How highly do you rate the New York Ripper? [Archive]

cazzasguy

05-01-2009, 09:08 PM

I'm openly ashamed to admit that I didn't watch this film until last week. I had taken only the second day off work in ten years because of feeling sh!t and desperately needed some decent entertainment to improve my mood.

I'm amazed at how compelling the film was. Allusions to the killer's identity changed every few minutes and there were so many twists to the general plot, mr fulci must have been dizzy! They continued up to the final few minutes and the scenes in the hospital were quite unnerving. Of course, the Ripper's omnipresence was a bit unrealistic but hey, what horror fan doesn't need to suspend belief for a while?

Acting quality = great. Naked female forms on view = numerous and gorgeous, before unfortunately being violated. Gore = rarely surpassed and expertly done.

I watched the 'not rated' R0 Anchor Bay disc, which is apparently uncut. Video quality good, sound perfectly acceptable, and I would recommend any true horror fan to purchase it.

Be interested to hear whether it ranks amongst your top 10 flicks - the term 'classic' is a bit overused these days but I certainly think New York Ripper deserves that description! :evil:

HAEMORRHAGE

05-01-2009, 09:37 PM

Man, I haven't watched this since I bought it back in 2001 or so. I remember liking it but I'm sure it needs another viewing. Besides, it's Fulci!

delicreep

05-01-2009, 09:46 PM

I've only seen the old VHS version. Someday I'll revisit via the better-regarded DVD out there.

My impression was that NYR is a huge steaming pile of fly-ridden crap. Since I haven't watched it since the early nineties, I won't go into a whole lot of detail. I remember finding the flick laughable, and the killer's duck voice stupid and distracting.

But, maybe an assessment of one of the proper DVD releases might change my perception.

spawningblue

05-01-2009, 11:01 PM

I watched it last month for the first time, and I gave it 6.5 out of 10. I liked it, but didn't love it. Good mystery to it though, and I enjoyed the duck voice and the gore. I have a feeling I will like it more on repeat viewings.

CrazyFatEthel

05-01-2009, 11:35 PM

Ehh, had too much randome sex for me, but the gore was pretty descent. 5/10

Myron Breck

05-02-2009, 12:41 AM

I give it a solid 8. I enjoy the hell out of this movie!!! I sold mine back when it was OOP and seriously miss having it around. God bless BU.

MadmanMarz

05-02-2009, 12:52 AM

Sleazy as all hell, but entertaining enough. Some great scenes (girl killed in the car on the ferry), some sexually odd ones ("massage" by foot under the table in a bar).

Worth owning! I'd give it a 7 out of 10.

X-human

05-02-2009, 01:01 AM

I probably haven't watched it in almost ten years, but at the time I was rather smitten with it. I remember its sense of humor being especially dark and well toned; pulling off that Donald Duck voice which would sink most any other film.

It's only bested by Zombi 2 because that has a scene where a topless scuba diver is attack by a zombie which then wrestles a shark. Thirty years since and no zombie film maker has even come close to topping that scene.

Take out that scene and New York Ripper is my favorite Fulci. But what do I know, I think City of the Dead is better than The Beyond.

f.ramses

05-02-2009, 01:26 AM

It's a pretty good movie, probably one of Fulci's most graphic films. People I know who have seen this film got a kick out of the toe scene but I thought it was kind of stupid. It's been a while and this thread kinda makes me want to watch it again... As for how highly I'd rate it, I'd probably say 5 or 6 out of 10.

Horrorphilly

05-02-2009, 01:42 AM

I finally bought this movie,the AWE disc,great gialloesque flick,great gore,great twists.Great Fulci movie in my book.Still nothing beats Zombie.

sean

Body Boy

05-02-2009, 01:59 AM

6/10

I don't understand the hype. Yeah, it is sleazy, but it feels like a lump in my throat. I much prefer Maniac = same feeling, different digestion. Plus better made. NYR is not as good as Zombi, House by the Cemetery, City of the Living Dead or The Beyond. It is mediocre as far as 80s slashers go. At the end, I did not care about it in the least.

vampyr789

05-02-2009, 04:03 AM

wow, i dont really think i can call myself a Fulci fan if i havent seen this....i really want to :o

Coverdale

05-02-2009, 04:18 AM

I like it but haven't watched it in a long time. I remember I bought the double pack of NY Ripper and Manhattan Baby (a horrible film) in late September 2002 and later that night went out to eat at the new Thai restaurant in town. Weird the things I remember...

