My Reviews of Italian Films
My respect for Italian cinema is low. It is actually even lower than for Spanish cinema. Having read many movie bios and the like, I'd learned that Italians approach movie-making with not nearly as much zeal and hard work as they approach making pasta, or shoes. Nowhere near. Their film-crews are notoriously unmotivated, their writers undisciplined, their producers make large sums of cash mysteriously disappear, and the less said about the synchronization of actors the better. The acting is usually garbage too, the special effects laughable. All-round amateurishness: the horror films, I mean.
Then there's Pasolini and Fellini with their pretentious dribble. So really, not much there.
Speaking of dribble, just so you don't think I'm being anti-Italian or too critical, consider the fact that I always root for them at the FIFA World Cups. (It's football, not "soccer".) Perhaps not in Qatar (they failed to qualify, despite winning the Euro in 2021 in glorious fashion by defeating the English), but when they're there, they are my top team to win. So no, I am definitely not anti-Italian. But their movies stink, that's just a fact...
Some of these reviews are quite old, perhaps as much as 15-16 years, so I can't really vouch for them representing my current opinions on the movies in question.
There are SPOILERS in most of the texts.
Listed in no particular order, except that all the latest additions will be placed on top.
Then there's Pasolini and Fellini with their pretentious dribble. So really, not much there.
Speaking of dribble, just so you don't think I'm being anti-Italian or too critical, consider the fact that I always root for them at the FIFA World Cups. (It's football, not "soccer".) Perhaps not in Qatar (they failed to qualify, despite winning the Euro in 2021 in glorious fashion by defeating the English), but when they're there, they are my top team to win. So no, I am definitely not anti-Italian. But their movies stink, that's just a fact...
Some of these reviews are quite old, perhaps as much as 15-16 years, so I can't really vouch for them representing my current opinions on the movies in question.
There are SPOILERS in most of the texts.
Listed in no particular order, except that all the latest additions will be placed on top.
List activity
283 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
37 titles
- DirectorDario ArgentoStarsLeigh McCloskeyIrene MiracleEleonora GiorgiAn American student investigates the disappearance of his sister and the death of a friend, both connected from New York to Rome by an old alchemy book.5/10
"My name is Varelli, and this is the slow and confusing story of the Three Mothers: one who lives in Germany, one in the States, and one in Italy. The Mother Of All Pretentious Movies (whose son is Wim Wenders), the Mother Of All Bad Political Propaganda Films (whose evil brood are Michael Moore and Oliver Stone), and last but not least the Mother Of All Silly Italian Horror Films, from whose left rib sprang into existence the master-brat Dario Argento." The Grand-Master Of Horror, my foot...
SPOILERS
This endlessly creepy and mind-bogglingly frightening horror film features terrifying creatures such as... rodents and kitties. In the Grand Meaningless Finale, which I assure you will have everyone trembling in fear, it features none other than Death itself, played by... a skeleton stolen from a high-school science lab. What this "Death" character, aka the Three Witches (also known as the Three Mothers, the Three Sisters, and the Three Aunts Of Absurd Logic) really wanted - is anyone's guess. Does even Argento have a clue? "Inferno" is the kind of movie that plods along, mostly slowly and always without rhyme or reason. Things happen, people get curious and people get killed. In the meantime, we never really get even the slightest hints as to what these "witches" are all about, why they exist, and why they chose Freiburg (of all places!), New York, and Rome (apparently, one of the Three Mothers doesn't much care for living in a fashion capital, the other two might). Argento makes movies the way De Palma writes thrillers: i.e. with approximately zero point zero interest in creating any kind of logic or having any kind of acceptable story continuity. Dario only cares about images, as if he were retarded or something, as if writing even a semi-comprehensible, semi-structured horror film were THAT difficult.
The New York witch is supposed to be the "youngest and the cruelest", so why does she look 15 years older than the one in Rome? (Argento is so confused and disorganized that he can't even get the basic stuff right!) The New York witch turns out to be neither young nor cruel - I think she's just a pyromaniac at heart, and that has less to do with cruelty and more with illogic and silliness.
So what conclusion can we make from the minimal information we'd been given? When someone finds The Book and tries to locate the keys (what are they for??), they will inevitably die - if they are in Freiburg or Rome, that is. If they're in New York, however (where the "cruelest" witch lives), there will be a failed attempt at his life which involves burning down one's own entire witch's coven, during which a silly skeleton impersonating Mr.Death will emerge from the pyro-show to greet New York's firefighters with a resounding "boo!". And THAT was meant to be the much-touted "inferno" that the movie's title promises us? A little fire in a New York hotel?...
