Inept Film-maker?
-
NerdofHorror — 21 years ago(January 10, 2005 12:00 AM)
Yes, i do think most of them are ignorant, because a lot of them are not willing to even try to absorb his films. They often "make up" conclusions of his films that's not even correct.
So to think of him as inept, is mostly done by people who don't understand, and are not willing to understand his craft. -
delicreep — 20 years ago(July 14, 2005 05:27 PM)
While I have a soft spot for Fulci, I find his films hit or miss. I'm sympathetic to his final years, where his obstinance was greatly exacerbated by his poor health. I don't hold those against him to a great degree. Taking his canon of horror films together, the crap-films greatly outnumber the watchable ones.
The Beyond is probably his "purest" film. The worldview is downbeat and cynical, like Fulci's. It's not just a horror film with a fashionably grim ending. The movie IS confusing in that events occur outside of a solid timeframe(especially the final third), but this was intentional in order to keep the viewer off balance, and to make the narrative more like a sinister dream.
The Beyond works well, for the most part. Not everything clicks, though. Hence, the absolutely ludicrous, show-stopping-for-all-the-wrong-reasons spider attack. Talk about a mood breaking scene. Ouch, Maestro.
And, yes, Fulci has suffered at the hands of indiffere16d0nt video distributors. Mostly the early VHS releases. The Beyond was edited and released as Seven Doors of Death (I can only imagine, with footage missing, how much more jumbled this film would seem). Hell, the Vestron VHS of House by the Cemetery had scenes IN THE WRONG ORDER. Add to that the usual Pan and Scan, full-frame abuse that so many imported horror flicks suffered through, and it's no surprise most people think Fulci is a complete hack. He wasn't a hack. An inconsistent filmmaker, but no hack.
I'm not too keen on Nekromantik, myself. I've rarely encountered a film so pathetic that tries so hard to shock. I saw it on video around 1990 after reading about it from Chas. Balun and his Deep Red cronies. After watching it, I was mystified as to how something so dull and pretentious got so much good press. I just found the movie BORING. I assume that Nekromantik looked great most of the Yankee crowd in 1989-90 because our own horror films had degenerated into "thrillomedies" and other bloodless, spineless dreck. The ending is a kick, though. I suppose a lousy film with a great denoument looks better overall than a decent movie with a crappy ending (Deliria aka Stagefright, I'm looking at YOU). -
mdsmith101 — 20 years ago(July 14, 2005 11:48 PM)
I've always wondering if the conversion to pan & scan destroying any concepts that LF might have for. House by the Cemetary is very muddled in pan & scan, Suspiria had a similiar problem.
Stage Fright did have a crap ending (I think it was for a quick sell to the Yanks)
A - Attention
I - Interest
D - Decision
A - Action! -
delicreep — 20 years ago(July 15, 2005 04:58 PM)
Pan & Scan is bad, but its not as bad as the cropping that plagued older VHS releases. Ever see a close-up of the bridge of someone's nose? It was probably a shot of their eyes, but the image has been "cropped" in order to fit a TV screen. S1c84ome films lose whole characters from sequences because of this. Cropping has slaughtered many Italian giallo & horror films.
If you want details on the video formatting process, check out this link: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/ -
mdsmith101 — 20 years ago(July 15, 2005 10:51 PM)
Clint Eastwood's film "Unforgiven" was also really badly cropped. One interesting thing about LF is that every film of his I saw in widescreen I liked and every one I saw in pan & scan I hated!
Dario Argento has a similiar problem - must be viewed in 2.35:1!
The same goes for John Carpenter's classic "Halloween" (only in W/S do we see Nancy Loomis getting her throat slashed, in P/S in looks like a choking)
A - Attention
I - Interest
D - Decision
A - Action! -
torturechamberlain — 20 years ago(August 13, 2005 02:14 AM)
I really can't see what was so wierd about House by the Cemetary, much less Zombie Flesh Eaters. As a big fan og Lynch, Cronenberg and a slew of older european filmmakers, I've sorta gotten used to movies being bizarre. Compared to Lynch, Buuel, Godard and even Bergman, Fulci is pretty straighforward. I must admit to only having seen his movies dubbed though. Btw. what would possess anyone to dub anything? It completely ruins the movie and if a movie already sucks, it's just going to suck so much harder.
Imagine one of Uwe Bolls' movies dubbed to german. Oh, the horror. -
mdsmith101 — 20 years ago(August 13, 2005 03:06 AM)
House by the Cemetary, I found to be difficult to follow mainly due to the pan and scan conversion that destroyed whatever vision LF had for the film and made him look hopelessly inept.
If anyone wants to dub Uwe Boll films into German knock yourself out. Can't be worse - can it?
A - Attention
I - Interest
D - Decision
A - Action! -
arkay — 20 years ago(January 03, 2006 07:20 PM)
People are doing a great job at dubbing over here, I don't quite get your point. The German dubs of Italian movies are 1000 x better than their English counterparts because they are done by professionals. They don't sound like porn over here
-
dalldorfw — 15 years ago(November 09, 2010 06:06 PM)
"I was mystified as to how something so dull and pretentious got so much good press."
Really, I'm kind of used to that; Little Miss Sunshine, Hard Candy, Kill Bill
Anyway, I thought 'Nekromantik' was ok, but nothing to write home about. -
argento1970 — 20 years ago(December 14, 2005 03:01 PM)
What makes this film maker stand out over many other directors (at least I feel) is that his films are "in your face." For example, The New York Ripper (his most brutal and controversial) is not really that different from something like Seven. The difference, rather than show you the aftermath, he shows in full detail how the victims die. His images of violence is the kind that would go under your skin and sometimes stay there for days. I have yet to see a director put himself out the way this man has. That's just how I feel.
-
Oivinaas — 14 years ago(January 19, 2012 08:02 AM)
"New york ripper" is without a doub the most sleaziest and sadistic I have seen of his filmography so far. There is absolutely no hope in that movie and the only likeable character is a little girl at a hospital who is dying!
You're right about how unforgettable his images of violence are! Does that make him completely inept? I don't think so.
Look at " Don't torture a duckling", it's a giallo of such quality that it makes his "gore-classics" seem very overrated IMO.
I have to confess, it took a while before I appreciated his films because firstly I was more into the gore of Peter Jackson and Troma. Filled with cartoonish humour made by rascals with a camera and a bucket of fake blood. Fulci was just mean!
The other thing was of course the loose narrative. Sometimes it works for, say, "The beyond" or "City of the living dead" but other times it feels like a bad excuse for not telling a story. I felt that way the first time I saw those two but they grew on me.