Lucio Fulci VS Dario Argento - Page 6

stephen36 · 02-04-2011, 11:15 AM

Lucio Fulci VS Dario Argento....no contest.

I picked Dario Argento because he is one of horror cinemas greatest directors and his list of great movies speak for itself (Suspiria,Deep Red,Tenebrae,Bird with the crystal plumage etc etc).

Except for a few films(The Beyond and City of the living dead) Lucio Fulci cannot compete with Argento in terms of greatness...plus Fulci made what is for me the worst horror film ever mde...The New York Ripper.

Steel76 · 02-04-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephen36

...plus Fulci made what is for me the worst horror film ever mde...The New York Ripper.

WHAT!??!?

New York Ripper is a masterpiece of nasty sleaze and grue

Shame on you, sir!

hehe

Ash28M · 02-04-2011, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steel76

WHAT!??!?

New York Ripper is a masterpiece of nasty sleaze and grue

Shame on you, sir!

hehe

yeah I really enjoy New York Ripper as well.

Anaestheus · 02-04-2011, 06:45 PM

Apparently I have read this thread many times but never actually voted.

For me, Argento wins out. Even considering his recent work, I still find him more interesting. I do think he has gotten pretty lazy over the past decade, but his work up until Stendahl was so solid, original, and unique that I can't help but love him, even if I do acknowledge that he is an acquired taste. Yes, his stories can be full of lunacy, but I think it worked well in his earlier films and, to me, he always pulled them off with bravura. Even his lesser (early) films, such as Flies, Cat, and Trauma are at least solid when they're not brilliant.

I will certainly defend Fulci against detractors, but I find him to be a more limited director. Someone once said that he was only as good as what his crew put up in front of the camera. And I have to agree with that. So, his gore films have great gore. But, the acting, pacing, lazy storytelling and sloppy editing drag them down. However, his giallo that had less emphasis on gore, Lizard and Perversion, are pretty damn slick. For me his best film is Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. That seems to be the one film where everything came together nicely.

So, while Argento's flaws come from either a feverish sense of imagination in the early years or just plain laziness in the latter, Fulci's flaws seem to come more from a lack of control.

rhett · 02-04-2011, 07:56 PM

I voted back in 2003 and stand by my Fulci vote more than ever. As I've veered off the beaten path and watched more of his later or maligned work, I respect him even more as an artist. I'd disagree with my man Anaestheus in that Fulci's films were only as good as his crew. He used the TROLL 2 crew for DOOR INTO SILENCE, and even without much gore, violence or nudity, he was still able to create a really exciting, provocative and personal picture that ranks right up there with his more renowned work. I see a lot more of Fulci's personality in his films - Argento's I see more flash but less intrigue. Argento has some amazingly personal and deep pictures, like Tenebre or The Stendhal Syndrome, don't get me wrong, but when you look at the entire body of work - and both have sizable ones, Fulci's to me always come through with a lot more heart. Fulci really wins the battle if you look only at their later careers, since Argento's films seem to be getting worse and worse with each telling, while Fulci put up some of his most interesting stuff, like DOOR or CAT IN THE BRAIN, before kicking the bucket.

Regardless, thank god we have both of 'em!

rhett · 02-04-2011, 07:57 PM

I voted back in 2003 and stand by my Fulci vote more than ever. As I've veered off the beaten path and watched more of his later or maligned work, I respect him even more as an artist. I'd disagree with my man Anaestheus in that Fulci's films were only as good as his crew. He used the TROLL 2 crew for DOOR INTO SILENCE, and even without much gore, violence or nudity, he was still able to create a really exciting, provocative and personal picture that ranks right up there with his more renowned work. I see a lot more of Fulci's personality in his films - Argento's I see more flash but less intrigue. Argento has some amazingly personal and deep pictures, like Tenebre or The Stendhal Syndrome, don't get me wrong, but when you look at the entire body of work - and both have sizable ones, Fulci's to me always come through with a lot more heart. Fulci really wins the battle if you look only at their later careers, since Argento's films seem to be getting worse and worse with each telling, while Fulci put up some of his most interesting stuff, like DOOR or CAT IN THE BRAIN, before kicking the bucket.

Regardless, thank god we have both of 'em!

joltaddict · 02-05-2011, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by latenite

Most everything Fulci did, Argento did and did it better.

Most everything Argento did Lynch did and did it better. When I want dream logic nightmares I usually reach for Eraserhead or El Topo. But when I want Fulchi theres only one place to go.

Dont get me wrong I love Dario, they all get play here, even the more maligned ones like Mother of Tears and Pelts, but Fulchi is fucking Fulchi. I only wish he made more movies. The only one I havent seen is Lizard. And Im kinda putting off seeing that because I know I wont have any more to look forward to.

shithead · 02-06-2011, 02:11 AM

I really can't choose...I enjoy their films equally.

I love the exploitive and grimy nature of Fulci's films, and I love Argento's style and the way he shoots his murder scenes to look like works of fucking art!

DVD-fanatic-9 · 02-06-2011, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joltaddict

Most everything Argento did Lynch did and did it better. When I want dream logic nightmares I usually reach for Eraserhead or El Topo.

Are you saying Lynch's films are better for making no sense? Or, that they're better because they actually make sense?

