"City of the Living Dead"--some personal views, no real spoilers, but maybe a little.
Mkebeliev
tied with Zombie but second to The Beyond. Sure the plot may have holes, some
of it makes little sense but it's Fulci afterall. Give it another chance, this
is a great film.
Ian Salsbury
Mkebeliev <mkeb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001101182200...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
No, I can`t agree. I watched COTLD for the first time a couple of months
back and thought it was terrible. It made little sense, was boring and the
zombie effects were laughable. A couple of good gore scenes dosen`t make a
film, I am baffled as to why this is regarded as such a classic. The only
reason I can think of is that many of you may have seen it when you were
young and retained some sort of nostalgic affection for it. As a thirty year
old who`d never endured it before I was very disappointed. It`s actually put
me off trying out The Beyond, which I had been planning on ordering on DVD.
I`ve a soft spot for Zombie, but don`t reckon it an absolute classic or
anything - so what do you all reckon - should I still bother with TB or
what? How much better than COTLD is it?
-Ian-
Ol' BattleMonkey
oh, never mind!
"R." wrote:
>
> The first batch of Horror DVDs I ordered has arrived. I've just
> finished watching City of the Living Dead. I'm glad the others will be
> a lot better.
>
> PAURA NELLA CITTA DEI MORTI VIVENTI sucked. Not even the presence of
> the late George Segal-lookalike Christopher George could save it from
> itself. It gives one the impression that the script couldn't be flown
> in on time so they just shot whatever. I don't want to get too much
> into the "story" because I dislike spoiling it for others, but it's
> full of holes.
>
> The gore effects are pretty good, I will not dispute that. The famous
> regurgitation and drilling scenes lived up to my expectations, and
> even the suspicious grabbing of someone's brains through their skulls
> was unexpectedly effective. I'd grade the effects a perfect 10. Kudos
> to actress Daniela Doria for performing her part in creating a
> horrifying effect.
>
> But gore alone does not a good film make and I'm afraid all the blood
> in this movie doesn't make up for its lack of good writing, direction
> and editing. Yes, it has its moments, after all we're talking about
> Fulci here. But this feels like someone started writing one movie,
> gave up, and then started writing a different movie but never
> discarded the first part. It's very messy.
>
> The plot makes very little sense at all and the zombies are certainly
> not Romero-style. The last time I've seen such poor zombies was in a
> movie that feature Adam West. I think it was called "One Dark Night".
> The zombies here can't decide if they are zombies, flesh-eaters,
> ghosts or demons. And to make matters worse you don't even have to
> shoot them in the head to kill them. No, you just stab or spear them
> anywhere and they go up pretty quickly. But first just wait around for
> them to kill any number of people.
>
> I've heard people complain about the acting and I must say it's not
> their fault for the most part. Dubbing can be a pain. A good actor is
> only as good as the actor who dubs him. But the acting was alright. It
> was better than most of Troll 2. ;-) Except for that Jerry guy. He
> spends too much time just waiting for his cue when it comes to
> destroying the zombies. Near the end a scene nearly repeats itself and
> it seems like Jerry didn't learn his lesson just learned 2 minutes
> before.
>
> The music was anxiety-inducing and haunting. Unfortunately it was also
> repetitive. And this movie had one of the most puzzling and
> unsatisfying endings since Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Although
> it worked for Holy Grail, here it just adds to the frustration over a
> convoluted, nearly non-existent plot.
>
> -----------------------
> "Disarm police NOW! If just one life is saved! No more mother's
> tears! Think of the Children!"
--
Ol' BattleMonkey
The Innovator of Extreme RiverDance
This is NOT Your Father's RiverDance!
Teleport City Webzine
http://www.teleport-city.com
Mkebeliev
>> It made little sense, was boring and the zombie effects were laughable.<<
I didn't find it boring in the least. Sure parts made little sense but then
again it is Fulci and some other films I have seen of his make little sense
either. The effects were good. They were no worse than his other classics.
>> A couple of good gore scenes dosen`t make a film,<<<
Hehe I just said this about Fulci's Cat in the Brain in another post.
>> I am baffled as to why this is regarded as such a classic. The only reason I
can think of is that many of you may have seen it when you were young and
retained some sort of nostalgic affection for it. <<<
This may be true for some. It may even be true for me too. I did in fact
enjoy this film when I was younger. However I do like it more than I did back
then.
>.As a thirty year old who`d never endured it before I was very disappointed.
It`s actually put
me off trying out The Beyond, which I had been planning on ordering on DVD.
I`ve a soft spot for Zombie, but don`t reckon it an absolute classic or
anything - so what do you all reckon - should I still bother with TB or what?
How much better than COTLD is it?<<
I think The Beyond is the best Fulci film I had the privelege of seeing. It is
an excellent film. I am not sure I'd recommend it though since you aren't too
fond of COTLD. However on the other hand you do like Zombie a bit so who
knows. My advice would be to rent it first before purchasing. Some of it can
make no sense, and parts are talky but it really is a classic.
-Ian-
FrMerrin
>A couple of good gore scenes dosen`t make a
>film, I am baffled as to why this is regarded as such a classic. The only
>reason I can think of is that many of you may have seen it when you were
>young and retained some sort of nostalgic affection for it. As a thirty year
>old who`d never endured it before I was very disappointed
I hate to spoil this one, but I watched it for the first time last year as a 38 year old, and I
loved every minute of it.
--
Mike
"How should I know why there were Nazis ? I don't even know
how the can opener works."
Robert Lee
>On 01 Nov 2000 23:22:00 GMT, mkeb...@aol.com (Mkebeliev) wrote:
>
>>I think you ned to rewatch it one more time. This is one of Fulci's
>>best film, tied with Zombie but second to The Beyond. Sure the plot
>>may have holes, some of it makes little sense but it's Fulci afterall.
>
>This is supposed to be a praise??? ;-)
>
>> Give it another chance, this
>>is a great film.
>
>I can't agree at all. It can be a bad film with one or two great
>moments but that does not a great film make.
You know, I actually think there's a worse point in this film than the
justifiably notorious ending, now that I'm thinking about it, and it's one
I haven't seen anybody mention before.
Christopher George and Catriona MacColl are driving to "Dunwich." If you'll
remember, MacColl has been buried alive and come back with a message about
the Gate of...er, Book of...anyway, something about a dead priest and
teleporting zombies and a door that has to be shut by midnight, that night.
She's been going on about this for what seems like years, always with a
desperate look in her eyes, wild gesticulations, what have you. She's
crazed about getting to that door by midnight. She's going to continue to
push it, too, for the rest of the movie.
But in the middle of the trip to "Dunwich," there's a moment where she and
George get out of the car and she suddenly starts flirting with him, big
time. She finally ends up asking him out to dinner, he responds with
something like "Don't we have to get to Dunwich?" She comes back with "Oh,
we've got plenty of time" or whatnot, and then they go off on a date,
laughing merrily.
The next time we see them, they've hit "Dunwich," and she's back on the
"gotta shut that door" track.
WTF?
(And if Fulci or whoever's story about how the pointless scream at the end
is supposedly what's left of an ending where the gate wasn't shut in time,
is this the reason? Because she's so scatterbrained that she forgot about
saving the world from hell's minions so she could go get a steak with
this hunk she just met?)
>I was going to order The Beyond on DVD but now I'm pretty sure I'll
>rent it first.
I'd recommend it if you haven't seen it. If you don't like City of the
Living Dead, I doubt you'll like The Beyond, at least well enough to want
to own it. The Beyond is a lot more like CotLD than it is like Zombie.
>I thoroughly regret buying City of the Living Dead on
>DVD, and this is in spite of my being a fan of Christopher George and
>Zombi 2.
Likewise, although my appreciation of Zombie has a high cheese factor, and
on that score I greatly prefer Zombi 3.
