Badmovies.org Forum

I must admit that I haven't seen too many of Fulci's films, but the ones I have seen left me somewhat divided. On one hand, Fulci has gore in spades, and he can be a bit stylish when he wants to be, but I cannot help but think that his films are lacking a certain special something. Perhaps it's that his films that I've seen are pretty much nonsensical (ie: The Beyond), or maybe it's the somewhat poor Italian-to-English dialogue, or maybe it's his eyeball fetish, but I can't help but be a bit perplexed by how highly regarded his films are amongst horror fans. So my question is: what is your opinion on the man and his movies?

Neither

Could you explain a bit more, Circus?  :question:

 :bouncegiggle: Sure!

I've not seen all of Fulci's earlier work, most of his stuff I find quite average with ideas being re-hashed and gore to cover for lack of decent material. But I do think stuff like "Zombi 2" and "Cat In The Brain" are excellent. I only use the word "genius" when someone's body of work is pretty much flawless, but Fulci's isn't. I could never be cruel enough to call the guy a hack though.

Is Fulci a Hack or Genius? I would think neither...

Some directors are Genius ~ Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick

Some directors are Hacks ~ Uwe Boll and Brian Levant

And then there is George Lucas ~ He is a Hack and a Genius


Fulci is a good director with a strong cult fanbase because of his horror films. Typically I think there are so "few" horror films like or similar to Fulci, so many fans think he's a genius. And the nonfan that had seen 1 to 3 Fulci films would see the weak special effects, plot holes and direction call him a hack.

:)

Perhaps I shoudn't have chosen that particular title for the thread. I guess nothing is really that black and white.

Oh wait, I can't believe I forgot to mention Don't Torture A Duckling - that was truly excellent, and I agree with Circus about Cat In The Brain, but I do still find him inconsistant, but nobody's perfect, right?  :smile:

The directors goal is to make their film watchable... Good, Bad or even trash its all about getting somebody to watch it.

A Genius for a Director is to make a film that sets a new trend or ripoffs. So far none of Fulci films has set any trend or been ripoffed.

A Hack for a Director is to keep making "unwatchable movies." So far I have not seen one "unwatchable movie" from Fulci, even his most silly movies The Eroticist (1972) and Sodoma's Ghost (1988) are watchable... :)

He's a hack.  Other than the gore (which isn't always anything special), his movies are pretty cheesy and in many cases boring.  But I've bought several of them anyway.  *SIGH*

I'm getting 3 this Christmas! Pray that I see the alleged "suspense" and "creativity" as opposed to the "bad special effects" and "bad storyline" :D

I've Seen A Couple Of His Movies , And In My Opinion I Think He's A Little Of Both

Since no one else will, I'm gonna come down squarely on the side of "genius." I'm a diehard Fulciphile, and not just because of the gore (although I will freely admit that does play a factor, though not necessarily because I'm simply bloodthirsty, though I am that as well, but also because I think his obsession with graphic, inventive, gonzo violence & viscera is so harsh and almost surrealistic in nature). One of the reasons (the biggest reason, in fact) is because of the very "nonsensical" quality Voltron described. I simply like movies that have that feel. For the same reason, I'm a rabid Phantasm fanatic. The thing about Fulci movies that I get, and maybe there's just a certain kind of people who take it this way and enjoy it as opposed to just interpreting it as "incoherent crap" or something, a picture of caustic illogical, nightmarishness out of his movies. I liken them more to experiencing a non-lucid dream, or listening to droning mood music, rather than watching a conventional point A-to-point B narrative. With normal movies, the dots all have to connect for it to make sense, whereas, I think Fulci films deliberately deny making connections at all. It's like pointillism. His movies are a series of dots. They don't connect, but instead form kind of a picture themselves. I don't mean to sound pretentious or anything. I'm not saying the man who was this great genius whose work is beyond our understanding. Not at all. I just don't think he cared about how "things are supposed to be done," and was more interested in just assaulting his audiences with nasty, brutal, confrontational imagery, while forming an overall vibe full of heady & apocalyptic atmospherics, and also indulging in his own personal stylistic fixations in excess. I enjoy them immensely. I think doing it that way created this host of movies that I, personally, adore and am extremely entertained by.

