Although I seen far more Argento movies than that of Fulci, I can safely say that Argento is far better than Fulci. Both directors have a distinct style:
Argento has a highly stlyized way of killing his victims, good music, good lighting, and nice atmosphere and pacing in ALL of his flicks (unlike Fulci) , but Argento seems to have a very rushed ending in all of his films (Deep Red, Phenomena,Opera, Trauma, etc), the only ending that seems to work is the one in Tenebre.
Lucio Fulci has another distinct style that is somewhat different than that of Argento. All his films have a very slow pace (Zombie, The Beyond, Conquest, Lizard In A Woman's Skin, etc.) all his films has really nasty, almost gratuitous death sequences that are zoomed in on for effect, and some of his films have a foggy quality to them (Zombie, Conquest).
Argento rules!

damn right about that.
the beyond is virtually UNBEATABLE in the italian horror film market.
i challenge soemone to find one that is better

FULCI because (easy explanation), the BEYOND is the best Italian Horror film ever made (I have thought about this for a long time). Even though Fulci produced many uneven films before and after the BEYOND, I wouldn't trade it for SUSPIRIA and DEEP RED.
1.Mario Bava
2.Lucio Fulci
3.Dario Argento
but wait,
this is not a finished thread because Argento is set to release his third film of the trilogy.

This message has been deleted.

Conquest is awesome, everyone should run out and get it right now hahaha.
I don't care what people say, Conquest is awesome for passing time.
Here is the way i see Argento and Fulci. You CAN NOT compare them at all. They are two very different film makers and have two very different styles. I hate it when people try to compare the two or say who is better. You can't do it, it's all based on what kind of a film people like more. If you're into gore, Fulci. If you're into the thrills, Argento. They are both in different lights and thats the way it will always be.
Damn, I spilled my Big Gulp!

Four of the Apocalypse, one of Fulci's finest films, makes eveda0ry single little Dollar-film look like a cent.
Speechless..

What exactly was good about Fulci's directing?
I can say the lighting, atmosphere, fight scenes, acting(yes, the director is partially at fault), some of the costumes and the special effects(at times) were bad.
I can't think of anything good. I'd say the gore, but due to it feeling random and out of place(if it was like that throughout the movie.), that actually hurt the movie. Much like the ending death in "Dont Torture a duckling", it was just not needed.
"I hate PG-13 horror flicks"- THIS IS MY SIG GENIUSES!

2. The Music in conquest wasn't bad. It was just repetitive and I didnt care for the fact the guy was trying to tip off Frizzi. Nevertheless, Fulci isn't the composer. Are you saying the music is what makes his movies?
   No, the music alone doesn't make his movies, but like always it's an important part. Even if the directing and script is good a movie can be brought down significantly if the music is terrible. On the other hand really good music can bring a movie up a bit. In City and House Fulci's directing and the music both helped to set the mood. In the case of Conquest I personally thought both the music and script was bad while the directing was pretty good.
   One thing I didn't like about the music in Conquest was that it was too 1980s. That's perfectly OK if the movie is set in modern times, but with Conquest I thought it ruined the mood.

"What does it do?"
"It doesn't
do
anything. That's the beauty of it."

1. Oh, I di2000dn't think much of that scene despite being surprised she died(was sure she would be a main character..)
2. The Music in conquest wasn't bad. It was just repetitive and I didnt care for the fact the guy was trying to tip off Frizzi. Nevertheless, Fulci isn't the composer. Are you saying the music is what makes his movies?
   3)I didnt care for the ending either in City. But oh well.
   "I hate PG-13 horror flicks"- THIS IS MY SIG GENIUSES!

SPOILERS CONQUEST
The cave sequence I mean is the one where the man and girl is looking at each other and also when she gets killed not that long after. I would have prefereb68d if she was alive a little longer, but I still thought the seqence was well-done.
END SPOILERS
House by the Cemetary and City of the Dead had lame scripts, but Fulci saved those with his directing.
House by the Cemetery and City of the Living Dead has much better music than Conquest though. The scripts for those movies actually has some interesting ideas, but they seemed to have rushed the writing, atleast for House by the Cemetery, which has some obvious flaws in the script. City of the Living Dead has a really good build-up but I didn't like the ending and thought it kind-off ruined the film. (Much of the footage from the ending was burnt up and they had to make something out of what they had left, so that would explain the poor ending.)

"What does it do?"
"It doesn't
do
anything. That's the beauty of it."

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!

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."

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!

Take Conquest, his directing sucked there.
He did what he could with a terrible script. The music didn't help much either.

"What does it do?"
"It doesn't
do
anything. That's the beauty of it."

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!

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.

This message has been deleted.

As much as i love Fulci i have to say that i like argento more. even tho i have only seen one of his films(tenebrae).

Conny the slayer: A hurricane is large but Dolph is huge!

This message has been deleted.

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.

Both were great directors, but I prefer Fulci's style over Argento

Argento -
no contest
.
"Carol, one word of advice: send Cindy to a
special
school"

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!)

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.