Visually, the movie has its moments. The soundtrack, on the other hand, is out of control. Playing Verdi's arias over a typical horror scene is almost tantamount to playing hip-hop over a costume drama. As for the casting, Argento clearly doesn't care whether his "actors" can act or not (hence perhaps why he jump-started his talentless daughter's acting career by casting her in his other dumb movies). The blonde guy in the lead in fact looks like a 70s porn actor who'd been given a generous shot at a "proper movie" role. The irony here is that even the most basic porn film has a more intelligent plot-line than "Inferno". But I can't really blame this guy for being so awful in the main role, even if he'd been a real actor (a real actor - and not something Argento found in an Actors' Discount Bin at the local supermarket). The role of Mark is so boringly written, he practically had no other choice than play it in such a lifeless, dull manner. A fellow student gets brutally slayed, and yet Mark reacts to this with the emotionalism of a slumbering zombie. He realizes his sister is missing, but he reacts to this with... well, he doesn't react at all: he goes on a vague search for her, instead of calling the cops or at least showing a smidgen of an emotion, so that we the viewers can at least imagine that he actually cares about his sister or his confusing mission.
Dario is a vegan, for those who don't know. This pretty much explains everything. Perhaps the lack of protein to the brain leads to scripts like these?
My more recent review:
A very decent movie - for Argento's low standards. Visually very nice at times, but the nonsense keeps piling up, and some of it was so easy to avoid.
Here's some of the nonsense, roughly chronological:
SPOILERS
1. Rose is diving into a cellar, but she takes her time to study the keys – while underwater, with no oxygen bottle.
2. None of the numerous students in the lecture hall notice that a strong wind is suddenly blowing indoors. Verdi’s “Nabucco” is good but surely not THAT good.
3. Why does Sarah get to access the book about the three witches in the library? If witches don’t want anyone reading it, then what’s it doing there in the first place? Or are we to actually believe that the librarian knows it’s there yet these “powerful” witches don’t?
4. After Sarah gets stabbed, the sports journalist for some reason claws onto Sarah, almost as if attacking her like a zombie.
5. When the blond American finishes talking to his sister, we are moved from Rome to NY, and we get the STOOPID caption “that same night in NY”. Well, of course it’s the same night, we just heard her talking on the phone to her brother in Rome. This is some serious Ed Wood film-making right here.
6. The three witches are supposedly so powerful, yet they send knifed assassins to kill people? Don’t “powerful witches” cast spells? Can’t they ever use magic to do away with enemies? (Admittedly, at the end they do use magic, but only to burn down their own building, which makes no sense whatsoever.)
7. When several intruders start hunting down Rose, in one scene she tends to walk as opposed to run, as if she’s used to intruders, as if they’re just a mild nuisance.
8. The slapstick with the crippled man and the cats who harass him is… slapstick. And if Argento actually thought that we wouldn’t root for the cats then he was crazy. Of course the cats are the good guys, always.
On a side-note, Italian film-makers were notorious for mistreating animals during shooting, so I’m hoping Argento didn’t injure any cats shown here, otherwise he’s evil incarnate as well as quite incompetent.
9. The cripple gets attacked by rats, which is when he starts shouting “they’re eating me alive” over and over, which certainly doesn’t seem like something a person would shout in such a situation. Nor do we, the audience, need the plot explained to us in such inane detail… It’s pretty obvious the rats are munching on him, no need for the rat victim to be explaining this to us...
10. For some bizarre reason, the guy with the knife doesn’t save him but kills him. Wut?
11. Far from being scary or morbid, the rat attack scene was quite cute. There were even a few of them cleaning themselves up. About as scary as the cats i.e. not at all.
12. A movie about “three powerful witches” with very little magic, and almost no witches at all. Because these “witches” basically hired goons to cut up their victims, Argento basically ended up with a slasher film. The majority of it is just a slasher thriller with a very thin, vague plot.
13. Speaking of slasher films and thrillers, things get decidedly confusing – and especially stupid – when in the last third it turns out that some of the killings have nothing to do with witches but some random woman-and-fake-butler duo, who rob and kill women in the NY building. This is really muddled, because why would we have this strange crime-thriller sub-plot within a supernatural witchery horror film? Nor is it clear how come the fake butler doesn’t know that his female pal had killed the “countess”: didn’t they plan this thing together? Another question begs itself: just what the hell was going on all along? Were Rose and that other woman killed by witches or the crime duo?
Typical argentian nonsense.
14. The “Grim Reaper” must have been stolen from a biology lab. Perhaps Asia took one home from school? That scene was ruined by the least scary skeleton ever. It is as white as a fake Hollywood smile.
15. Nor is the ending clear. What exactly do the three witches gain by destroying one of their own residences? They only kill a few people in the fire, if that. Nothing here makes any sense. The witch that gives a speech seems very pleased with herself, despite failing to do anything especially evil. Even Rose's brother manages to get away. So what's she so happy about? These witches seem to be content with very little success... - DirectorDario ArgentoStarsJessica HarperStefania CasiniFlavio BucciAn American newcomer to a prestigious German ballet academy comes to realize that the school is a front for something sinister amid a series of grisly murders.5/10
It's been 33 years since I first watched this. I remembered it as an average movie, but decided it's about time to find out what all the hoopla is about: is it really justified hoopla i.e. Did I miss something or is it the usual braindead Argentoopla.
It's definitely just Argentoopla. What a goofy little film.
There is nothing scary about it, mildly eerie at best, least of all that first stabbing in which an arm stretches from beyond the screen in a way that's borderline amateur. Argento has been making stupid directorial decisions throughout his career, so this comes as no surprise.