And welcome to the club, you cultural xenophobe, you.
--Robert
--
"I am the most perfect thing ever made by the Tubular Corporation."
DavisK
Ol' BattleMonkey <battle...@teleport-city.com> wrote:
> It's a pure film, a film of...
>
> oh, never mind!
>
Too bad these pure films are only good when viewed as disjointed
pieces. I always thought a good film was supposed to be cohesive from
beginning to end.
--
/-------|
}:^)7 -<///////}
- \-------|
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ol' BattleMonkey
Actually, I often think Fulci would have been a much better painter than
he was film maker.
DavisK wrote:
>
> In article <3A00BC04...@teleport-city.com>,
> Ol' BattleMonkey <battle...@teleport-city.com> wrote:
> > It's a pure film, a film of...
> >
> > oh, never mind!
> >
>
> Too bad these pure films are only good when viewed as disjointed
> pieces. I always thought a good film was supposed to be cohesive from
> beginning to end.
>
> --
> /-------|
> }:^)7 -<///////}
> - \-------|
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Mike B.
James J. Dominguez <de...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:8tusp8$r9g$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> I am 26 now, and saw this one about three years ago. I have now seen,
I
> think, four films made by Lucio Fulci, and I have come to the conclusion
> that he's just not my bag, baby.
Fulci's sort of like jazz, either you really dig it or you just don't get it
all.
Personally, I dig him--but I can see how some folks find certain films of
his to be quite frustrating.
Mike B.
WideScreenPig
<de...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
> Ian Salsbury wrote:
>> >A couple of good gore scenes dosen`t make a
>> >film, I am baffled as to why this is regarded as such a classic. The only
>> >reason I can think of is that many of you may have seen it when you were
>> >young and retained some sort of nostalgic affection for it. As a thirty
>year
>> >old who`d never endured it before I was very disappointed
>
> ...and FrMerrin replied:
>> I hate to spoil this one, but I watched it for the first time last year as
>a 38
>> year old, and I loved every minute of it.
>
> I am 26 now, and saw this one about three years ago. I have now seen, I
>think, four films made by Lucio Fulci, and I have come to the conclusion
>that he's just not my bag, baby. We have debated this to hell and back on
>this newsgroup, but it basically comes down to whether or not you appreciate
>his filmmaking style to such as degree that the illogical nature of the
>plots and characters contribute positively to the atmosphere, instead of
>bring suspended disbelief crashing down in a pile of debris. I belong in
>the latter camp, and I am afraid that is just the way it is. Oh well, you
>can't like them all. I have known fans of the genre with great taste in
>films who dislike, or even hate, well-regarded classics, like Dawn of the
>Dead, Day of the Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Thing. Personal
>taste has its blind spots, and it's yet another thing that makes us all
>indivdual.
Wait! You mean that WE'RE NOT IDIOTS FOR LIKING FULCI!?!? That we
just have an appreciation for his work that you don't share?!?!
SAINTS BE PRAISED!!! I was starting to worry there for a moment.
__________________________________________
WideScreenPig
"I know a... a musical version of JULIUS
CAESAR is ridiculous. And my playing all
the parts? It's absurd! It's the height
of hubris! And six hours? Who's going to
sit for that?
"But I think I can do it."
WideScreenPig
>Too bad these pure films are only good when viewed as disjointed
>pieces. I always thought a good film was supposed to be cohesive from
>beginning to end.
Maybe crummy Robert Redford movies need to be cohesive to function,
but horror films play by different rules. Films like PHANTASM,
SUSPIRIA and many of Fulci's strongest films all give traditional
logic the heave-ho, and all of them can be remarkably rewarding
viewing experiences. THE BEYOND is like a nightmare captured on film;
disjointed, illogical, full of strange and seemingly unconnected
images and events, but it works like gangbusters because it bypasses
much of your rational mind (the part that records and follows things
like narrative and plot) and goes straight to the subconscious.
DavisK
Ol' BattleMonkey <battle...@teleport-city.com> wrote:
> Not pure films, films of images.
>
> Actually, I often think Fulci would have been a much better painter
than
> he was film maker.
>
What type of paint? Oil, Acrylic or Water-based? ;>)
Robert Lee
>In article <3A00BC04...@teleport-city.com>,
> Ol' BattleMonkey <battle...@teleport-city.com> wrote:
>> It's a pure film, a film of...
>>
>> oh, never mind!
>>
>
>Too bad these pure films are only good when viewed as disjointed
>pieces. I always thought a good film was supposed to be cohesive from
>beginning to end.
No, only in America. Everywhere else on earth, people make bizarre,
completely incoherent hack jobs and call them great art.
Which is, oddly enough, what most actual philistines think of all modernist
and post-modern art. It's strange to see that view turned around and held
up as sophistication in this newsgroup. What do they teach you in those
British schools, I wonder?
Robert Lee
<3A030CB4...@teleport-city.com>:
>Not pure films, films of images.
>
>Actually, I often think Fulci would have been a much better painter than
>he was film maker.
House painter, maybe...
Jeremy Lunt
> What do they teach you in those British schools, I wonder?
How to live in perfect harmony with the chocolate-covered Ebola monkeys.
Jeremy Lunt
--
"Yes...Damn you all, I told you so."
- H.G. Wells, 1948, when asked if he knew
what he wanted his epitaph to read
kendall
Kendall
"WideScreenPig" <ws...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3a03124b.943894@news...
> >pieces. I always thought a good film was supposed to be cohesive from
> >beginning to end.
>
kendall
for them, it's never Argento or Fulci. These guys take some preparation.
Kendall
"Mike B." <Laura...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:uCYItZcRAHA.326@cpmsnbbsa09...
>
> James J. Dominguez <de...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8tusp8$r9g$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> > I am 26 now, and saw this one about three years ago. I have now
seen,
> I
> > think, four films made by Lucio Fulci, and I have come to the conclusion
> > that he's just not my bag, baby.
>
Mike B.
kendall <kendall...@home.com> wrote in message
news:72HM5.50223$iY6.3...@news1.rdc1.ga.home.com...
> Me too. But when my non-horror friends ask me to recommend a horror film
> for them, it's never Argento or Fulci. These guys take some preparation.
Oh yeah--I do the same thing. You've definitely got to work your way up to
Fulci if you're not a big genre fan.
Mike B.
James J. Dominguez
Ian Salsbury wrote:
> >A couple of good gore scenes dosen`t make a
> >film, I am baffled as to why this is regarded as such a classic. The only
> >reason I can think of is that many of you may have seen it when you were
> >young and retained some sort of nostalgic affection for it. As a thirty
year
> >old who`d never endured it before I was very disappointed
...and FrMerrin replied:
> I hate to spoil this one, but I watched it for the first time last year as
a 38
> year old, and I loved every minute of it.
I am 26 now, and saw this one about three years ago. I have now seen, I
think, four films made by Lucio Fulci, and I have come to the conclusion
that he's just not my bag, baby. We have debated this to hell and back on
this newsgroup, but it basically comes down to whether or not you appreciate
his filmmaking style to such as degree that the illogical nature of the
plots and characters contribute positively to the atmosphere, instead of
bring suspended disbelief crashing down in a pile of debris. I belong in
the latter camp, and I am afraid that is just the way it is. Oh well, you
can't like them all. I have known fans of the genre with great taste in
films who dislike, or even hate, well-regarded classics, like Dawn of the
Dead, Day of the Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Thing. Personal
taste has its blind spots, and it's yet another thing that makes us all
indivdual.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| James J. Dominguez AKA DexX -=- de...@ihug.com.au |
| ICQ#: 10419916 ICQ ActiveList: AltHorror (84063460) |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Let's see... I've heard strange noises around the house, |
| the cat jumped out and scared me, I found a window left |
| unlocked with the curtain blowing in the breeze, and one |
| of my kitchen knives is missing. Time for a shower!" |
| Any one of millions of horror movie characters... |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
FrMerrin
>In article <3A00BC04...@teleport-city.com>,
> Ol' BattleMonkey <battle...@teleport-city.com> wrote:
>> It's a pure film, a film of...