Paff

05-02-2009, 04:32 AM

It's only bested by Zombi 2 because that has a scene where a topless scuba diver is attack by a zombie which then wrestles a shark. Thirty years since and no zombie film maker has even come close to topping that scene.

Take out that scene and New York Ripper is my favorite Fulci. But what do I know, I think City of the Dead is better than The Beyond.

Completely disagree with the first statement (Zombie vs. shark is still one of my all-time "oh please" moments in cinema)

But also completely agree that City of the Dead is better than the overrated Beyond.

Now, as to New York Ripper, it's not my favorite Fulci by a long shot. But as I've said many times on this forum, I far prefer Fulci when he's bound by the "rules" of the Giallo genre and can manage to fit his over-long graphic effects scenes into the confines of a Giallo film. With Zombie, The Beyond, etc, he was free to do whatever he wanted and all those films suffer with incoherency. (and don't give me that "The Beyond is like a nightmare on film" excuse for its incoherent nature. Lucio was just making it up as he went along, even including a zombie attack just to please the German distributor!).

New York Ripper plays a lot closer to A Lizard in a Woman's Skin and Don't Torture a Duckling, by far my favorite period in Fulci's career. Yet he also included the extreme gratuitous sex and violence that was present in the other films he was making at that time (not that Lizard and Duckling don't contain sex and/or violence....just not to the level Fulci would hit in the 80s). In a lot of ways, it's a blend of Fulci new and old, and can satisfy fans of both periods of his work.

Good movie, glad I own it.

Erick H.

05-02-2009, 06:04 AM

I'd say it's mid level Fulci.Sleazy and violent (the eye scene is memorably brutal),it plays along the lines of a giallo crossed with an American police procedural.The woman get treated pretty badly in this,not a very sympathetic picture,nobody comes off looking really good here.Overall it's a decent,nasty little flick,very much of the grindhouse era.Worth a look if you wanna peek back at early 80's era New York City pre Urban Renewal.

Vlachio

05-02-2009, 06:57 AM

This film is a masterpiece when compared to all the modern horror horse shit.

Matt89

05-02-2009, 09:21 AM

snowbeast323

05-02-2009, 12:41 PM

I've never watched it the full way through before......:D

I must do that some day....

Anthropophagus

05-02-2009, 01:42 PM

I agree with Matt, most Fulci is crap but enjoyable crap and fun to watch with friends for all the cringe worthy moments and unintentional humour in those films.
That being said I always felt NYR is a poor man's Maniac(Lustig).

Body Boy

05-02-2009, 03:16 PM

While I do not think Fulci is total crap, he is certainly no Bava or Argento.

I thought his City of the Living Dead, a plotholed film in English, was his greatest achievement. House by the Cemetery felt well produced and Zombi 2 has many moments in addition to the scoring that make it stand out from the meshing zombie crowds.

The Beyond...I agree is overrated. Like "we get it, the face is melting!!!" Haha. I love the gore and some beautiful scenes but come on. Cooooome ooooon? :)

dave13

05-02-2009, 04:11 PM

im really digging fulci right now. especially his early 80's stuff. i know, they're pretty nonsensical and certainly not what you would call art, but damn if i don't find them really enjoyable. i just watched new york ripper about a month ago, and i liked it a lot. i mean, its another fulci film - i don't know why anybody would love the beyond, city of the living dead, or house by the cemetery, and hate new york ripper.