Anyway, Argento and Lynch are completely incompatable. You say you love Dario but you prefer Lynch. So, this is coming from someone who doesn't like Lynch at all: I love Dario and these guys are nothing alike. Hell, I'm surprised you didn't try to mention De Palma in connection with Argento because those directors have a lot more in common than him and Lynch. (Oh, and... Cronenberg trumps Lynch. And - for me - so do Peter Weir, Bernard Rose, and George Sluizer).

As for Fulci... there's no way to take him seriously. People who try just don't get it. They're expressing more in themselves than anything else. Which can be amusing to read, so I'm not knocking it. Anymore. Though I agree with stephen36 on New York Ripper and want to quote a friend from another message board, it's: "bullshit shitting shit." Absolutely one of the worst films ever made, judging mostly by content and lack of respect for the audience's intelligence.

joltaddict · 02-07-2011, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

Anyway, Argento and Lynch are completely incompatable.

About the same as the quote I was responding to.

View Poll Results: Argento or Fulci?
Dario Argento	130	73.03%
Lucio Fulci	48	26.97%
Voters: 178. You may not vote on this poll

02-04-2011, 07:56 PM	#80
rhett Moderator Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 8,874	I voted back in 2003 and stand by my Fulci vote more than ever. As I've veered off the beaten path and watched more of his later or maligned work, I respect him even more as an artist. I'd disagree with my man Anaestheus in that Fulci's films were only as good as his crew. He used the TROLL 2 crew for DOOR INTO SILENCE, and even without much gore, violence or nudity, he was still able to create a really exciting, provocative and personal picture that ranks right up there with his more renowned work. I see a lot more of Fulci's personality in his films - Argento's I see more flash but less intrigue. Argento has some amazingly personal and deep pictures, like Tenebre or The Stendhal Syndrome, don't get me wrong, but when you look at the entire body of work - and both have sizable ones, Fulci's to me always come through with a lot more heart. Fulci really wins the battle if you look only at their later careers, since Argento's films seem to be getting worse and worse with each telling, while Fulci put up some of his most interesting stuff, like DOOR or CAT IN THE BRAIN, before kicking the bucket. Regardless, thank god we have both of 'em! __________________ "It's a good scream...it's a good scream..."

02-04-2011, 07:57 PM	#81
rhett Moderator Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 8,874	I voted back in 2003 and stand by my Fulci vote more than ever. As I've veered off the beaten path and watched more of his later or maligned work, I respect him even more as an artist. I'd disagree with my man Anaestheus in that Fulci's films were only as good as his crew. He used the TROLL 2 crew for DOOR INTO SILENCE, and even without much gore, violence or nudity, he was still able to create a really exciting, provocative and personal picture that ranks right up there with his more renowned work. I see a lot more of Fulci's personality in his films - Argento's I see more flash but less intrigue. Argento has some amazingly personal and deep pictures, like Tenebre or The Stendhal Syndrome, don't get me wrong, but when you look at the entire body of work - and both have sizable ones, Fulci's to me always come through with a lot more heart. Fulci really wins the battle if you look only at their later careers, since Argento's films seem to be getting worse and worse with each telling, while Fulci put up some of his most interesting stuff, like DOOR or CAT IN THE BRAIN, before kicking the bucket. Regardless, thank god we have both of 'em! __________________ "It's a good scream...it's a good scream..."

02-06-2011, 02:11 AM	#83
shithead Death By Ejaculation Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 2,163	I really can't choose...I enjoy their films equally. I love the exploitive and grimy nature of Fulci's films, and I love Argento's style and the way he shoots his murder scenes to look like works of fucking art! __________________ And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future. My DVDs

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-04-2011, 11:15 AM	#76
stephen36 Screamy Bopper Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Oxford..Uk Posts: 1	Lucio Fulci VS Dario Argento....no contest. I picked Dario Argento because he is one of horror cinemas greatest directors and his list of great movies speak for itself (Suspiria,Deep Red,Tenebrae,Bird with the crystal plumage etc etc). Except for a few films(The Beyond and City of the living dead) Lucio Fulci cannot compete with Argento in terms of greatness...plus Fulci made what is for me the worst horror film ever mde...The New York Ripper.

02-04-2011, 06:45 PM	#79
Anaestheus HackMaster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,031	Apparently I have read this thread many times but never actually voted. For me, Argento wins out. Even considering his recent work, I still find him more interesting. I do think he has gotten pretty lazy over the past decade, but his work up until Stendahl was so solid, original, and unique that I can't help but love him, even if I do acknowledge that he is an acquired taste. Yes, his stories can be full of lunacy, but I think it worked well in his earlier films and, to me, he always pulled them off with bravura. Even his lesser (early) films, such as Flies, Cat, and Trauma are at least solid when they're not brilliant. I will certainly defend Fulci against detractors, but I find him to be a more limited director. Someone once said that he was only as good as what his crew put up in front of the camera. And I have to agree with that. So, his gore films have great gore. But, the acting, pacing, lazy storytelling and sloppy editing drag them down. However, his giallo that had less emphasis on gore, Lizard and Perversion, are pretty damn slick. For me his best film is Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. That seems to be the one film where everything came together nicely. So, while Argento's flaws come from either a feverish sense of imagination in the early years or just plain laziness in the latter, Fulci's flaws seem to come more from a lack of control.