>>
>> oh, never mind!
>>
>
>Too bad these pure films are only good when viewed as disjointed
>pieces. I always thought a good film was supposed to be cohesive from
>beginning to end.
Tell that to Luis Bunuel.
Robert Lee
<qjn60t8fcbl38b42a...@4ax.com>:
>Tell that to Luis Bunuel.
Oh, that's not an exaggerated comparison or anything...c'mon, Mike. Fulci
and Bunuel?
FrMerrin
>fr.m...@virgin.net (FrMerrin) wrote in
><qjn60t8fcbl38b42a...@4ax.com>:
>
>>Tell that to Luis Bunuel.
>
>Oh, that's not an exaggerated comparison or anything...c'mon, Mike. Fulci
>and Bunuel?
I was addressing the suggestion that the most important thing for a film to do is tell a coherent
story, and didn't intend to make any comparisons between Fulci and Bunuel.
Dr Walpurgis
> I often think Fulci would have been a much better painter than
> he was film maker.
Actually, Fulci spent the first few years after he graduated from the
Centro Sperimentale as the art critic for a Roman newspaper. His
aesthetic sensibility informs every frame of films like CITTA and
L'ALDILA. And you should have seen his doodling.
--
"She right! She put on dat mask and scratched ho-sel'! Because o'
dat scratch, she became a demon! An instrument of evil! Like dey
said in de damn movie!" - Bobby Rhodes, DEMONI
Dr Walpurgis
> > I am 26 now, and saw this one about three years ago. I have now seen, I
> > think, four films made by Lucio Fulci, and I have come to the conclusion
> > that he's just not my bag, baby. We have debated this to hell and back on
> > this newsgroup, but it basically comes down to whether or not you appreciate
> > his filmmaking style to such as degree that the illogical nature of the
> > plots and characters contribute positively to the atmosphere, instead of
> > bring suspended disbelief crashing down in a pile of debris. I belong in
> > the latter camp, and I am afraid that is just the way it is. Oh well, you
> > can't like them all. I have known fans of the genre with great taste in
> > films who dislike, or even hate, well-regarded classics, like Dawn of the
> > Dead, Day of the Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Thing. Personal
> > taste has its blind spots, and it's yet another thing that makes us all
> > indivdual.
The Pigster drops his Molson:
> Wait! You mean that WE'RE NOT IDIOTS FOR LIKING FULCI!?!? That we
> just have an appreciation for his work that you don't share?!?!
> SAINTS BE PRAISED!!! I was starting to worry there for a moment.
I think the Fulci-bashing contingent are having an epiphany. Either that
or the buttock-clenching embarrassment of having a knuckle-dragger like
La Lee in their ranks is forcing a round of long overdue self-examination.
--
"Datsa buncha sh*t, baby!" - Bobby Rhodes, DEMONI
Dr Walpurgis
> Too bad these pure films are only good when viewed as disjointed
> pieces. I always thought a good film was supposed to be cohesive from
> beginning to end.
Spoken like a true XP.
--
"Put dat fire out! O' else we'll all suffocate!!" - Bobby Rhodes, DEMONI 2
Laissezfirearm
Since he's Italian, I'll assume it was circumcised.
--
Mark Penman
laissez...@aol.com
WideScreenPig
<drwal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Jim Doming reasons:
>
>> > I am 26 now, and saw this one about three years ago. I have now seen, I
>> > think, four films made by Lucio Fulci, and I have come to the conclusion
>> > that he's just not my bag, baby. We have debated this to hell and back on
>> > this newsgroup, but it basically comes down to whether or not you appreciate
>> > his filmmaking style to such as degree that the illogical nature of the
>> > plots and characters contribute positively to the atmosphere, instead of
>> > bring suspended disbelief crashing down in a pile of debris. I belong in
>> > the latter camp, and I am afraid that is just the way it is. Oh well, you
>> > can't like them all. I have known fans of the genre with great taste in
>> > films who dislike, or even hate, well-regarded classics, like Dawn of the
>> > Dead, Day of the Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Thing. Personal
>> > taste has its blind spots, and it's yet another thing that makes us all
>> > indivdual.
>
>The Pigster drops his Molson:
>
>> Wait! You mean that WE'RE NOT IDIOTS FOR LIKING FULCI!?!? That we
>> just have an appreciation for his work that you don't share?!?!
>> SAINTS BE PRAISED!!! I was starting to worry there for a moment.
>
>I think the Fulci-bashing contingent are having an epiphany. Either that
>or the buttock-clenching embarrassment of having a knuckle-dragger like
>La Lee in their ranks is forcing a round of long overdue self-examination.
I'm in complete agreement with you on that one. But for the record, I
don't drink beer, Molson's or any other brand. The suds-happy
Gore-met will only-too gleefully confirm that the Pigster is a
card-carrying girl-drink-drunk.
WideScreenPig
<de...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
>WideScreenPig <ws...@home.com> wrote:
>> Maybe crummy Robert Redford movies need to be cohesive to function,
>> but horror films play by different rules. Films like PHANTASM,
>> SUSPIRIA and many of Fulci's strongest films all give traditional
>> logic the heave-ho, and all of them can be remarkably rewarding
>> viewing experiences. THE BEYOND is like a nightmare captured on film;
>> disjointed, illogical, full of strange and seemingly unconnected
>> images and events, but it works like gangbusters because it bypasses
>> much of your rational mind (the part that records and follows things
>> like narrative and plot) and goes straight to the subconscious.
>
> Not for me, unfortunately. I just see his films as big badly-planned
>tangles. I suppose my disbelief can only be suspended so far before I drop
>it and begin disbelieving like crazy. :)
I think it's all about what you take into the movie. If you go in
hoping for a formalist narrative structure that just ain't there, you
can't be anything but disappointed. Explaining the logic in a Fulci
picture is like try to describe the shape of water; better to just
relax and go with it the current - you'll have a better time.
James J. Dominguez
WideScreenPig <ws...@home.com> wrote:
> Wait! You mean that WE'RE NOT IDIOTS FOR LIKING FULCI!?!? That we
> just have an appreciation for his work that you don't share?!?!
> SAINTS BE PRAISED!!! I was starting to worry there for a moment.
Settle down! I came to this conclusion months ago, chatting on this
newsgroup with FrMerrin. I think I can see what you guys like in these
films, but I just can't get past what I see as flaws. *shrug* Just me. :)
--
====================================================================
= From the keyboard of = "There are vampires and vampires, =
= James J. Dominguez = and the ones who suck blood =
= -=- = aren't the worst." =
= de...@mynx.wow.aust.com = Fritz Leiber =
= IRCNet: DexX ICQ: 10419916 = The Girl with the Hungry Eyes =
====================================================================
James J. Dominguez
WideScreenPig <ws...@home.com> wrote:
> Maybe crummy Robert Redford movies need to be cohesive to function,
> but horror films play by different rules. Films like PHANTASM,
> SUSPIRIA and many of Fulci's strongest films all give traditional
> logic the heave-ho, and all of them can be remarkably rewarding
> viewing experiences. THE BEYOND is like a nightmare captured on film;
> disjointed, illogical, full of strange and seemingly unconnected
> images and events, but it works like gangbusters because it bypasses
> much of your rational mind (the part that records and follows things
> like narrative and plot) and goes straight to the subconscious.
Not for me, unfortunately. I just see his films as big badly-planned
tangles. I suppose my disbelief can only be suspended so far before I drop
it and begin disbelieving like crazy. :)
CultCuts
> The first batch of Horror DVDs I ordered has arrived. I've just
> finished watching City of the Living Dead. I'm glad the others will be
> a lot better.