CasEjonz

05-02-2009, 04:32 PM

Sure Fulci has slips in continuity and is a bit fragmented, but as stated above, it is a far better showing than some of the garbage that is packaged and released today, just because they wrap it in a shiny fancy cover. Will we look back at some of the badly made modern horror with the same reverence that we shine upon the old masters? I doubt it, there are a great deal of younger members of the board that in the past couple years that have introduced themselves to Fulci, Bava, Argento, et al. and it is great that they are doing a service to themselves to experience all the various niches of the genre. I am sure many of them like these older films compared to the various "direct to DVDs" that are hitting the shelves currently. (<~~~purposely avoiding naming any one specific film so not to antagonize anyone that might like said example. :) )

CasEjonz

05-02-2009, 04:34 PM

i don't know why anybody would love the beyond, city of the living dead, or house by the cemetery, and hate new york ripper.

Very true, most of these type of films are an acquired taste, and they follow a similar blueprint. Though you can rank one above another and may find a film weakest among a filmmaker's canon, it is highly unlikely you would be dramatically opposed to a single film done by that filmmaker.

captain_brandon

05-02-2009, 05:43 PM

I too do not understand all the love for this one (or any of Fulci's stuff, for that matter). I know a lot of people on here love the guy but I dunno, personally, I think most of his stuff (about 90% of it) is total crap. The guy can't make a movie to save his life.

I know I'm gonna get ripped apart for this, but sorry, never liked the guy's movies. They're so bloody incoherent. He wasn't trying to make an art film here (the way, say, many of Bergman's films are totally ambiguous) so I dunno what the fuck he was trying to do.

~Matt

I agree: Sure, I own the flm cause I'm a Slasher & Giallo fanatic, and there is some fine unintential laughter, but simply but, the man was a hack. Hope that doesn't make too many angry or inspire much vitrol and hatred here. He always was just a poor man's Argento or poor man's Bava senior, ect. Nothing more. He is just praised cause of the English language titles of his films that inspire big time Cult & Exploitation film lovers to check out his stuff on blind buys, and like many writer/directors, he has a sizeable cult following. And for the gore/make-up FX set pieces of his films. But I honestly always thought he make was a hack. Sorry to anyone it up-sets or disagree's with me, but to each they're own.

X-human

05-02-2009, 07:04 PM

Completely disagree with the first statement (Zombie vs. shark is still one of my all-time "oh please" moments in cinema)

See to me that's the whole point of cinema. You can do things you can't do in real life. You can't get a topless scuba diver mixed up with sharks and zombies, it just doesn't happen. And the way all the characters just look at each other, everyone given their own close up, just before she dives in. Everyone and everything is in on it.

Next you're going to tell me Romero shouldn't of had the pie fight in Dawn of the Dead.(*) To tie it back to New York Ripper, Donald Duck's voice is so absolutely ridiculous to give to a maniac. It's hard to think of a Fulci moment that doesn't revel in such absurdities. Only in the movies.

It's nice to throw in some art and "messages" now and then too, but if you're going to be slumming it go hog wild. The only crimes I see in cinema are mediocrity. So much potential of the medium wasted. Topless Scuba Diver vs. Zombie vs. Shark is living up to the potential of its medium.

(*)Actually I'm not a big fan of that scene, it wasn't done very well. But the concept was sound.

killit

05-02-2009, 07:38 PM

I think the killer Is hot, other than that film is a little nasty

g0mang071

05-02-2009, 07:46 PM

Glad you liked the flick. This is one of my fav Fulci's along with "Lizard in a Woman's Skin" and "The Psychic". There was a lot of cleverness put into so many shots in this film - all of the murder set pieces had atmosphere to spare. I think Fulci really is on the same level with Bava and Argento and I've enjoyed many of his films, subtle or not-so-subtle.

If you want more sleaze, pick up Dark Sky's new release of "The Centerfold Girls" - I can't recommend this one highly enough. Also, watched Lamberto Bava's "Midnight Ripper" last night and it is another gem. Not quite on the level with "Blade in the Dark" or "Demons" ,but a lot of fun.