Also, I disagree with Skull's assertion that none of Fulci's films have set any trend or ripped off. A lot of people chalk up the huge rash of Italian zombie movies following Dawn Of The Dead to George Romero, but I think Fulci had more to do with it. True, Zombie was made to rip off Dawn Of The Dead, but I think what ended up happening was that Fulci created something completely different from Dawn, which had more in common with films like White Zombie or I Walked With A Zombie than anything from Romero's overtly political "social horror" films. Fulci's next few zombie movies, The Gates Of Hell and The Beyond, took it further and developed, even moreso, a style and tone very distinctly their one. And I think if you really look at a lot of the Italian zombie movies of the era, you'll see more of a Fulci influence than anything else. I think movies like Burial Ground, Nightmare City, and Hell Of The Living Dead are definite rip-offs of Fulci, and that most Italian zombie movies were made specifically in a way that indicates a trend started by him.

For the record, I think it's also worth noting that some of Fulci's better movies, I feel, are the lesser known ones that were rather low on gore, like Door To Silence.

I'd say neither as well.. I'm certainly not crazy about his films, but some of them are decent enough.  If you want geniuses in horror cinema I'd go with numerous others ahead of Fulci.. Romero, Carpenter, maybe a couple others.

Catriona MacColl was asked the very same question in a Fangoria interview. Her answer was: a bit of both. I'll have to agree.

William - I have to agree with you.  The Italian zombie films made in the early 80s definitely feel more like ripoffs of Fulci than Romero.  It's a ripoff of a ripoff, but that's how it is. 

Fulci has some truly great visuals and great atmosphere...  I have to be in just the right mood to actually enjoy his movies.  I'd suspect altered perceptions would help, or watching them alone in a dark room.

Fulci I'd say is good but immensely overrated.  Zombi is as good as an undead film gets but I find a lot of other work mediocre at best.  For example, The Sweet House Of Horrors is a travesty of a film.  It barely has a point plot wise and I swear I wanted to see those kids in the movie get off'd.  The New Gladiators is another one...granted a bit better than Sweet House Of Horror but still just a "meh" kind of effort. 

What Italian zombie film is a rip off to Fulci's Zombi 2?

The only one I could think that is close is: "Dr. Butcher MD" but the story is a zombie version of "The Island of Doctor Moreau" and it had ton of jungle exploitation scenes; which was a big thing in many exploitation films from the 1970's.


Most of the Italian zombie films are closer to Shock Waves (1977)... zombies and nazi are fun... :)

Or they "copied" Fulci's idea and tried their zombie story into Dawn of the Dead. (I dont think Fulci would like to be remembered for that)




Fulci's Zombi 2 was written before Dawn of the Dead and the New York scenes were added to cash in on Dawn of the Dead success. Actually to tie Fulci's movie to the European edit of Dawn of the Dead (Zombi). This is why his movie is called Zombi 2.

The inspiration of Fulci's zombi 2 is a mixture of I Walk with a Zombie, Night of the Living Dead and the success of Jaws. (Since the shark scene was written in the early script version)

Burial Ground is the most obvious ripoff.  It feels a lot like Zombie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtYsbT7gLbY



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3thbT3wq7JE

Really???

I've never seen any Fulci movies---well, it's highly possible I saw at least one and forgot it---but descriptions like WW's are exactly why Fulci now occupies several spots in my Netflix queue.

(http://www.cinesploitation.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/eroticist1.jpg)

hehe... I would like to suggest The Eroticist (1972) on top of your queue... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tpopYHbVaI

Its a story about a Political Candidate that is addictived to grab womans butts. The scene above gives you the idea of the Suspense of the character fighting his addiction and the need to grab a butt... he then claws out his hand like a murder weapon...

I do think Fulci is a Comic Genius... :)

I love Fulci!  I kind of imagine him being like my eccentric old uncle who thinks everything is great.  He's so cute.. everytime something silly happens in one of his movies I just think "oh Fulci!! you!".  I don't know if he's a hack or a genius, but he's my hero.

I love Fulici's movies. Well, what I saw, anyway. I wouldn't go as far to call him a genius, I need more perspecitve. (You know, watch more of his movies.)
All in one, his movies have great atmospheres. (Is that sentence grammatically correct?)

:teddyr:

I don't know about genius ~ very likely ~ but Signor Fulci certainly did do a lot of hack[ing] in his films.  :wink: