Reading the comments here a lot of people comment on style and imagery. Fact is all of Fulci's movies are poorly shot. The soft focus and lack of lighting doesn't intensify the horror it really obscures it. I'm watching the film right now and what occurs to me is I don't enjoy it. And I didn't like Gates of Hell either. But I'm not a big gore person.
I don't think all the talk about what was originally shot or how it was meant to be seen apply because we have all of Fulci's library to draw on and his style is clear. He was never better than a mediocre director. His pieces didn't turn out and are disappointing because he either didn't have the talent or the craftsmanship to make them better.
I can only watch someone's eye popped out so many times before I start to want something more.
I don't think all the talk about what was originally shot or how it was meant to be seen apply because we have all of Fulci's library to draw on and his style is clear. He was never better than a mediocre director. His pieces didn't turn out and are disappointing because he either didn't have the talent or the craftsmanship to make them better.
I can only watch someone's eye popped out so many times before I start to want something more.
Tell Your Friends