>
> PAURA NELLA CITTA DEI MORTI VIVENTI sucked.
ACK!
> Not even the presence of
> the late George Segal-lookalike Christopher George could save it from
> itself.
Christopher George's cigar chomping synical portrayal is excellent! His
scene at the graveyard is not only downright satirically eerie it is one
of the highlights of the film.
> It gives one the impression that the script couldn't be flown
> in on time so they just shot whatever. I don't want to get too much
> into the "story" because I dislike spoiling it for others, but it's
> full of holes.
Like most nightmares it flows just fine. This is set as a nightmare and
filmed as one. Knowing this when watching definitely helps. Most
nightmares don't make sense and the feeling of loss of control of an
unrealistic situation is just one of those things that make people wake up
in a cold sweat! Works just fine for me!
>
>
> The gore effects are pretty good, I will not dispute that. The famous
> regurgitation and drilling scenes lived up to my expectations, and
> even the suspicious grabbing of someone's brains through their skulls
> was unexpectedly effective. I'd grade the effects a perfect 10. Kudos
> to actress Daniela Doria for performing her part in creating a
> horrifying effect.
Can't argue this! Some of the best brain squeezing I've ever seen!
>
>
> But gore alone does not a good film make and I'm afraid all the blood
> in this movie doesn't make up for its lack of good writing, direction
> and editing.
See above for my opinion! I'll agree that gore alone isn't enough to make
me like a film, but style plays a big part in my decision making process
and this film doesn't lack style or atmosphere. It works. I do suggest
you give it time and maybe watch it again. I know many, who disliked the
film, have gone back and enjoyed it the second time around.
> Yes, it has its moments, after all we're talking about
> Fulci here. But this feels like someone started writing one movie,
> gave up, and then started writing a different movie but never
> discarded the first part. It's very messy.
Nightmares again. I guess I just saw it in a light that worked for me.
Like Phantasm which most Fulci bashers love (I'll never understand this)
it is set for high atmosphere, high shocks and style. Both, in my
opinion, succeed quite well.
>
>
> The plot makes very little sense at all and the zombies are certainly
> not Romero-style.
Thank god! As much as I enjoy Romero's zombies, I wouldn't want them all
blue biting orange blood! European films have so many styles of zombies
(Blind Dead, Erotic Nights, Zombie, Dr.Butcher, Let Sleeping Corpses Lie,
etc.) that it usually is refreshing instead of a copycat knock off!
> The last time I've seen such poor zombies was in a
> movie that feature Adam West. I think it was called "One Dark Night".
> The zombies here can't decide if they are zombies, flesh-eaters,
> ghosts or demons.
In away, like The Beyond, they are all of the above. Unlike Zombie which
Fulci meant as strictly a Zombie film, City of the Living Dead isn't
strictly a zombie film.
> And to make matters worse you don't even have to
> shoot them in the head to kill them. No, you just stab or spear them
> anywhere and they go up pretty quickly. But first just wait around for
> them to kill any number of people.
More grue for the gander in my opinion, just adding to the atmosphere.
>
>
> I've heard people complain about the acting and I must say it's not
> their fault for the most part. Dubbing can be a pain. A good actor is
> only as good as the actor who dubs him. But the acting was alright. It
> was better than most of Troll 2. ;-) Except for that Jerry guy. He
> spends too much time just waiting for his cue when it comes to
> destroying the zombies. Near the end a scene nearly repeats itself and
> it seems like Jerry didn't learn his lesson just learned 2 minutes
> before.
A lot like Flyboy in Dawn, some people just don't get things in their head
right away when under pressure. I'm sure most of us would be wetting our
pants and totally freaking out if we were in similar situations in
reality!
>
>
> The music was anxiety-inducing and haunting. Unfortunately it was also
> repetitive. And this movie had one of the most puzzling and
> unsatisfying endings since Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Although
> it worked for Holy Grail, here it just adds to the frustration over a
> convoluted, nearly non-existent plot.
>
The best part of a Nightmare. Waking up without it ending or just before
the inevitable.
I'll agree the movie isn't for everyone, but keep in mind what Fulci was
setting out to do and try again some time, it may just surprise you.
Mark
http://www.icehouse.net/cultcuts
CULTCUTS WEBZINE
James J. Dominguez
Dr Walpurgis <drwal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I think the Fulci-bashing contingent are having an epiphany. Either that
> or the buttock-clenching embarrassment of having a knuckle-dragger like
> La Lee in their ranks is forcing a round of long overdue self-examination.
Tell me about it. Whenever I express any kind of anti-Fulci sentiment,
I always have the urge to precede it with "Look, I really hate to agree with
Bobbly, but..."
Makes me cringe every time.
Robert Lee
>Christopher George's cigar chomping synical portrayal is excellent! His
>scene at the graveyard is not only downright satirically eerie
What's it a "satire" of, exactly? This is a new one on me...
>> It gives one the impression that the script couldn't be flown
>> in on time so they just shot whatever. I don't want to get too much
>> into the "story" because I dislike spoiling it for others, but it's
>> full of holes.
>
>Like most nightmares it flows just fine. This is set as a nightmare and
>filmed as one.
Really? When in the course of the film is it "set as a nightmare?" Having
seen three versions of the movie in my life, am I still lacking? Did I miss
the extra-special Bosnia-only cut where Christopher George wakes up at the
end with the Tin Man and the Scarecrow and the Tall Man all standing around
his bed?
>> But gore alone does not a good film make and I'm afraid all the blood
>> in this movie doesn't make up for its lack of good writing, direction
>> and editing.
>
>See above for my opinion! I'll agree that gore alone isn't enough to make
>me like a film, but style plays a big part in my decision making process
>and this film doesn't lack style or atmosphere.
Atmosphere, maybe. Style, it has none, no consistent or decent style,
anyway. Stylistically, the thing's all over the map, and you dread the
return of the "eyebrow shots" more than the next brain-squishing, I
daresay.
>> Yes, it has its moments, after all we're talking about
>> Fulci here. But this feels like someone started writing one movie,
>> gave up, and then started writing a different movie but never
>> discarded the first part. It's very messy.
>
>Nightmares again.
And again, I ask: when does City of the Living Dead give you any indication
that it's supposed to be a nightmare? Are you just working backwards from
the fact that it's so nonsensical and fractured? Because that could be
explained any number of ways, the most likely being--given what we can know
about Fulci and the rest of his oeuvre--that the director is a miserable
hack film maker who barely knew how to turn on a camera.
>Like Phantasm which most Fulci bashers love (I'll never understand this)
>it is set for high atmosphere, high shocks and style.
I don't love Phantasm, for one. I liked it a lot as a kid, but as an adult,
please. Phantasm contains all of the worst crimes of independant cinema--
bad acting, bad dialogue, a lurching, stuttering storyline and unattractive
cinematography, to say the very least.
Frankly, Phantasm and City of the Living Dead are about equally difficult
for me to sit through anymore. I'll give Fulci the slight nod because his
films are so witless and chaotic that they're at least fun to watch while
stoned.
So here's another question: if Fulci's films and Phantasm are equally
geared toward "high atmosphere, high shocks and style," presumably at the
expense of cohesive narrative elements, why do all of these films spend so
much time in painfully protracted, chaotic exposition? If "atmosphere" is
their pure goal, why is there so little of it and so much horrible
character interaction? The same goes for "shocks"--why on earth do you have
to sit through seventy-five minutes of horrible acting and camerawork for a
paltry ten minutes--if that--of gore explosions? I mean, if that's the
goal, pure "atmosphere and shock," none of these films actually attains it,
not by a very long shot. As for "style," I think I've already been as
dismissive of Fulci's total lack of style as I need to be.