But let's start with the eccentric soundtrack, which is often unsuitable because this isn't an eccentric movie. It isn't even proper horror music, it's some experimental jazzy crap more fitting for some low-budget cult drama. For example, the scene with the falling worms: the music suddenly kicks in, and the effect is more comical than mood-enhancing. Nor do I get chills listening to an Italian guy whisper-sing "la la la la la la". That's not eerie, it's just silly. Italian film-makers and their bloody silly lalalalalas... Perhaps this movie started it.
When Harper arrives in Freiburg, as she exits the airport and enters a cab, bizarro music accompanies her - despite the fact that nothing weird or unusual is happening. A woman leaves the airport and enters a cab: what the hell is horrific about that? The bad weather? You can't just play "horror music" willy-nilly in any random scene just because it's a bit windy, it needs to make sense.
In some scenes the music is applied well, so it's not an all-encompassing problem. But even if the music were always spot-on, what great difference would it make... It's a silly film with an underdeveloped plot. There is no rhyme nor reason to why things happen. They just do. It's an Argento movie! Only after 70 minutes do we finally get the first bits of information about one of the witches. Until then it's almost like random BS.
We find out that "witches want to accumulate great wealth at the expense of others, which they do with their great knowledge of the occult powers". This makes little sense, because with such powers these witches should have been billionaires by the time this plot starts. They should have been wielding power to control nations. Owning just one dance school doesn't seem like they'd accumulated much of anything since the early 19th century, which is when the background story commenced. Killing random people who work for the school seems counter-productive rather than constructive. Not that I expect your average Horror Joe to notice this type of nonsense in a dumb horror film...
The casting is also poor, an Argento standard. Jessica Harper, a typical elitist actress (stems from an upper-class clan that has its tentacles spread all across show-biz and industry), is unattractive, unappealing, boring and weak. I wouldn't give her a lead in a school play, even if she begged me. The young Italian actresses are not much better either. There's something wrong when one of the middle-aged women looks better than all the young ones.
The dialog between the girls, for example in the changing room, is straight out of a cheap American 80s cheerleaders comedy. Embarrassing. The dialog is further degraded through the use of dubbing. You know, the usual Italo-European malarkey: an American actor speaks in English, then an Italian actor replies some gibberish in Italian, then another actor says something in German - and all of this is later synchronized, and not necessarily by the same actors, and often by voices that don't even suit the actors' appearances. It's a very messy and dilettante way of making movies, but Italian cinema had been immersed in this and other types of chaos for many decades before finally turning halfway professional relatively recently... (Or did they? I only know their older movies.)
Logic isn't a strong suit of Argento's, to put it mildly, which is why we have the witches causing death and destruction within their own premises, attracting the unwanted attention of the local police. Surely, these 500 year-old demon-skanks are smarter than that? Even feeble-minded serial-killers know the cardinal rule: don't make corpses close to the base, do it elsewhere. Then, when a detective overhears that Harper has some information as a witness pertaining to the murder of the student, the detective doesn't stop her for further questioning but instead let's her continue going up the stairs as if giving testimony as a witness in a murder investigation is just a minor off-the-cuff thing! As if her testimony were irrelevant, uninteresting to the Italian cops. But this kind of nonsense is so typical of not only Dario but Gallo films in general. These flicks are dumb, and whoever takes them seriously, to the extent of even praising them as artsy, is insane.
Some side-characters scream of B-movie cheese. For example, the Frankenstein-like half-mutant butler Pablos, or whatever the hell he is. I expect such unsubtle touches in a parody of a horror film, not in a horror film itself. The scene when the blind piano player is kicked out belongs in a comedy. All this goofy stuff doesn't help the atmosphere, it is detrimental to it.
Argento never had a clue what he was doing. He is a conman. He has a certain aesthetic sense, but that's the whole extent of his abilities. His writing is garbage, his direction is often laughable, and he doesn't understand the application of music to horror.
Sure, the cinematography is rather nice, what with all the starkly coloured interiors, but the editing can be clumsy on occasion, and the murder scenes are barely average, they're mostly ineffective.
After Harper's friend gets killed, Harper is lied to that the murdered girl left the school of her own free will. Harper doesn't believe this, but why not? We the audience witnessed her murder, not Harper. So why would she suspect foul play? From her perspective it would make perfect sense for her friend to have left because she'd been so spooked and frightened by several things.
To Argento a script is there just as an excuse to finally start making a movie, it is not the BASIS of a movie, not its foundation, which is why his writing is so bad, or average at best. He treats scripts like cow-turds, like a necessary evil to be scribbled up in a rush, he could care less what's in it or how tight it is. He just needs an excuse to film "eerie flashy scenes", he is only focused on "creating art", without ever realizing that no amount of stylishness can make up for big flaws in a story. But this is generally a European problem, not just an Italian one, this annoying tendency for directors to not be working with fleshed-out solid scripts, or even usable ones, but focusing only on the camera and on what they can do with it. - DirectorPier Paolo PasoliniStarsPaolo BonacelliGiorgio CataldiUberto Paolo QuintavalleIn World War II Italy, four fascist libertines round up nine adolescent boys and girls and subject them to 120 days of physical, mental, and sexual torture.Wallowing in one's own degeneracy... Certain factions consider this art.
