How highly do you rate the New York Ripper?

[cazzasguy]

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!

[HAEMORRHAGE]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Angelman]

Originally Posted by CrazyFatEthel

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

Too much random sex?

Originally Posted by Matt89

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?

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Angelman

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]

Originally Posted by Matt89

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.

Originally Posted by Matt89

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]

Originally Posted by Matt89

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.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Angelman

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.

Originally Posted by Angelman

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.

Originally Posted by Angelman

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.

Originally Posted by Angelman

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...

Originally Posted by Angelman

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]

Originally Posted by Angelman

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.

[Myron Breck]

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]

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]

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]

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.