I think Fulci's fanboys tend to confuse him by virtue of nationality with
Argento, who really did attempt films of pure "atmosphere, style and
shock," and we can all argue about how successful those were until our
fingers fall off from all the typing. Some people can't stand them, some
people love them to death...I tend to fall into the "some of it works, some
of it doesn't" camp. Be that as it may, however, Argento is a capable
artisan as a film maker in the aesthetic and technical sense--one of the
last, really, of that old breed of directors who's as much a gearhead as an
"auteur."
Fulci was just a dope who wished he was Argento. Trying to rewrite his
ludicrous movies as genius after the fact involves a lot of one-handed
typing, I have to think.
CultCuts
> cult...@icehouse.net (CultCuts) wrote in <3A061655...@icehouse.net>:
>
> >Christopher George's cigar chomping synical portrayal is excellent! His
> >scene at the graveyard is not only downright satirically eerie
>
> What's it a "satire" of, exactly? This is a new one on me...
His banter with the graveyard diggers, etc. and the highly exaggerated tone of
his cynicism throughout the picture. It's just my take on the film more than
anything else with the tone of humor between the two main characters and the
odd way in which they meet.
>
>
> >> It gives one the impression that the script couldn't be flown
> >> in on time so they just shot whatever. I don't want to get too much
> >> into the "story" because I dislike spoiling it for others, but it's
> >> full of holes.
> >
> >Like most nightmares it flows just fine. This is set as a nightmare and
> >filmed as one.
>
> Really? When in the course of the film is it "set as a nightmare?" Having
> seen three versions of the movie in my life, am I still lacking? Did I miss
> the extra-special Bosnia-only cut where Christopher George wakes up at the
> end with the Tin Man and the Scarecrow and the Tall Man all standing around
> his bed?
No, I'm going by Fulci's words from interviews taken during and after filming
Gates of Hell. He was shooting for something visceral without confining
himself to a conventional narrative. It doesn't work for everyone's tastes
which obviously includes yours and that's fine.
>
>
> >> But gore alone does not a good film make and I'm afraid all the blood
> >> in this movie doesn't make up for its lack of good writing, direction
> >> and editing.
> >
> >See above for my opinion! I'll agree that gore alone isn't enough to make
> >me like a film, but style plays a big part in my decision making process
> >and this film doesn't lack style or atmosphere.
>
> Atmosphere, maybe. Style, it has none, no consistent or decent style,
> anyway. Stylistically, the thing's all over the map, and you dread the
> return of the "eyebrow shots" more than the next brain-squishing, I
> daresay.
Well I think it has a lot of style, just not one you care for. I find a lot of
movies to be flat, but not City of the Living Dead. It may be all over the map
for you, but not in my opinion. Hell is coming to earth and it needs to make
conventional sense along with gloomy style and anything may happen style of the
context. Believe me, its not perfect in its vision by any means, but
definitely entertaining for many of us.
>
>
> >> Yes, it has its moments, after all we're talking about
> >> Fulci here. But this feels like someone started writing one movie,
> >> gave up, and then started writing a different movie but never
> >> discarded the first part. It's very messy.
> >
> >Nightmares again.
>
> And again, I ask: when does City of the Living Dead give you any indication
> that it's supposed to be a nightmare? Are you just working backwards from
> the fact that it's so nonsensical and fractured? Because that could be
> explained any number of ways, the most likely being--given what we can know
> about Fulci and the rest of his oeuvre--that the director is a miserable
> hack film maker who barely knew how to turn on a camera.
Well, given some of his earlier films like Don't Torture A Duckling, On On Top
of the Other, The Naples Connection, I don't think this can be true. His
productions may be very rushed and sometimes hinders parts of the film, but
overall, I think he had no problem telling a coherent story! Especially with
films like The Four of the Apocalypse and The Naples Connection. Therefore,
rushed as it was, COTLD could have had a standard story very easily with some
very minor changes. Obviously atmosphere took the front seat.
>
>
> >Like Phantasm which most Fulci bashers love (I'll never understand this)
> >it is set for high atmosphere, high shocks and style.
>
> I don't love Phantasm, for one. I liked it a lot as a kid, but as an adult,
> please. Phantasm contains all of the worst crimes of independant cinema--
> bad acting, bad dialogue, a lurching, stuttering storyline and unattractive
> cinematography, to say the very least.
In one's opinion sure! And many would agree with you on both films, but some
won't. This isn't a simple case like Ishtar where critics and public hated it
alike upon its initial release. It wasn't just kids who liked Phantasm. Many
horror critics still find that it holds up even today. I can't say that about
the sequels. Again, I don't think it is a style you care for, not just
necessarily a bad one.
>
>
> Frankly, Phantasm and City of the Living Dead are about equally difficult
> for me to sit through anymore. I'll give Fulci the slight nod because his
> films are so witless and chaotic that they're at least fun to watch while
> stoned.
I think the key word is chaotic here and that is a style! Maybe not one you
like, but one that has been used in many form of entertainment. Anarchy in
punk music,etc. I don't get stoned, so I'll have to give you that. I figured
the more fast paced action of Phantasm would be more fitting and fun for
someone stoned. But hey, what the hell.
>
>
> So here's another question: if Fulci's films and Phantasm are equally
> geared toward "high atmosphere, high shocks and style," presumably at the
> expense of cohesive narrative elements, why do all of these films spend so
> much time in painfully protracted, chaotic exposition?
I don't think they do as much as you obviously. I think characterization is
still important in these films, thus certain scenes between the violence/shocks
and impending doom. But in context what would you consider "so much time"?
Take The Exorcist for example. An hour goes by before we even consider Satan
has entered the film as an actual character. In Phantasm, it opens up with The
Tall Man. Horrific moments in both COTLD and Phantasm happen every 3 to 7
minutes or so!
In the Exorcist, an hour is spent very wisely on character development making
the film quite deep in its execution even though most of the film takes place
in one room, which in careless hands would and could of made Satan seem kind of
weak. But the opposite happens. I'm going on a different tangent here so I'll
stop. This is just for comparison's sake.
> If "atmosphere" is
> their pure goal, why is there so little of it and so much horrible
> character interaction?
Atmosphere doesn't always work unless you have characters interacting and
characters we know. Without the interaction you are down to the atmospheric
actions of a Halloween Sound Effects album! I'd rather watch and follow a
character going through the experience rather than just images. Without it, we
might as well watch a two hour Nine Inch Nail Video.
> The same goes for "shocks"--why on earth do you have
> to sit through seventy-five minutes of horrible acting and camerawork for a
> paltry ten minutes--if that--of gore explosions? I mean, if that's the
> goal, pure "atmosphere and shock," none of these films actually attains it,
> not by a very long shot. As for "style," I think I've already been as
> dismissive of Fulci's total lack of style as I need to be.
Again, we disagree. I don't find his films flat or lacking in style. Not
perfect either. That would be more of a "Fanboy's" statement. Far from
perfect. But that doesn't mean there isn't a style there. In your
face/visceral shocks is a style. Not one that would work in a film directed by
Robert Redford, but it does suit well in the horror field.
>
>
> I think Fulci's fanboys tend to confuse him by virtue of nationality with
> Argento, who really did attempt films of pure "atmosphere, style and
> shock," and we can all argue about how successful those were until our
> fingers fall off from all the typing. Some people can't stand them, some
> people love them to death...I tend to fall into the "some of it works, some
> of it doesn't" camp. Be that as it may, however, Argento is a capable
> artisan as a film maker in the aesthetic and technical sense--one of the
> last, really, of that old breed of directors who's as much a gearhead as an
> "auteur."
>
> Fulci was just a dope who wished he was Argento. Trying to rewrite his
> ludicrous movies as genius after the fact involves a lot of one-handed
> typing, I have to think.
I would never compare Fulci's films with Argento's and I think you will find
most others don't either! This includes most of the "Fanboy" types as well.
