Seven Doors of Death

[EXTR3MIST]

There has to be SOME kind of set of rules. If just anything can happen then it takes away from it

Not necessarily -

With Lucio Fulci's films in particular, he asks the viewer to make a leap of faith in trusting his stories not to be incoherent or nonsensical - you can tell they are crafted with such love that you will put logic aside for 90 minutes and just go along for the ride.

From personal experience, this does not come easy - renting some of his (albeit BBFC censored) movies as a teenager I didn't like them at all; something to do with shoddy acting/dubbing and random plotting didn't make me feel very clever when watching them.

However, as time goes by and the more skillfully acted, tightly plotted, downright boring commercial movies have come and gone from my viewing schedule, going back to the likes of The Beyond and City of the Living Dead brings back the childlike appreciation of horror that makes Fulci's movies so special.

Fulci's stories do play by rules - his own. Just accepting the frequent lapses in logic are not down to laziness but rather over enthusiasm is a good start - but I think too many viewers treat "daft" scenes as insulting to their intelligence and to this end Lucio is never going to be a favourite.

[The STE]

But if there are no rules in the movie then it doesn't matter what happens in it. And if the point is just to have cool deaths, then have cool deaths. The deaths in the movie either go on forever or are lame and predictable. And almost all of them are contrived. The spiders, the conveniently placed acid, the fall from the improbably wide scaffolding, the super-predictable dog attack. They all suck.

They don't even say WHAT the omnipotent evil is. It's just that something is making this happen. Okay, something's doing it. What? It's the kind of thing you can't keep from the audience. Just give me something. Even if it's lame, just give me SOMETHING.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by The STE
But if there are no rules in the movie then it doesn't matter what happens in it. And if the point is just to have cool deaths, then have cool deaths. The deaths in the movie either go on forever or are lame and predictable. And almost all of them are contrived. The spiders, the conveniently placed acid, the fall from the improbably wide scaffolding, the super-predictable dog attack. They all suck.

They don't even say WHAT the omnipotent evil is. It's just that something is making this happen. Okay, something's doing it. What? It's the kind of thing you can't keep from the audience. Just give me something. Even if it's lame, just give me SOMETHING.

actually the acid wasnt conveniently placed at all .. it was quite a distance away .. that scene drove me nuts.

Fulchi had a limited budget ,, he had some ideas to do some fun little kills so he shot them and losely wove them together with this doorway to hell idea. - at least thats what it looked like to me.

to me it felt like a high budget student film .. a bunch of ideas thrown together. Its easy to go back and say 'its not supposed to make any sense'
I bet the guys that made Ishtar would like to use that excuse.
"it wasn't supposed to be funny'

I can appreciate that there is some nice camera work, some good lighting, etc .. but the whole tossed salad approach didnt work for me at all.

and the thing is .. i like surreal abstract films .. i just didnt get any sense of the atmosphere in this film that most people rave about.

i get the impression that the reason people praise this film so much .. is the little girl getting her head blown off .. its the one constant people keep mentioning in all of the fan sites as the coolest thing in the film.

[42ndStreetFreak]

Then again I guess you get the wrong 'impression' or are simply saying people think like you.

There have been numerous reasons mentioned for why people like this film.
NUMEROUS reasons...and reasons that have been backed up.

In a film that has 'gore scenes' as a big (but not ONLY) part of it's make-up then these scenes are important and if they are good they get praised. And the gilrs head scene IS good. Very good.

but is that the only reason people like this film? No, and I have seen NO ONE on here make such a statement. It's simply been mentioned as one of the many positives in the film.

Just as any fan of "Scanners" will mention ITS head explosion.

Just as any fan of "Dawn of the Dead" mentions ITS head explosion.

Just as any fan of "Day of the Dead" will mention Rhodes being ripped in half.

And just like "The Beyond"....they are all valid strengths and highlights to mention.
BUT just like "The Beyond", they are not the ONLY reasons why people like these films.

[The STE]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
Just as any fan of "Dawn of the Dead" mentions ITS head explosion.

I don't

actually the acid wasnt conveniently placed at all .. it was quite a distance away ..

I meant conveniently placed so that it would spill all over her head. Isn't that the kind of thing you DON'T put in places like that? And if it was quite a distance away then it's convenient that she went all that distance in her state of panic or whatever right to the vat of easily spilled acid

[42ndStreetFreak]

Originally posted by The STE
I don't

Really. Well the example still works otherwise you would have quoted the other 2 examples as well.

And as good as every discussion about "Day of the Dead" i have seen goes on about the FX and especially Rhode's death.
I guess that's the only reason anyone bothers to watch "day of the Dead" as well. :rolleyes:

Like i said, ALL gory films have their gory scenes highlighted and if well done they are much liked and talked about.
So this is a non-arguement as far as "The Beyond" goes.

And just because they are mentioned does not prove that they are the ONLY reason people like the film.
And i have yet to read anything that says the opposite.

[The STE]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
Really. Well the example still works otherwise you would have quoted the other 2 examples as well.

I'm not a fan of Day of the Dead and all I've seen from Scanners is the head exploding

[urgeok]

Originally posted by The STE
I'm not a fan of Day of the Dead and all I've seen from Scanners is the head exploding

it would be tough for me to reccomend Scanners to just anyone ...
I like it - i saw it when it was new .. vintage cronenberg .. but fans of horror today might find it a bit off. the lead is pretty wooden .. he wasnt really an actor - he was a visual artist.
Somehow - for me - the less than polished performances in cronenbergs earlier films make them work .. make them seem more real. (especially Shivers)

he was the ultimate 70's horror film maker for me ..gritty and creepy.

i guess i'm saying .. check it out ... just prepare yourself for a less than polished look and feel..
(again, this is why i like it)

[EXTR3MIST]

There's a lot of talk about seeking meaning and consistency in Fulci's films... but where does it stop?

If one scene is explained away and grudgingly accepted by detractors, they will inevitably pick fault with another.

It is a troublesome approach to indulging in 1970's/80's exploitation - if you are likely to praise, say, The Last House on the Left or I Spit on Your Grave for their "gritty realism", but are unable to accept The Beyond's world of fantastic scenarios and stretched logic then perhaps a really good drama with nasty bits is all you're after.

I think there are essentially two camps - those who don't like Fulci's refusal (or inability) to pander to his audience's logical expectations, and those who see this trait as a virtue and put it all down to wonderful over enthusiasm.

[The STE]

Originally posted by EXTR3MIST
There's a lot of talk about seeking meaning and consistency in Fulci's films... but where does it stop?

If one scene is explained away and grudgingly accepted by detractors, they will inevitably pick fault with another.

It is a troublesome approach to indulging in 1970's/80's exploitation - if you are likely to praise, say, The Last House on the Left or I Spit on Your Grave for their "gritty realism", but are unable to accept The Beyond's world of fantastic scenarios and stretched logic then perhaps a really good drama with nasty bits is all you're after.

I think there are essentially two camps - those who don't like Fulci's refusal (or inability) to pander to his audience's logical expectations, and those who see this trait as a virtue and put it all down to wonderful over enthusiasm.

You can't narrow it down to two camps. I'm fully willing to accept this, but only if it's done well. In The Beyond it wasn't.