Seven Doors of Death

[Sedated_replica]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
"The Beyond" is a mind fuck and it's meant to be. it's like an abstract waking nightmare.

And it has fantastic atmosphere, stunning cinematography and set design, bizarre plot (but one that works), excellent music and some choice gore and set pieces.

Sure, some FX look dodgy (SPIDERS!) but overall this has some of the best Euro splatter ever seen.
From the nasty as hell chain whipping (that whole opening just DRIPS classy atmospheric horror!) to the truly outstanding, head explosion...this sucker delivers.

Delightfully messy zombies and some auperb visuals (the blind girl on the bridge, the dead taking over the hotel as the lights in each room come on) cap off this CLASSIC slice of Fulci.

CORRECT

bitches!

[The STE]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
(the blind girl on the bridge, the dead taking over the hotel as the lights in each room come on) cap off this CLASSIC slice of Fulci.

Which makes this all the more irritating. As I've said, Fulci is/can be a really good director. He has an eye for great shots. But the movie just doesn't work. Even as a "surreal mind fuck". I can forgive the bad effects, the real problems are in the writing. It's like Sacchetti said "I want this character to be killed by tarantulas...no, NO! I want him to be EATEN ALIVE by tarantulas...but how to get him there...hell with it, I'll just have them show up." Stuff like that and the acting just kills the movie

[42ndStreetFreak]

.hell with it, I'll just have them show up."

I don't see your point.

The whole thing is about supernatural events. Hardly anything is 'solid' and based on reality.
How can you apply logic to what is a supernatural tale?

The zombies appear and dissapear as well. The plans of the house change, the blind girl comes and goes, the bathtub changes from full of grime and a zombie to being clean and empty and spiders appear and then vanish.

A tree attcks a woman in "The Evil Dead". Does that make any sense at all?
No...because it's a supernatural film and as such ANYTHING can happen.

And although this is NOT JUST a gore film, it does indeed have gore set-pieces (like some films have shoot-outs or car chases) and so these set-pices are made to be as OTT and crowd pleasing as possible.

And having a guy (in the middle of a seemingly normal, daylit public space where the very idea of flesh eating spiders is so unexpected! Which is again a GREAT aspect of the scene) having his face eaten by spiders is just that.....OTT and crowd pleasing.

You can't apply logic to one scene when the WHOLE film is full of logic defying supernatural events.
Which is the point of the film anyway.

[Sedated_replica]

Yeah get em'!

[The STE]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
I don't see your point.

The whole thing is about supernatural events. Hardly anything is 'solid' and based on reality.
How can you apply logic to what is a supernatural tale?

The zombies appear and dissapear as well. The plans of the house change, the blind girl comes and goes, the bathtub changes from full of grime and a zombie to being clean and empty and spiders appear and then vanish.

A tree attcks a woman in "The Evil Dead". Does that make any sense at all?
No...because it's a supernatural film and as such ANYTHING can happen.

And although this is NOT JUST a gore film, it does indeed have gore set-pieces (like some films have shoot-outs or car chases) and so these set-pices are made to be as OTT and crowd pleasing as possible.

And having a guy (in the middle of a seemingly normal, daylit public space where the very idea of flesh eating spiders is so unexpected! Which is again a GREAT aspect of the scene) having his face eaten by spiders is just that.....OTT and crowd pleasing.

You can't apply logic to one scene when the WHOLE film is full of logic defying supernatural events.
Which is the point of the film anyway.

There has to be SOME kind of set of rules. If just anything can happen then it takes away from it. I'm not asking it to be a realistic, serious horror. We've got Open Water for that. All I'm asking is that they give their omnipotent evil some abilities, some restrictions, and stick to them. Because if it can just do whatever it wants and make anything appear, then the movie isn't nearly as interesting. It could just kill anybody any time, and it's apparently really stupid because it DOESN'T kill all the people who will/could get in its way. It makes tarantulas appear. Why? Why tarantulas? Why then and not earlier? Why doesn't it sic latex-eating tarantulas on the main girl? Or the Henry Fonda/Sean Bean hybrid main guy? Why doesn't it use something that kills the person a bit more effectively? Like one of those big snakes? This has nothing to do with the evil's abilities, but why does the guy just lay there? It's been a little while, so I can't remember if he was knocked out, cause I seem to remember him seeing the tarantulas. Why hasn't anything happened until now? Why does it take so long to fulfil its plan? Why does it make people go blind?

The tree rape made perfect sense in the context of the movie. The disembodied force had taken control (or posessed, whatever) the forest when the tape was played. It could control the trees. It had the trees rape the girl, which probably had something to do with her getting posessed. The Evil couldn't just do whatever it wanted whenever it wanted. That would have ruined the movie.

[The STE]

Originally posted by Sedated_replica
Yeah get em'!

you seem to be taking this very personally

[Sedated_replica]

Originally posted by The STE
you seem to be taking this very personally

You hurt my feeling's..... [tear] :( .

No I thought you would like the movie. I personally don't think it was fair about how much you hated it. I agree with you a lot of times but I think you were being alittle harsh too a decent movie.

[The STE]

Originally posted by Sedated_replica
You hurt my feeling's..... [tear] :( .

No I thought you would like the movie. I personally don't think it was fair about how much you hated it. I agree with you a lot of times but I think you were being alittle harsh too a decent movie.

If it were all the way bad, it would have been decent. Like I said, the thing that makes me really dislike the movie is that it shows signs of real talent from Fulci. He has a good eye, and it shows. He could have made a movie that was a LOT better than this. I'm not saying he should've just made regular type "legit" movies. But he could have. And it's the fact that the movie could have been a lot better that makes it so bad. Has nothing to do with the talent involved or the budget or any of that. Even a movie with a great director and a great cast can suck etc. I know all that. But this movie shows signs that this movie could have been better regardless of who was involved, and THAT'S why I'm so hard on it. If it showed no signs that it could have been any better, I would probably have given it a little higher of a rating.



And no, I don't hate it. You will never see me say that I hate a movie except North. I love movies, and no matter how much I may dislike a movie, I still have a little tiny spot in my heart for it, just like I do for every other movie ever made. I do not like Seven Doors of Death. I gave it about 1/5, if that, and probably won't watch it except when I review it for my upcoming (?) site. I just plain don't like it. But I love it nonetheless. I don't hate ANY movie. Except North.

[Sedated_replica]

Originally posted by The STE
I don't hate ANY movie. Except North.

You don't hate Any movie besides North. I hate fuckin' TONS of movies! Like the TCM remake

[The STE]

Originally posted by Sedated_replica
You don't hate Any movie besides North. I hate fuckin' TONS of movies! Like the TCM remake

Oh, I don't like tons of movies. I agree that the TCM remake was a horrible, horrible movie. It was just this awful, shitty movie. But I don't hate it. I love movies too much to hate any of them. Except, as I said, North.