I've never heard any fan or critic say "Fulci's _____ was just like Argento's
_____!" I don't think you ever will! Two totally different styled filmmakers
with two totally different types of outlook in cinema. On the horror front,
Argento uses colors and lighting for a high clean style of images abrupted by
violence. Fulci using mostly gothic settings with dark images with abrupt use
of violence and gore. They may use the same genre, but that is as far as it
goes as I'm concerned.
We may not agree at all, but thanks for a mostly constructive argument.
The Gore-met
>I'm in complete agreement with you on that one. But for the record, I
>don't drink beer, Molson's or any other brand. The suds-happy
>Gore-met will only-too gleefully confirm that the Pigster is a
>card-carrying girl-drink-drunk.
FLASHBACK TO THE PIG'S 30TH BIRTHDAY: The setting: A pub in Toronto. A
large group of Pigophiles gather for chat, sustenance and merriment.
The scene: A round table, The Gore-met swilling a pitcher of beer,
sans glass, the Pigster sipping a Long Island Iced Tea.
The Gore-met
>And you should have seen his diddling.
My word!
Robert Lee
<3A078C3B...@icehouse.net>:
>Robert Lee wrote:
>
>> cult...@icehouse.net (CultCuts) wrote in
>> <3A061655...@icehouse.net>:
>>
>> >Christopher George's cigar chomping synical portrayal is excellent!
>> >His scene at the graveyard is not only downright satirically eerie
>>
>> What's it a "satire" of, exactly? This is a new one on me...
>
>His banter with the graveyard diggers, etc. and the highly exaggerated
>tone of his cynicism throughout the picture. It's just my take on the
>film more than anything else with the tone of humor between the two main
>characters and the odd way in which they meet.
But a satire is a pointed burlesque of *something,* be it a specific work,
a genre or human nature in general. That's what I meant when I asked what
his scenes in the graveyard were supposed to satirize...now you're saying
that his entire performance is satirical. Do you mean "satirical," or are
you mistaking the word as synonomous with "funny?"
>> Really? When in the course of the film is it "set as a nightmare?"
>> Having seen three versions of the movie in my life, am I still
>> lacking? Did I miss the extra-special Bosnia-only cut where
>> Christopher George wakes up at the end with the Tin Man and the
>> Scarecrow and the Tall Man all standing around his bed?
>
>No, I'm going by Fulci's words from interviews taken during and after
>filming Gates of Hell. He was shooting for something visceral without
>confining himself to a conventional narrative. It doesn't work for
>everyone's tastes which obviously includes yours and that's fine.
Oh, please. City of the Living Dead *does* have a conventional narrative,
like all of Fulci's films. It's just a terrible one. If I'm not mistaken,
Fulci was also given to improbabilities like claiming his films had a
radical political content that simply isn't there.
>> >Like Phantasm which most Fulci bashers love (I'll never understand
>> >this) it is set for high atmosphere, high shocks and style.
>>
>> I don't love Phantasm, for one. I liked it a lot as a kid, but as an
>> adult, please. Phantasm contains all of the worst crimes of
>> independant cinema-- bad acting, bad dialogue, a lurching, stuttering
>> storyline and unattractive cinematography, to say the very least.
>
>In one's opinion sure!
No, as a matter of observable fact. People seem to have a hard time
distinguishing between the two in these parts.
>This isn't a simple case like Ishtar where critics and
>public hated it alike upon its initial release.
So...now public opinion is your highest aesthetic court?
>> Frankly, Phantasm and City of the Living Dead are about equally
>> difficult for me to sit through anymore. I'll give Fulci the slight
>> nod because his films are so witless and chaotic that they're at least
>> fun to watch while stoned.
>
>I think the key word is chaotic here and that is a style! Maybe not one
>you like, but one that has been used in many form of entertainment.
Actually, it is a style I like a great deal, and once you pony up with one
honestly and intentionally "chaotic" artist, we can discuss that. If you
want to throw bad commercial hacks into the mix, I have to assume we aren't
even on the same playing ground and it's pointless to try to discuss the
subject with you.
>Anarchy in punk music,etc.
Don't. Don't even.
>> So here's another question: if Fulci's films and Phantasm are equally
>> geared toward "high atmosphere, high shocks and style," presumably at
>> the expense of cohesive narrative elements, why do all of these films
>> spend so much time in painfully protracted, chaotic exposition?
>
>I don't think they do as much as you obviously. I think
>characterization is still important in these films, thus certain scenes
>between the violence/shocks and impending doom. But in context what
>would you consider "so much time"?
In a context in which the defenders of the films--you in particular, right
this minute--insist that they are films of pure style, atmosphere and
shock, without any regard given to conventional narrative. If that's the
case, then I expect to see nothing but atmosphere, style and shock.
Let me restate that, so it's perfectly clear, because you're now trying to
turn this into "Robert's complaining about long periods of exposition and
narrative" (your comments below on The Exorcist, which I'll get to in a
moment). You, as many Fulci defenders do, have said in this thread that his
films (or CotLD and The Beyond, at any rate) shouldn't be judged by
traditional standards, because they are non-narrative, almost surreal films
entirely about atmosphere, style and shock. You've said the same thing
about Phantasm.
Demonstrably, neither Phantasm nor any of the Fulci films in question fits
this claim at all. This isn't a matter of "opinion," it doesn't even come
close to the subjective circle--which, I'll grant you, my claims that the
acting, cinematography and writing are "bad" do. (Frankly, anyone who wants
to claim that they aren't, I don't have time to argue with.) This is a
simple matter of minutes. Sit down with a stopwatch and time the scenes in
any of these films that do not go toward building a narrative structure and
then time the ones that do. In the case of City of the Living Dead, you're
going to end up with somewhere around 90% narrative, if not more--I'm
familiar enough with it to know that. Just to be more than fair, time all
the gore scenes, too, which should amount to less than ten minutes, maybe
around 7-8% of the film. Then you can also subtract all the mood-building
tracking shots and whatnot, which...what's that, like five minutes of the
movie?
At this point, you've got a film that's at least 75% traditional narrative,
and that's being forgiving and allowing narrative elements that include
gore. Even if I go above and beyond and allow you to arbitrarily double
this already generous estimate of non-narrative elements, you're still
talking about a 100-minute film, of which 50 minutes are traditional
narrative. Half the movie is narrative, even using this absurd standard.
So, besides Fulci shooting off his mouth about "his art," by what standard
am I left to not judge this movie (or Phantasm, or The Beyond, the numbers
should be roughly the same) by what it spends three-quarters of its time
doing, at least? If it does it badly and awkwardly, why should I accept,
"Oh, it's a non-traditional film" as an explanation? Particularly
considering that we do know that what could be, under that lack of
standards, the most "non-traditional" element in the film, its bizarre,
abrupt ending, is the result of lost footage, not any kind of artistic
decision?
>Take The Exorcist for example. An
>hour goes by before we even consider Satan has entered the film as an
>actual character.
The Exorcist actually is a movie that builds on style and atmosphere, and
doesn't make any bones about being a non-traditional representation of a
nightmare or whatever.
>In Phantasm, it opens up with The Tall Man. Horrific
>moments in both COTLD and Phantasm happen every 3 to 7 minutes or so!
Thanks for reinforcing my point for me.
>> If "atmosphere" is
>> their pure goal, why is there so little of it and so much horrible
>> character interaction?
>
>Atmosphere doesn't always work unless you have characters interacting
>and characters we know.
Which means you need, at the very least, an introductory narrative (or
"backstory"), unless you've walked into the film already knowing these
characters, a tall order for the greatest of dramatists, and hardly a goal
Fulci was ever likely to hit.
>I'd rather
>watch and follow a character going through the experience rather than
>just images.
Which means a continuing narrative.
All of which means that you've just claimed, to argue with me, that these
three films are exactly what you claimed they weren't yesterday: narrative
genre films, as opposed to non-narrative films of pure style, atmosphere
and shock.