Spit

05-03-2009, 12:51 AM

Independent about how you guys feel about the film you should all own it just cuz theres a horrordvds.com quote on the cover.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hXuH%2BGkcL._SS500_.jpg

Rockmjd

05-13-2009, 11:27 PM

This movie clearly shows Fulci's deep dislike of women, which is of course why I love it.

X-human

05-14-2009, 12:40 AM

He wasn't trying to make an art film here (the way, say, many of Bergman's films are totally ambiguous) so I dunno what the fuck he was trying to do.

He was trying to entertain; by having things like a topless scuba diver get attacked by a zombie and a shark. If you can't understand that simple fact, then may God have mercy on your soul.

I won't defend the man as anything much more than a hack. While I think City of the Living Dead is better than The Beyond that doesn't mean I think it should be preserved in a museum. But when compared to other directors I feel are hacks like Wes Craven, I say give me Fulci.

Angelman

05-14-2009, 12:52 AM

Ehh, had too much randome sex for me, but the gore was pretty descent. 5/10

Too much random sex?:eek2:

I too do not understand all the love for this one (or any of Fulci's stuff, for that matter). I know a lot of people on here love the guy but I dunno, personally, I think most of his stuff (about 90% of it) is total crap. The guy can't make a movie to save his life.

I know I'm gonna get ripped apart for this, but sorry, never liked the guy's movies. They're so bloody incoherent. He wasn't trying to make an art film here (the way, say, many of Bergman's films are totally ambiguous) so I dunno what the fuck he was trying to do.

~Matt

Fulci is awesome, although he only made a few really great films. I think Matt you sometimes tend to be poisoned by your classes and the perspective of film classes. At the end of the day, movies are entertainment, period. Otherwise they would be made for free. There is something very visceral and raw about Fulci that just really engages me. And you're damn right he is no Argento or Bava - I much prefer Fulci to those two (although I like both of them).

It's like this. Fulci was an Italian man's man. He did have a problem with women by most accounts. There is a meanness to his movies, a tendency to not only not shy away from awkward violent scenes but to linger on them. I love that. He shoves it in your face and knows that deep down, if you are already sitting there watching it, you probably will enjoy it.

Zombie is in my top 5 movies that I actually enjoy, and The Psychic as well as the Beyond are very good (even if The Beyond is a mess, its a mess I watch over and over - like 1941 for Spielberg). Beatrice Cenci is a great film.

And be careful with the term "hack" - have you seen some of Orson Welles less known films?

spawningblue

05-14-2009, 04:26 PM

I don't know why anyone would expect art house from movies titled Zombi, City of the Living Dead or New York Ripper. Like many have mentioned, these films were made to entertain, and that they do. I would love to see Zombi with a packed audience, you know everyone would be going insane! You just can't help but squirm and then cheer during every kill in his films. There are fun flicks, and nothing more, and to be honest I have no problem with that. And yes, a topless scuba diver, a zombie and a shark together is pure genius! How can you watch that scene and not smile?

Angelman

05-14-2009, 06:32 PM

I would love to see Zombi with a packed audience, you know everyone would be going insane! You just can't help but squirm and then cheer during every kill in his films.

Seen it twice in the theater - it brings the house down and while there is some laughing at the goofy bits (same as there is when I saw Halloween, NOES in the theater at revivals) the audience is into it...

DVD-fanatic-9

05-15-2009, 10:48 AM

How highly do I rate New York Ripper? I don't.

It's a piece of shit and belongs in the toilet.

Matt89

05-15-2009, 01:44 PM

Fulci is awesome, although he only made a few really great films. I think Matt you sometimes tend to be poisoned by your classes and the perspective of film classes.

No I don't think so. I've actually never liked Fulci (said it in my post). Has nothing to do with film classes (Zombie was actually on the course syllabus for the horror film course last year I know that - so it really has nothing to do with film classes - you actually DO cover Fulci in some of them), I just think his movies are boring, incoherent and very poorly written. I understand that these aren't meant to be cinematic masterpieces. I just don't enjoy them because I find his films irritating. You can make coherent entertaining films, so why make an incoherent one? It comes from bad, half-assed, sloppy writing.

And it's not that I expected these movies to be art films, you guys COMPLETELY missed my point. Art films ARE abiguous, sure, but they were made to specifically oppose the Hollywood film, there was reason behind it. Their narratives were carefully strung together with a higher emphasis on plot rather than story. The ambiguity lies in the narrative of Fulci's films and it just comes from bad writing. His movies are so poorly written that I just can't enjoy them. I'll give him credit, however, for his cinematography. The guy's films look beautiful. Sadly, I've just never really been able to enjoy a Fulci film.

And sure Orson Welles made a few bad films, but to call him a hack...What? MICHAEL BAY is a hack (considering he's paid to quickly put together low-quality films - sure he can direct action, but his movies are terrible). Orson Welles has MORE than earned his position in film history.

~Matt

spawningblue

05-15-2009, 05:12 PM

His movies are so poorly written that I just can't enjoy them. I'll give him credit, however, for his cinematography. The guy's films look beautiful. Sadly, I've just never really been able to enjoy a Fulci film.

Fair enough.

And sure Orson Welles made a few bad films, but to call him a hack...What? MICHAEL BAY is a hack (considering he's paid to quickly put together low-quality films - sure he can direct action, but his movies are terrible). Orson Welles has MORE than earned his position in film history.

And agreed.

Angelman

05-15-2009, 06:27 PM

Art films ARE abiguous, sure, but they were made to specifically oppose the Hollywood film, there was reason behind it. Their narratives were carefully strung together with a higher emphasis on plot rather than story. The ambiguity lies in the narrative of Fulci's films and it just comes from bad writing. His movies are so poorly written that I just can't enjoy them. I'll give him credit, however, for his cinematography. The guy's films look beautiful. Sadly, I've just never really been able to enjoy a Fulci film.

And sure Orson Welles made a few bad films, but to call him a hack...What? MICHAEL BAY is a hack (considering he's paid to quickly put together low-quality films - sure he can direct action, but his movies are terrible). Orson Welles has MORE than earned his position in film history.

~Matt

Easy, Professor Matt. :) You are kind of proving my point here. You literally just lectured us on what art films are supposed to do. Judged on their face many "art" films, without understanding their intent, can be boring messes. Same with horror. My point was not that your classes make you like/not like Fulci, but that the classes have you looking at things within their structure and through their proverbial "lens." You frequently talk on these boards in terms of what you are learning and you yourself have admitted losing interest in the genre - the fact that you are in these classes and losing your taste for horror is no accident.

Despite what you may think, making a movie like ZOMBIE is not easy. What's more, the fact that the scripts are so bad for many of his films is even MORE proof that he could do something interesting with nothing.

Who cares about intent and writing? All that matters is the final effect, and the final effect of Fulci for a lot of people, not you, but a lot of people is that there is a mean, fun, gory, entertaining quality to them.

And my point about Welles is this: a lot of his films are not good, and you KNOW this. He made one of my fav of all time KANE, as well as AMBERSONS, etc. but you know as well as I that if we judged his entire body of work it is not so hot. So calling Fulci a "hack" seems out of place. Structurally, a lot of his films have great design work, good camerawork, even passable acting (PSYCHIC, LIZARD).

Again, I challenge you to watch BEATRICE CENCI and tell me he is a hack. Not so.

You name me a well-regarded director and 90% of the time I can name you a flick they did that was pure crap.

indiephantom

05-15-2009, 10:22 PM

Check the photo in my link below of My Collection...I adore this nasty piece of Fulci. It's one of his absolute best, but I love his work.

Angelman

05-15-2009, 11:53 PM

Check the photo in my link below of My Collection...I adore this nasty piece of Fulci. It's one of his absolute best, but I love his work.

Good man.