1/10
Pasolini's most notorious film, and that's saying just about everything. If you enjoy devious sexual behaviour (including rape), excrement, genital torture, sexual degradation, and other moronic perversions for sociopathic thrill-seekers, you'll absolutely love this piece of garbage.
Yet, even psychotic pervies might be somewhat disappointed: the film is made in such a way as to be highly tedious. Its rhythm is pure monotony: perversion, long speech, perversion, long speech, perversion, and so on... Some people (won't mention any names hipsters and political extremists) consider this artistic. In a way I have to agree: it is high art when you actually manage to present all this shock-schlock in a way that is extremely boring. That takes some talent, or anti-talent. (Talent... anti-talent... to many people the two are indistinguishable.)
Pasolini set this collection of depravities in WWII Fascist Italy, so this cretinous "story" is supposed to be some sort of a hoity-toity metaphor for how immoral extreme right-wing regimes are - as well as being base and vulgar to the extreme. Anybody fooled by this cheesy con has only themselves to blame; this is very obviously just a bad excuse to indulge in everything which Pasolini himself (secretly) loved.
And anyway, how hypocritical of this self-declared Marxist to "expose" the brutality of a right-wing dictatorship - while supporting Communist tyrannies of the worst kind. In other words, it's not about whether you create corpses but WHY you do it. I am pretty sure he wasn't too bothered with concentration camps - since he didn't seem to mind Soviet gulags or Mao's Great Leap Forward (which killed 40-50 million people). Sociopaths just don't care, though they love to PRETEND they care, just for the image and the glory of virtue-signaling profiteering.
Pasolini is just another hypocrite with absolutely nothing remotely intelligent to convey. Has anybody ever seen a film of his that has a real point? I mean, without the benefit of shrooms.
Another thing: Pasolini loved hiring amateur actors (to cut on expenses?), so as per usual you can expect some horrible acting - especially from the youths playing the (sex-)slaves. - DirectorAndrea BianchiStarsKarin WellGianluigi ChirizziSimone MattioliAn archaeology professor discovers an ancient crypt which contains living dead corpses. The zombies go on a rampage and attack a group of people which the professor had invited to celebrate his discovery.Groping mutants and cunning zombies. It's all there.
4/10
Plenty of nonsense in this typical Giallo film.
1. A "kid" played by an actor who looks like a shrunken version of John Steadman - with a wig. This alone guarantees bundles of cheesy fun. An insane piece of casting if there ever was one. Giallo personified.
2. That "kid" looks older than the actress playing his mother.
3. Zombies attack the villa's inhabitants one by one, yet no matter how much a person screams when attacked, somehow no-one hears them or comes to their aid for quite a while.
4. "This is some kind of a joke!" says one human. Same thing I said when I saw the zombies.
5. Zombie purists, be forewarned: the zombies are slow, but they use tools and even climb walls of buildings. I was half-expecting them to do somersaults and recite Shakespeare.
6. Three couples are staying in the villa, all in their 30s and 40s, yet they have a bigger sex-drive than all dumb teens in slasher flicks combined. They're at it constantly - or at least until the zombies start attacking them which is when the sex-starved humans are forced to stop the boinking. Well, except the "kid"; more on that later.
7. The soundtrack is quite good. The acting is 90% Giallo (that is to say amateur), 10% dilettante (which, yes, is pretty much the same as amateur and Giallo). 100% amateur is what I'm saying, in a roundabout way.
8. The way the women moan while running away from zombies, I can't quite tell whether they're frightened or experiencing sexual highs. I wouldn't be too surprised if some of these gals did blue movies on the side, when they're not being cast in dumb Giallo films. (Or is Giallo what they do on the side when not doing that blue stuff?)
9. The blonde gets her foot caught in an animal trap - on the villa's walking grounds! Wut? Why? Have zombies become trappers, or is this standard practice in Italian villas - to set animal traps around their buildings?
10. The "child" runs away from zombie danger with his mother - then proceeds to French-kiss her and fondle her thighs and grope her breasts! She slaps him, and he storms off angry. Yes, you read that right. The poor actress (a good-looking woman), having to kiss and be groped by an effeminate, bizarre-looking mutant dwarf. They can't have paid her enough for that scene. Maybe she does meedget blue films on the side.
11. The first time ever that a character in a zombie flick makes the observation: "They're so slow!" It was about time.
12. You think it can't get any dumber than all of the above? Of course it can - and it does: it's a bloody Giallo flick! The zombies actually DRESS UP as monks, tricking a human that way, luring him into a trap. Cunning zombies? Well, certainly smarter than the writer.
No, this was NOT intended as a comedy. It's Giallo: unintentional farce. As per usual. - DirectorMario BavaStarsMichèle MercierLidia AlfonsiBoris KarloffBoris Karloff hosts a trio of horror stories concerning a stalked call girl, a vampire-like monster who preys on his family, and a nurse who is haunted by her ring's rightful owner.5/10
Three stories, with a downward sloping curve as far as effectiveness is concerned. The first one is solid, about a ring taken from a corpse's finger. The second one, about dire phone calls, is okay, with quite a pointless ending. Another problem with this story is the jazzy soundtrack; when will Italian directors get it through their spaghetti heads that jazz isn't suitable for horror films?
