does, but I dont expect other people to. Except people who have a soft spot for it. -
Jiiimbooh — 19 years ago(June 27, 2006 04:39 PM)
I like the camera work, atmosphere and basic plot of Fulci's movies, so it's not all gore. I've started with the ones that are considered the best, so I haven't seen the worst o5b4f his movies yet, but I mostly like what I've seen so far.
"What does it do?"
"It doesn't
do
anything. That's the beauty of it." -
Incredible_Brightness — 19 years ago(October 28, 2006 11:00 AM)
I have recently come to the conclusion that he is a better filmmaker than I first commented. In a few of his films he has concentrated slightly more on story than gore - Don't Torture a Duckling, House by the Cemetery, and Lizard in a Woman's Skin. The results are usually a mixed bag at best, except in the case of House by the Cemetery, which was simply outstanding when compared to his 3 ultra-popular zombie flicks- Zombie, The Beyond, and City of the Living Dead. As for the quality of his special effects, his bloodiest effects are usually the best. The throat-rippings in Zombie and The Beyond are amazing, as is the intestine-vomiting in City of the Living Dead. In the atmosphere department, House by the Cemetery is his best atmosphere film, but all his other work proves him an atmosphere hack. He's not very good at that. Basically, the music is supposed to do everything in that area and most of his scores are only so-so.
"Carol, one word of advice: send Cindy to a
special
school"