Matt89

05-16-2009, 02:24 AM

Easy, Professor Matt. :) You are kind of proving my point here. You literally just lectured us on what art films are supposed to do. Judged on their face many "art" films, without understanding their intent, can be boring messes. Same with horror. My point was not that your classes make you like/not like Fulci, but that the classes have you looking at things within their structure and through their proverbial "lens." You frequently talk on these boards in terms of what you are learning and you yourself have admitted losing interest in the genre - the fact that you are in these classes and losing your taste for horror is no accident.

Again, I said I've NEVER been able to enjoy a Fulci film. This has nothing to do with my film classes. I didn't enjoy them before, I don't enjoy them now.

Despite what you may think, making a movie like ZOMBIE is not easy. What's more, the fact that the scripts are so bad for many of his films is even MORE proof that he could do something interesting with nothing.

But still, why would he still not even bother to string together a coherent story? It's ridiculous.

Who cares about intent and writing? All that matters is the final effect, and the final effect of Fulci for a lot of people, not you, but a lot of people is that there is a mean, fun, gory, entertaining quality to them.

Fair enough, I just don't like his films.

And my point about Welles is this: a lot of his films are not good, and you KNOW this. He made one of my fav of all time KANE, as well as AMBERSONS, etc. but you know as well as I that if we judged his entire body of work it is not so hot. So calling Fulci a "hack" seems out of place. Structurally, a lot of his films have great design work, good camerawork, even passable acting (PSYCHIC, LIZARD).

The Stranger, The Lady From Shanghai, Touch of Evil, Mr. Arkadin, Macbeth, Othello....not so hot? You're a pretty small army. And for the record, I never called Fulci a hack. As well, I even said his films have excellent cinematography. So, I don't exactly understand what you're arguing here...

You name me a well-regarded director and 90% of the time I can name you a flick they did that was pure crap.

You can do that with virtually any director: Hitchcock (Topaz, Torn Curtain), Godard (Tout va bien, Vent d'est), Peckinpah (The Osterman Weekend), Sirk (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt), Wilder (Buddy Buddy)...the point is, the highly regarded films of these directors ARE good films, Fulci's highly regarded films just...aren't. I get it, it's a cult thing, but most of his movies are still crap, yet the reason people like them is because of the blood and gore. I totally understand this. I mean oh well, some people are into just that. But you can't deny the fact that his films really aren't that good. You may enjoy them, sure. (Hell, I enjoy some bad films too!) It's all good, but they're really not great films. That was my point.

~Matt

dave13

05-16-2009, 04:02 AM

You name me a well-regarded director and 90% of the time I can name you a flick they did that was pure crap.

hey, that's a neat game! I'll take Akira Kurosawa for 100, Alex.

dave13

05-16-2009, 04:31 AM

You can do that with virtually any director: Hitchcock (Topaz, Torn Curtain)

man, i am SICK of people bashing these films! yeah, hitch made a few dull ones, like Jamaica Inn, The Paradine Case and Under Capricorn (from what I've heard - its his only talkie i haven't seen) but come on! Those two weren't that bad!

Torn Curtain was flawed (i'd say the main problem being two fantastic lead actors that - for two very different reasons - did not belong in a hitchcock film), but the story was interesting, if simple, and it had a lot of great scenes. The killing of Gromek in the cottage, the scene where Newman brings Christie up to speed on the hill where you don't hear any of the their dialogue. And the entire last act, from the lecture theater where Newman tricks the professor into giving up the formula, to the bus escape, to the wannabe refuge looking for her "sponsor", to the conclusion in the ballet and the subtle freeze-framing of the dancer to accentuate her gaze, its just all great stuff!

And its been a while since I watched Topaz last, but i remember enjoying it a lot as well. It was a lot less fantastic (by which i mean, fantasy-like) than a lot of hitch's movies, but that was the whole idea - to create a realistic spy tale, his answer to the james bond phenomena. I particularly remember loving the scene where the villain shoots his mistress, and we see her fall from above, while her dress billows out around her. just beautiful.