The last, and unfortunately longest story - about "vurdlacks" - is tedious and with an even more pointless ending than the previous story; one by one the characters are turned into vurdlacks, until the last one is a vurdlack, and then a horse realizes that he is now surrounded by them and scarpers. What's the bloody point of this? That horses are smarter than people and know when to bugger off from a dangerous situation?
Still, in spite of mediocre writing, the film's visuals are quite good, and the first and third stories are quite atmospheric. - DirectorLamberto BavaStarsUrbano BarberiniNatasha HoveyKarl ZinnyA group of random people are invited to a screening of a mysterious movie, only to find themselves trapped in the theater with ravenous demons.Dario Argento and Bava Jr Present: Italian Horror Amateur-Hour Productions.
5/10
A film projection in a cinema turns into a zombie abattoir. Sounds good in theory but in the hands of Giallolilians it just ends up as another dumb Italian con-job with amateur actors, lousy dialog, boring characters and plenty of close-up ketchup gore. A bad heavy metal score doesn't help either. I liked this movie a lot more when I was young and dumb.
A good premise pooped on by cretinous cardboard characters, cartoonish dialog, shoddy acting, cheesy 80s rock music, and the usual Argentonian total disregard for logic. Yes, Argento treats his audiences like trash, like imbeciles. Either that or he doesn't have one logical brain-cell in his weird-looking head. Constructing a script, even a simplistic horror story, takes effort and time, neither of which Argento had ever been interested in investing. He likes to look artistic (disheveled hair, bizarre zombie appearance) i.e. he invests just as little energy into his scripts as he does in his appearance.
I don't expect Pacino or Caine levels of acting in a stupid Italo-horror, or Mike Leigh-like characterization, of course not. But how about a minimum of effort? The credits say that 4 people wrote the script, which begs the question: were they little children? Zombie children? I mean Argento and three children that he randomly picked from a local kindergarten. I could have written better characters and dialog while swimming away from a school of sharks in the middle of an ocean. Do you really need the joint (non-)efforts of four people to come up with silly crap such as this?
While the premise is admittedly cute, it relies on the coincidence of one of the cinema-goers putting on the demonic mask and infecting themselves. So the demons were basically like, "OK, let's get them all to a movie projection, and then HOPE that one of them puts the mask on." Not exactly a given that somebody would put it on, is it?
"What if none of them do?" asks a more intelligent demon. (This one isn't a big fan of Argento and his illogical films, obviously.)
"In that case we wait for the next projection. Or, dunno, we just attack them randomly as they leave the exits?"
Giallo horror films are notorious for their sloppiness on nearly all levels: from the script, the dialog, the acting, the cast, the music, nearly always they manage to get everything wrong. There are good reasons why Americans, the French and the Japanese are much better at making these types of films: they have a much more professional attitude toward film-making, whereas Italians are notorious for going over-budget, for slacking, i.e. refusing to work one single second overtime.
The special effects aren't that special either. They were special in 1985, maybe, but are so dated now. See, that's where good dialog and a good script help: because if your gore dates, then you have those qualities to fall back on. And that's why Italian horror films date so badly: they only have the gore - which isn't that gory anymore. And when you take that away, what do they have? Just one big amateur pile of dung. So-bad-it's-good? Not far from it.
I've always considered Argento hugely overrated. His thrillers don't have an ounce of logic (OK, they're thrillers, American ones aren't that much better), and his horror films are just too sloppy. He must be the anti-Kubrick, an anti-perfectionist. If this guy worked in a kitchen he'd serve microwave-heated slop to all his customers but pretend he was making artistic 5-star-restaurant dishes. Of course, there'd be the usual minority who'd consider the slop excellent food, simply because they don't know any better. - DirectorLucio FulciStarsCatriona MacCollDavid WarbeckCinzia MonrealeA young woman inherits an old hotel in Louisiana where, following a series of supernatural "accidents", she learns that the building was built over one of the entrances to Hell.For a Giallo film, this average movie is a masterpiece.
5/10
Those strange Italians: they only ever make horror films with zombie demons and witches. Space aliens invading human bodies? Nope. Vampires? Not really. Boogeyman flicks? No. Ouija board films? No. Unique ground-breaking horror stories with great plot-twists? Get the hell outta here! Just zombies and witches.
And plenty of extreme close-ups of the "gore" that end up making the movie look like an instruction manual on how to put on ketchup and fake spiders on a doll victim of a zombie attack: perhaps useful to film students specializing in Splatter Gore, but pretty useless to discerning viewers.
Like most silly Gallo flicks, this one too has only a very basic, very thin story that just serves as a flimsy excuse to string a bunch of gory scenes together. There's no rhyme or reason here. For example, a plumber gets viciously butchered in the hotel, yet there's no cops making inquiries, asking the owner questions - absolutely zip. As a result, the new owner doesn't find out anything. People drop like flies, yet nobody seems to notice - or give a damn. Certainly not the authorities. Things just kinda... happen: Italian movie logic at its finest.