>Without it, we might as well watch a two hour Nine Inch
>Nail Video.
Or Begotten, which goes about as close to a "pure style, atmosphere and
shock" horror film as I can imagine, and...pretty much seems like a two
hour Skinny Puppy video.
>> The same goes for "shocks"--why on earth do you have
>> to sit through seventy-five minutes of horrible acting and camerawork
>> for a paltry ten minutes--if that--of gore explosions? I mean, if
>> that's the goal, pure "atmosphere and shock," none of these films
>> actually attains it, not by a very long shot. As for "style," I think
>> I've already been as dismissive of Fulci's total lack of style as I
>> need to be.
>
>In your
>face/visceral shocks is a style.
It is one, but it's not one that Fulci managed to maintain for very long.
Not that this is to his detriment, since it is his strong suit, and it's a
nearly impossible thing to maintain for an entire movie. Again, though,
this style accounts for less than 10% of CotLD, as a whole. What he fills
the rest of the movie with, the stylistic choices he makes when brains
aren't exploding out at you and people just have to talk or react to
something...they never get past the mundane, at their best. His by-the-
numbers shots are...at least that, by the numbers. His camera-waving,
closeup-mongering attempts at artistry in these moments, though, are just
unendurable.
>We may not agree at all, but thanks for a mostly constructive argument.
No prob.
CultCuts
> cult...@icehouse.net (CultCuts) wrote in
> <3A078C3B...@icehouse.net>:
>
> >Robert Lee wrote:
> >
> >> cult...@icehouse.net (CultCuts) wrote in
> >> <3A061655...@icehouse.net>:
> >>
> >> >Christopher George's cigar chomping synical portrayal is excellent!
> >> >His scene at the graveyard is not only downright satirically eerie
> >>
> >> What's it a "satire" of, exactly? This is a new one on me...
> >
> >His banter with the graveyard diggers, etc. and the highly exaggerated
> >tone of his cynicism throughout the picture. It's just my take on the
> >film more than anything else with the tone of humor between the two main
> >characters and the odd way in which they meet.
>
> But a satire is a pointed burlesque of *something,* be it a specific work,
> a genre or human nature in general. That's what I meant when I asked what
> his scenes in the graveyard were supposed to satirize...now you're saying
> that his entire performance is satirical. Do you mean "satirical," or are
> you mistaking the word as synonomous with "funny?"
Funny yes, but meant satirical in as a caricature of American
journalists/private eyed types in American films. You would swear he was
exaggerating Columbo or Rockford or even Quincy without the medical license.
Personally his portrayal throughout the film and during the graveyard scene.
His banter with the gravediggers to his cynical disbelief of believing the
impossible. How many times does he look back at the grave? How many times
does he walk back and forth because of the noises he hears? For christ's sake
he is only 15 feet from the grave. Anyone hearing woman cries imagined or not,
would be bound to check it out sooner!
>
>
> >> Really? When in the course of the film is it "set as a nightmare?"
> >> Having seen three versions of the movie in my life, am I still
> >> lacking? Did I miss the extra-special Bosnia-only cut where
> >> Christopher George wakes up at the end with the Tin Man and the
> >> Scarecrow and the Tall Man all standing around his bed?
> >
> >No, I'm going by Fulci's words from interviews taken during and after
> >filming Gates of Hell. He was shooting for something visceral without
> >confining himself to a conventional narrative. It doesn't work for
> >everyone's tastes which obviously includes yours and that's fine.
>
> Oh, please. City of the Living Dead *does* have a conventional narrative,
> like all of Fulci's films. It's just a terrible one. If I'm not mistaken,
> Fulci was also given to improbabilities like claiming his films had a
> radical political content that simply isn't there.
Sure it has a thin one, otherwise it would be simply a collage of images (cue
Doc here), but I'm talking the overall tone and what he stated. Even if it is
thin to you. I can watch the film and enjoy it for these reasons. If you
can't that's fine as well. I wouldn't want a thin plot for JFK or All The
President's Men, but for a horrific vision of Hell invading Earth, it works for
me. I'm not trying to push it on you, just maybe let you see how others see
the film in a positive light and why. If you still don't like it. Fine, that
just gives me one more title to enjoy that you won't.
>
>
> >> >Like Phantasm which most Fulci bashers love (I'll never understand
> >> >this) it is set for high atmosphere, high shocks and style.
> >>
> >> I don't love Phantasm, for one. I liked it a lot as a kid, but as an
> >> adult, please. Phantasm contains all of the worst crimes of
> >> independant cinema-- bad acting, bad dialogue, a lurching, stuttering
> >> storyline and unattractive cinematography, to say the very least.
> >
> >In one's opinion sure!
>
> No, as a matter of observable fact. People seem to have a hard time
> distinguishing between the two in these parts.
>
> >This isn't a simple case like Ishtar where critics and
> >public hated it alike upon its initial release.
>
> So...now public opinion is your highest aesthetic court?
No, just a point to look at. Some critics love it and some hated it. I think
that means there is more to your statement that it is horrible filmmaking! Too
simple on your part to be honest! Critically, if a movie is horribly sloppy
all the way around, it will not stand any sort of sense of time critically or
publicly (there are exceptions of course). Phantasm has shown a shelf life of
over 20 years! I think it is more of a gray area than you give it credit for.
It isn't black and white because you say so. Your opinion is it is bad
filmmaking. Fine, I respect your opinion, but it doesn't make other's opinions
wrong!
>
>
> >> Frankly, Phantasm and City of the Living Dead are about equally
> >> difficult for me to sit through anymore. I'll give Fulci the slight
> >> nod because his films are so witless and chaotic that they're at least
> >> fun to watch while stoned.
> >
> >I think the key word is chaotic here and that is a style! Maybe not one
> >you like, but one that has been used in many form of entertainment.
>
> Actually, it is a style I like a great deal, and once you pony up with one
> honestly and intentionally "chaotic" artist, we can discuss that. If you
> want to throw bad commercial hacks into the mix, I have to assume we aren't
> even on the same playing ground and it's pointless to try to discuss the
> subject with you.
>
> >Anarchy in punk music,etc.
>
> Don't. Don't even.
OK?? Why not? I've been a punk fan for over 20 years. It doesn't sound like
music ala Bach or Beethoven then it isn't good music?!?! I love classical
music by the way before you go there.
Ok, I can give you some of that, but that is also not entirely fair. When the
movie was released, if it had 90 minutes of pure gore violence do you think
anyone would have released it or even touched it with a ten foot pole. Most
likely not! Fulci's backers would have shelved it for sure! A screenwriter
would have balked at Fulci and said what the hell are you thinking? I can't
write that!!!!
>
>
> At this point, you've got a film that's at least 75% traditional narrative,
narrative sure, I'll give you that, but why does it have to be traditional? If
it was, then you wouldn't be complaining right now about how badly written it
is! A vision of a nightmare or more specific since some don't want to accept
that, Hell coming to earth wouldn't necessarily be traditional nor cohesive.
The whole idea of Hell and/or Satan has huge gaps that only bring torture and
obscure pain, etc. and don't necessarily make sense. Horrific yes, logically
as you and I would see it, not always.
>
> and that's being forgiving and allowing narrative elements that include
> gore. Even if I go above and beyond and allow you to arbitrarily double
> this already generous estimate of non-narrative elements, you're still
> talking about a 100-minute film, of which 50 minutes are traditional
> narrative. Half the movie is narrative, even using this absurd standard.
>
> So, besides Fulci shooting off his mouth about "his art," by what standard
> am I left to not judge this movie (or Phantasm, or The Beyond, the numbers
> should be roughly the same) by what it spends three-quarters of its time
> doing, at least? If it does it badly and awkwardly, why should I accept,
> "Oh, it's a non-traditional film" as an explanation?