I think these films get undo bad press simply because they weren't as good as other films that Hitch made in that period (psycho, the birds, marnie, and frenzy). Family Plot usually gets dumped on too, also unjustly in my opinion. taken on their own merits, i think these two were decent films.

Angelman

05-16-2009, 05:56 AM

Again, I said I've NEVER been able to enjoy a Fulci film. This has nothing to do with my film classes. I didn't enjoy them before, I don't enjoy them now.

Uh-huh. Like I said clearly, a lot of people, NOT YOU, like his movies. Emphasis on the NOT YOU.

But still, why would he still not even bother to string together a coherent story? It's ridiculous.

He was not the writer. He was the director. So he made films that people like out of crap scripts, that is called talent.

Fair enough, I just don't like his films.

See my above statement... NOT YOU, but many other people.

The Stranger, The Lady From Shanghai, Touch of Evil, Mr. Arkadin, Macbeth, Othello....not so hot? You're a pretty small army. And for the record, I never called Fulci a hack. As well, I even said his films have excellent cinematography. So, I don't exactly understand what you're arguing here....

You are combining two things so 1) check imdb, Matt, you missed a lot of Welles credits. And its not like Macbeth or Mr. Arkadin are untouchable classics. I was simply making the point that most directors stumble here and there as Welles did. F for Fake is a pretentious BORE. When Welles lost studio backing his films became weak. When the bottom fell out of Italian cinema in the early/mid-80s, Fulci's became... admittedly... very bad.

Point 2: If you re-read, I then re-iterated my point which was: Fulci is not a hack (and this was not directed at you but a comment on the thread). That is the point I was arguing.

the point is, the highly regarded films of these directors ARE good films, Fulci's highly regarded films just...aren't. I get it, it's a cult thing, but most of his movies are still crap, yet the reason people like them is because of the blood and gore. I totally understand this. I mean oh well, some people are into just that. But you can't deny the fact that his films really aren't that good. You may enjoy them, sure. (Hell, I enjoy some bad films too!) It's all good, but they're really not great films. That was my point

How are they not good films? Do they not achieve what they set out to do? Are they not beloved by many fans of the genre? You yourself said you DON'T LIKE HIS FILMS. So how can you tell? Here's the thing: people like different films for different reasons. They like different styles for different reasons. A co-worker of mine hates old b&w films. He says they are stuffy, flat, full of unrealistic dialogue and stagey lighting. Is he wrong? No. Are they bad films? I don't think so, but based on his criteria, I see his point.

I don't think we are that far apart but when you say stuff like other director's films are good and Fulci's aren't I don't see a critical assesment, I hear a snobby film studies lecture (and I don't mean this as a put-down, just my read on a statement like that). We all have different criteria and tastes. I feel like you just went on the attack without reading what I actually wrote.

hey, that's a neat game! I'll take Akira Kurosawa for 100, Alex.

Judo Saga, The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail, The Most Beautiful, Rhapsody in August.

Even with the good will he engenders from me for Seven Samurai, Ikiru... I can't sit through these...

Matt89

05-16-2009, 11:09 AM

Yeah I'm not gonna get any further into this. We're uhh...definitely not gonna agree here. I see your point, I just don't necessarily agree. :)

~Matt

dave13

05-16-2009, 03:10 PM

Judo Saga, The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail, The Most Beautiful, Rhapsody in August.

Even with the good will he engenders from me for Seven Samurai, Ikiru... I can't sit through these...

haven't seen those ones, so can't comment, but yeah, i think you're right - everybody has stinkers....i'm trying to think of some directors whose body of work is 100% solid. new directors don't really count, because they haven't been around long enough. for instance, you could say that edgar wright hasn't made a bad movie. no, the only one that i could come up with is kubrick. i don't think the guy made a single bad film. and no fair picking on fear and desire, either.

X-human

05-16-2009, 03:18 PM

I always say, how can you truly appreciate the good when you can't appreciate the bad?