In order for a horror film to be scary, the viewer needs to believe it. But how do you suspend your disbelief when everyone is dubbed like cretins? That right there neutralizes any potentially good dialog. Not that I'm implying there IS any good dialog in Gallo flicks - that's extremely rare: dialog, acting and characterization are notoriously abysmal. All that seems to matter to Argento, Fulci and other overrated clowns is how you present the gore - making sure the viewer sees every last drop of ketchup, and every single wriggly worm.
Other things you need in order to scare the viewers: a plot that makes half-way sense. You can't just jump from scene to scene, ignoring basic logic, ignoring how human society works, ignoring the most basic unwritten and written rules about human behaviour. Well, you can if you're more obsessed with showing maggots crawl out of ears and spiders piercing tongues than actually developing an interesting story that - dare I say - flows. That's why Gallo flicks usually have zero suspense. How can you be thrilled when there is no discipline in the script?
You also a need a SUITABLE soundtrack. Poppy fusion jazz may be nice music, but it has no place in a scene in which a demon (or a bunch of tarantulas) sadistically butcher humans. That kind of score diminishes the effect of gore, if anything, certainly doesn't do anything to enhance the atmosphere.
And yet, this one is one of the better Gallo flicks! The acting isn't atrocious, the dialog is merely mediocre (as opposed to rubbish), and the logic is almost water-tight compared to the typical Italian horror flick. Certainly compared to a braindead Argento thriller.
Italians really need to invent the boom. Actors don't need to be dubbed. This may come as a surprise to Italian film-makers but actors do have their own voices. They aren't mutes. Nor do they have usually high-pitched squeaky voices that need dubbing to protect the audiences' ears. - DirectorPupi AvatiStarsLino CapolicchioFrancesca MarcianoGianni CavinaStefano, a young restorer, is commissioned to save a controversial mural located in the church of a small, isolated village.OK - for a Giallo film.
4/10
Visually solid with a somewhat eccentric atmosphere - or one could simply say that this is yet another silly Gallo flick, hence eccentric and silly could very well be considered synonyms in this context.
The mystery is interesting enough in the first half but the resolution is typically Gallo in its shameless pursuit of nonsense: predictable, unscary, not quite logical and goofy.
The acting however is overall better than one normally gets in Gallo flicks infamous for their amateur, one-dimensional, over-dubbed actors. - DirectorMichele SoaviStarsHugh QuarshieTomas AranaFeodor Chaliapin Jr.An old Gothic cathedral built over a mass grave develops strange powers that trap a number of people inside with ghosts from a 12th Century massacre seeking to resurrect an ancient demon from the bowels of the Earth.Some B-movies look more professional than this.
3/10
The vast majority of movies from the late 80s look awful, and TC is no exception. Given that this silly Italian flick suffers from the usually host of darioargentonian flaws – silly plot-twists, occasionally amateurish performances, and weak and /or stupid dialog – the one thing that would have been a saving grace would have been impressive visuals. However, the bland, colourless, ugly 80s aura destroys any "eerie" mood this clumsily put together bundle of religious-horror clichés could have had.
Argento is well-known (or at least should be) for his style-over-substance approach, i.e. his penchant to toy around with the camera and sets rather than spend time fixing his usually idiotic scripts full of bad logic and far-fetched situations. (This especially goes for his legendarily moronic thrillers.) Dazzling visuals were essentially this movie's only hope, but Argento fails to deliver even in that; supposedly his strong suit.
The actors are mostly amateurs; in fact, most of them are so bad that Argento's 13 year-old daughter Asia (who is nothing to shout about talent-wise) comes off as a professional by comparison; even she has some clue how to play her scenes which can't be said for ANY of the actors in the anti-climactic church-destruction scenes. It is almost as if Argento gave acting roles to people who were at first merely recruited as extras. The dialogue is stilted and occasionally laughable even. The attempts at humour are badly timed, not to mention puerile. The demon costumes and make-up are so bad that even Ed Wood might have found fault with them. Dario trusted his make-up department so little that he rarely dared extend close-up shots of the demons to longer than half-a-second. He must have suspected that if he let the viewers see the demons for longer than that, they'd invariably laugh. (The viewers, not the demons.) It's a fine line between a B-movie and a shoddy-looking A movie; although, in this case, the "A" must stand for Argento, and not as a symbol of high quality.
While the 1st half has a (small) measure of non-imbecility and non-dreariness, the 2nd half sees the plot and the movie disintegrate into amateurishness; this is when TC becomes a B-movie, for all practical purposes. In fact, I submit that had this exact same movie been made by a Hollywood and/or American director, its IMDb average would have been much lower. This serves as yet another example – and proof – that: 1) anything Argento touches, no matter how mediocre or outright bad, automatically gets overrated - simply because his name is in the credits, and 2) European films get far better critical treatment than American films. This astonishing – and fairly obvious – bias is a result of the special "bull aura" that European films and directors have (stemming from the flawed and frankly naïve belief that US films are commercial pap made by non-talents, whereas European ones are "artistic" and profound). This silly prejudice has been blinding film students and the more fanatical movie-goers for decades, often preventing them from objectively appraising either. This is why on IMDb you will sometimes see a great American movie rated only with a 6.0, while a fairly mediocre European movie might have a 8.0 average.
