Argento's movies are not all well paced, most, not all, but most of them are boring, with little atmosphere in them to m
-
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 -
khalidamin — 13 years ago(September 23, 2012 04:43 PM)
yes argento is an artist , but you have to realize something .. argento was born to a father who happense to a proudcer !!..se he was pretty lucky and had all the budgets he needed for his films while fulci actually needed money sometimes , was offered scripts he didn't write ..etc etc
till now i've seen one film to fulci so i can't judge ..i'v seen all of argento films and yes the guy is imagnitive as hell with a powerfull vision .
i have to watch much more films to fulci to be able to pick one.
but i think mario bava , dario argento and lucio fulci are the most famous italian horror directors .
naturally there's another italian name that i think represents the word art! ..and it's sergio leone .
i alwayse felt italy have the best directors '' not so good of an actors though '' -
saturnjwl — 13 years ago(October 17, 2012 03:10 AM)
I wouldn't say that they're ahead of their European counterparts. I find that really disrespectful to all the amazing talent present in Europe at the time. Personally I have more love for Fulci, but if I had to choose between watching either directors complete works, end to end, with no breaks I would pick Argento. I think it's something of an unfair comparison, though.