Angelman

05-16-2009, 06:52 PM

haven't seen those ones, so can't comment, but yeah, i think you're right - everybody has stinkers....i'm trying to think of some directors whose body of work is 100% solid. new directors don't really count, because they haven't been around long enough. for instance, you could say that edgar wright hasn't made a bad movie. no, the only one that i could come up with is kubrick. i don't think the guy made a single bad film. and no fair picking on fear and desire, either.

Well a lot of directors made some mediocre films (Kurosawa, Kubrick, arguably) but they never made bad films. But those directors are in the minority. If you are around long enough to fall out of favor you will eventually make a bad choice. I don't judge based on the bad ones though. I mean Cimino made Heaven's Gate but the man made the f'n DEER HUNTER so he gets a pass (and Heaven's Gate isn't that bad).

I went through and watched all of Fulci's films starting after his studio/comedy period and I really came to respect him. I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of crap as his career wound down but that is true of all Italian genre directors. There was just no money. With the exception of Leone (a rare case) and possibly Argento whose of body of work suffered in quality as he moved out of the early 80s (Bava Sr. was not a peer) I can't think of a better genre director at the time (in Italy).

I like New York Ripper on the same level as, say, Maniac. What it lacks in $$$ it MORE than makes up for with a sleazy, mean quality.

The Chaostar

05-16-2009, 08:52 PM

NYR is a bleak, nihilistic, desperate film. It's Fulci at his best - and I am not a Fulci fan. The gore is pretty shocking, but it's Fulci's view of the world that rises above that. The final shot is the last thing you'd expect from an exploitation film.

Prefer it than Maniac that has so sociological value whatsoever.

Matt89

05-16-2009, 09:16 PM

Well a lot of directors made some mediocre films (Kurosawa, Kubrick, arguably) but they never made bad films. But those directors are in the minority. If you are around long enough to fall out of favor you will eventually make a bad choice. I don't judge based on the bad ones though. I mean Cimino made Heaven's Gate but the man made the f'n DEER HUNTER so he gets a pass (and Heaven's Gate isn't that bad).

Yeah, it's hard to come up with a director who never made a 'bad' film. That said, I personally don't think Kubrick ever made a bad film. I dunno who else would be on that list, though, maybe Murnau? However, there are reasons for this. Sure, Kubrick's career spanned 50 years, but he only made about 12 feature films during that time, only making 3 in the last 20 years of his career. Murnau also died when he was 43, and his career only spanned about 10-11 years. That's shorter than many directors' "peak periods", so I'd put Murnau on the list as well.

But yeah, Heaven's Gate. I don't understand all the hate that movie gets, because it REALLY ISN'T that bad. It was probably seen as a massive flop considering how successful (and unbelievably amazing) a film the like The Deer Hunter was.

~Matt

dave13

05-17-2009, 01:37 AM

yeah, i agree that kubrick is an anomaly, and maybe if everybody took as long between films as he did, there would be a lot more directors in this category. i was trying to think of directors who had a large output, but didn't make any bad films. the trouble is, its hard to see everything that these prolific directors made! i was thinking of robert wise. i certainly haven't seen everything he's done, but everything i have seen has been of high quality. after looking at his imdb page, the guy made really great films at the beginning, middle and end of his career. i mean he started with some of val lewtons best pictures, curse of the cat people and the body snatcher, mid-way through he was making things like the day the earth stood still and the haunting, and then at the end he made the sand pebbles and the sound of music.

Matt89

05-17-2009, 03:00 AM

Haha, Robert Wise also made Audrey Rose in '77, which is, errr....kinda bad. But again, he's one of those directors who's made so many amazing films that he gets a pass. Even his more lesser-known stuff like Somebody Up There Likes Me (1956) and Until They Sail (1957) - which still has yet to receive a DVD release - are still highly underrated.

Can't forget West Side Story, either. The guy mastered so many genres, The Day the Earth Stood Still is considered one of the finest sci-fis, West Side Story and The Sound Of Music two of the finest musicals, The Haunting one of the greatest horror films...he's definitely one of the greatest American directors who ever lived.

~Matt

Angelman

05-17-2009, 06:55 AM