How highly do you rate the New York Ripper?

[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?

[spawningblue]

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]

Originally Posted by spawningblue

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]

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

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

[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.

[indiephantom]

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]

Originally Posted by indiephantom

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]

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.

[dave13]

Originally Posted by Matt89

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]

Originally Posted by Matt89

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.

Originally Posted by Matt89

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.

Originally Posted by Matt89

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

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

Originally Posted by Matt89

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.

Originally Posted by Matt89

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.

Originally Posted by dave13

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Angelman

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.