Another major flaw of TC is that it gets rather dull in spots. - DirectorSergio LeoneStarsClint EastwoodGian Maria VolontèMarianne KochA wandering gunfighter plays two rival families against each other in a town torn apart by greed, pride, and revenge.Not many logic problems - aside from the astoundingly easy destruction of the Baxters.
8/10
The ease with which the Rojos gang dispense of the entire Baxter clan within minutes – through a more-or-less spontaneous attack – makes me wonder why they hadn't exterminated their rival gang before Clint ever even showed up in town.
I was also perplexed that the Baxter house showed zero signs of resistance when the first fires broke out in front of their house. Nobody going to the windows to look what was happening? And what about all that noise coming from the incinerated Rojos mansion just a little earlier? Did none of that attract the attention of ANY of the Baxters? Were they actually asleep (in deep comas due to heavy depressants) while the whole village was in uproar over the fires? No guards? Were the Baxters actually "chilling" at a time when they were at war with their rival gang, and when half the village was up and extinguishing fires? And again: all those gunfighters and none of them were guarding the place?
OK, AFOD is a retarded movie in some ways, but I need to stop asking these questions. After all, this is only a spaghetti western and they're meant to be dumb – but fun. And fun it is; plenty of twists and turns in a mere 90 minutes, so I'm not complaining. Compared to other action films of its kind, the bad logic is quite scarce overall. - DirectorDario ArgentoStarsChristopher RydellAsia ArgentoPiper LaurieA young man tries to help a teenage girl find the serial killer who murdered her parents before the killer comes after them.Trauma (1993)
A serial-killer is cutting the heads off his victims; directed by a headless director.
2/10
A serial-killer is cutting the heads off his victims, hence it's fitting that this crap was directed by a headless director.
An infuriating film. Not an ounce of logic or credibility in this damn mess. List of b.s.: 1) the cops couldn't notice that among the severed heads wasn't the head of Piper Laurie?! 2) the way the kid kills Laurie?! 3) The ridiculous decapitation child-birth scene, 4) the moronic, far-fetched staging of own death by Laurie - that ridiculous scene of holding a head next to her own?! 5) the kid following a lizard into a stranger's apartment, 6) talking heads in a non-fantasy horror flick! 7) the way the male lead falls into addiction - and then gets punched out by a pharmacist! 8) the way the male lead just happens to come across Laurie while lying in the street, and then locates her den in no time! The only plus in a wildly idiotic movie is a brief glimpse at Asia's fine breasts. - DirectorDario ArgentoStarsAnthony FranciosaGiuliano GemmaJohn SaxonAn American novelist visiting Rome to promote his latest book is stalked and harassed by an obsessed fan who is committing a string of murders that appear to be tributes to his work.Considering it's Argento, it's not that bad.
2/10
Interesting enough horror/thriller, with Argento's usual disregard for logic. Not as mind-numbingly dumb as his "Trauma" or "Bird With Absurd Illogic" (sorry, I meant "Bird With Crystal Plummage"), but the film has its share of absurdity.
First of all, the film's 4th corpse is totally ACCIDENTALLY lead into the (first) murderer's house by a dog who just happened to have attacked her - of all people, and chased her to the said house. It's already silly enough that a woman would just happen to be chased by a dog into a serial killer's home, but to have that woman know the writer whom the killer is imitating - that is just too ridiculous. Towards the end, I was starting to suspect that the writer is the (second) murderer, and I must say, while that is a (more-or-less) unique twist, it doesn't do the movie's logic any justice; to have an initial murderer and then have another person use the situation and murder as well - well, that's just too stupid. It's also far too coincidental that the writer had killed in his youth, and that he would come into a connection with a serial killer later in his life. What are the odds of that? But I wouldn't ask Argento that question. His appreciation of statistics and odds is probably just as low as his appreciation of logic. A thing I noticed in Argento's movies: the soundtrack, though original and interesting, in many scenes doesn't fit the action and sometimes doesn't even fit the genre. - DirectorDario ArgentoStarsTony MusanteSuzy KendallEnrico Maria SalernoAn American expatriate in Rome attempts to unmask a serial killer he witnessed in the act of an attempted murder - and is now hunting him and his girlfriend.Incredibly idiotic thriller - but not Argento's worst, believe it or not.
3/10
This one is as dumb as they get. The ineptitude of this thriller is on par with De Palma's worst, though not as annoying. Absolutely nothing makes sense in this film.
Musante, a witness to an attempted murder, decides to stay in Italy and become a police inspector's "assistant" so-to-speak, which in itself is quite silly. But that's nothing; that's not why this film sucks big time.