You don't have to which was one of my points. Some of us do and can enjoy it
for what it is and that was my original point. This doesn't make it a bad
film. More or less it makes it a film that some are going to dislike and
others will enjoy. I'm not asking you to start to like the film nor see how
"great" it is. I'm just pointing out that just because you think it is crap,
it is crap. On the other hand, if one says it is gold, I don't think everyone
should think it is gold! That is one of the main problems I have with both
Fulci Bashers and Fulci Fanboys. Close-minded opinions that are stated as
fact! It, again, isn't black and white and should be viewed as such. I'm just
stating why I like the film and how it works for me!
> Particularly
> considering that we do know that what could be, under that lack of
> standards, the most "non-traditional" element in the film, its bizarre,
> abrupt ending, is the result of lost footage, not any kind of artistic
> decision?
I believe the Lost Footage theory is just a myth. This thing has gone back and
forth so many times, I honestly don't remember.
>
>
> >Take The Exorcist for example. An
> >hour goes by before we even consider Satan has entered the film as an
> >actual character.
>
> The Exorcist actually is a movie that builds on style and atmosphere, and
> doesn't make any bones about being a non-traditional representation of a
> nightmare or whatever.
Sure does and it uses Tension as its style and atmosphere to a great degree of
success! It tries to make possession seem as real as possible and that it
could happen any day at any time! I don't think Fulci was trying to convey
this with Gates of Hell! Both are fiction, but the difference is that The
Exorcist played on the real world and tapped into religious and a realistic
fear. Gates of Hell is definitely in a fantasy world and does not try to
convey this. More of a H.P. Lovecraft fantasy world. I would never feel that
Lovecraft's stuff fits into the realm of realism, but it doesn't stop me from
liking it.
>
>
> >In Phantasm, it opens up with The Tall Man. Horrific
> >moments in both COTLD and Phantasm happen every 3 to 7 minutes or so!
>
> Thanks for reinforcing my point for me.
I don't think it does! Horror every three to seven minutes is quite a lot and
then when it builds (this is important) it becomes even more constant.
>
>
> >> If "atmosphere" is
> >> their pure goal, why is there so little of it and so much horrible
> >> character interaction?
> >
> >Atmosphere doesn't always work unless you have characters interacting
> >and characters we know.
>
> Which means you need, at the very least, an introductory narrative (or
> "backstory"), unless you've walked into the film already knowing these
> characters, a tall order for the greatest of dramatists, and hardly a goal
> Fulci was ever likely to hit.
Thus the minimal story thread needed to tie the events and characterizations
together. Without it, the film probably wouldn't have been made or watched.
It is needed and my point was that it didn't need to follow the rigid rules
that Fulci bashers point to!
>
>
> >I'd rather
> >watch and follow a character going through the experience rather than
> >just images.
>
> Which means a continuing narrative.
Yes, but it doesn't necessarily have to go by strict rules. Hell is breaking
out on Earth and these people are trying to stop it. It is that simple, and
the rest of the images are there to entertain. It succeeds for me. I wouldn't
call it Citizen Kane for gawds sake!
>
>
> All of which means that you've just claimed, to argue with me, that these
> three films are exactly what you claimed they weren't yesterday: narrative
> genre films, as opposed to non-narrative films of pure style, atmosphere
> and shock.
No, I just mean that the narrative takes a back seat in order to accentuate the
visions of a nightmare (or Hell coming to Earth). I don't think I ever stated
that it is entirely images of pure style, atmosphere and shock (see Doc for
that one). These are the main ingredients and highlights, but the back seat is
still there. I don't mind giving up a certain amount of sustaining disbelief
to enjoy the film as entertainment, because certain scenes don't entirely gel
in a logical narrative which it never claimed to have.
>
>
> >Without it, we might as well watch a two hour Nine Inch
> >Nail Video.
>
> Or Begotten, which goes about as close to a "pure style, atmosphere and
> shock" horror film as I can imagine, and...pretty much seems like a two
> hour Skinny Puppy video.
I'll agree with that! A well done film that reaches its goal. Not everyone's
cup of tea because of it. I'll appreciate the film at its successes and as a
critic, but it doesn't mean I don't ever need to see it again. Just not my
type of film.
>
>
> >> The same goes for "shocks"--why on earth do you have
> >> to sit through seventy-five minutes of horrible acting and camerawork
> >> for a paltry ten minutes--if that--of gore explosions? I mean, if
> >> that's the goal, pure "atmosphere and shock," none of these films
> >> actually attains it, not by a very long shot. As for "style," I think
> >> I've already been as dismissive of Fulci's total lack of style as I
> >> need to be.
> >
> >In your
> >face/visceral shocks is a style.
>
> It is one, but it's not one that Fulci managed to maintain for very long.
> Not that this is to his detriment, since it is his strong suit, and it's a
> nearly impossible thing to maintain for an entire movie. Again, though,
> this style accounts for less than 10% of CotLD, as a whole. What he fills
> the rest of the movie with, the stylistic choices he makes when brains
> aren't exploding out at you and people just have to talk or react to
> something...they never get past the mundane, at their best. His by-the-
> numbers shots are...at least that, by the numbers. His camera-waving,
> closeup-mongering attempts at artistry in these moments, though, are just
> unendurable.
For some, sure! The same has been said for Jess Franco, whom I also admire
(even more so than Fulci with certain titles).
>
>
> >We may not agree at all, but thanks for a mostly constructive argument.
>
> No prob.
We will never see eye to eye on this, but that also tells me that the film
shouldn't be dismissed either as just crap as I stated earlier. I also don't
expect anyone who hates the film to all of the sudden start liking it!
Take care,
CultCuts
> In article <3A00BC04...@teleport-city.com>,
> Ol' BattleMonkey <battle...@teleport-city.com> wrote:
> > It's a pure film, a film of...
> >
> > oh, never mind!
> >
>
> Too bad these pure films are only good when viewed as disjointed
> pieces. I always thought a good film was supposed to be cohesive from
> beginning to end.
Fantasia
Begotten
Eraserhead
Heavy Metal
Pink Floyd the Wall
Platoon
Animal House
Blues Brothers
and many others have been criticized for their lack of cohesiveness and
serious plot holes and lack of plot, but that doesn't stop them from being
entertaining films to some.
Criswell
> >I'm in complete agreement with you on that one. But for the record, I
> >don't drink beer, Molson's or any other brand. The suds-happy
> >Gore-met will only-too gleefully confirm that the Pigster is a
> >card-carrying girl-drink-drunk.
The Gore-met responds:
> FLASHBACK TO THE PIG'S 30TH BIRTHDAY: The setting: A pub in Toronto. A
> large group of Pigophiles gather for chat, sustenance and merriment.
> The scene: A round table, The Gore-met swilling a pitcher of beer,
> sans glass, the Pigster sipping a Long Island Iced Tea.
And Criswell takes up the thread:
It's been quite a long time since I frequented taverns, (I was booted
out of just about every bar in town back in the old days, let me tell
you,) but if memory serves, Long Island Iced Tea has four different kinds
of white liquor in it. Half-shots of tequila, vodka, rum and gin,
unless I miss my guess. I'd hardly call that a "lady's drink", it's not
quite in the same class as the Strawberry Daiquiri or the Cream de Cacao.
Ah, well. I'm satisfied with beer myself these days, and I most always
drink alone. It's safer, and smarter--Getting beat up all the time
really gets old after awhile. Let me tell you. >:-[
Criswell
_____________________________________________
"You and I can have long discussions. We'll
have heated debates deep into the night."
Michael Moriarty, A Return To Salem's Lot.
_____________________________________________
Badash54
>unless I miss my guess. I'd hardly call that a "lady's drink", it's not
>quite in the same class as the Strawberry Daiquiri or the Cream de Cacao.
If you use half-shots it's a lady's drink. :P
Best Scott