A couple of details that stand out: 1) When they all got to the zoo, how is it that at that very moment a scream was heard from the killer's husband's flat? A coincidence? Or just one in a series of dumb moments in this piece of crap? 2) When they capture the wrong person, thinking he's the murderer, how does Musante manage to find the killer's flat so easily? 3) Once he gets there why is it that his friend and his girlfriend are there? When the hell did they get there? They were with Musante the whole time, just before, in the zoo! Certainly they don't expect us to believe that the female killer kidnapped the two of them in broad daylight - with police all over the place - and then somehow dragged them to her place?! With a helicopter, no doubt, or perhaps she has wings, or Cpt.Kirk beamed her! Certainly she would have been more concerned with fleeing rather than kidnapping and killing?! 4) Why was Musante's male friend killed, while Musante's girlfriend was only bound and gagged?! It would have made more sense for both to be dead when Musante arrived there. If anything, it should have been the other way around: the friend gagged, and the girlfriend dead; after all, the killer is a killer of women, right? 5) What's with that assassin dressed in yellow who ran over a cop and chased down Musante and his girlfriend? No explanation what-so-ever is ever made as to who he was or might have been!
There is a really dumb scene in which a voice expert explains that two recordings of voices were actually from two different persons: the inspector takes ages to finally realize what the expert is saying - he practically has to draw it for him! Or maybe the explanation is meant for the audience, which Argento assumes is as dumb as his scripts.
The explanation given regarding the killer's motives is so far-fetched that immediately I associated the film with "Dressed To Kill" and its incredibly dumb explanation about Caine's motives and inner "workings" of the mind. There is also no real credibility in the killer's husband constantly covering up for his wife's murderous behaviour - even when she tried to kill HIM, and REPEATEDLY. (Sounds like a comedy, doesn't it?) Additionally, it is really stupid that the murderesses' husband was dressed in leather with his face covered, while his wife was trying to kill HIM! This sort of fool-the-viewer plot-device reminds me strongly of De Palma and his bag of tricks and illogics. The murderess always killed dressed in leather, so it's really stupid to have the viewer accept that she was trying to kill her husband while HE was dressed in leather and even wearing a mask. Really stupid. And let's be frank here: does the girl playing the killer look anything like a mad mass-murderer? Hardly. She looks like a 60s fashion model. Probably slept with someone involved with the film to get the role.
The rating I gave it should actually be even lower, but I figured that the film at least wasn't dull - though far be it for me to imply that it was exceptionally interesting.
Leonard Maltin, that mediocre film-critic, wrote that this movie is "best viewed on the big screen". As if that would take away all the absurdities that Maltin typically overlooks! As if there is a screen big enough, anywhere in the world, for Maltin to spot the obvious, glaring illogicalities in this or any other dumb film!
No. MY expert advice is: best not view it at all, whether on a small screen, a big screen, or a triangular screen. - DirectorRuggero DeodatoStarsRobert KermanFrancesca CiardiPerry PirkanenDuring a rescue mission into the Amazon rainforest, a professor stumbles across lost film shot by a missing documentary crew.The vapid title says it all.
1/10
I pretty much saw here what I expected to see in a cretinous, cheap, Italian exploitation horror film: mutilation, rape, cannibalism (of course), authentic footage of animals being killed for the camera (killing humans is still illegal so the "filmmakers" didn't do that, as well), decapitation, a pointless sex scene with a flat-chested Italian woman, and other idiotic stuff.
To all the losers on IMDb and elsewhere who found "social meaning" in this, I'd say keep in mind 3 things: 1) this is an exploitation film, and such films by definition pretend to have a higher moral agenda as an obvious excuse to help the viewer indulge in the basest of nonsense. 2) this is a dumb horror film: look no further than the violence and gore for "meaning". And 3) you're a f**king moron.
Well, we have the usual problems: idiotic plot, bad acting, inept dialogue, lousy photography, stereotypical "characterization", clumsy editing, etc. The only surprise came in the form of the professor coming back to NY, i.e. the unexpected change of setting. But that's also when things took a decidedly imbecilic turn. Just so we can "enjoy" the eventual brutal slaying of the 4-person missing crew, they are presented to us as the worst kind of barbarians imaginable: like a bunch of immoral, immature criminals shouting and giggling like apes half the time - no, strike that: ALL of the time. (Is this the horror-movie answer to "Animal House"?) One might wonder: who in the world would finance such a retarded bunch to film each other tying shoe-laces, let alone make documentaries in remote regions of the world? In the end, these 4 imbeciles actually end up filming each other getting slaughtered - instead of running for their lives - just so we can see each of them die. It's just too stupid for words. Severely retarded. Not to mention the fact that these 4 have no fear about invoking the wrath of remote tribes they know nothing about, by raping their women and burning their huts! (And yet they're supposed to be professionals who "worked together for years", i.e. should know better than to behave like degenerate, dumb school-kids).
Predictably, the professor gets the last line with his ultra-pathetic comment: "who are the real barbarians here?". I guess this line made all those morons think this movie had an intelligent message? How easily suckered some people are into believing ANYTHING they see or hear...
There was nothing shocking here because all the parts that show violence perpetrated on people are so fake-looking, totally unconvincing. The exceptions are the real footage the bozos who made this junk included of various executions in Africa (footage which is, ironically, referred to as "fake" by one of the NY characters). However, I was disgusted by the authentic scenes of animals getting butchered. That sort of material shouldn't even be used in crap like this, but left for "Faces Of Death" and some such junk... - DirectorAndrei TarkovskyStarsOleg YankovskiyErland JosephsonDomiziana GiordanoA Russian poet and his interpreter travel to Italy researching the life of an 18th-century composer, and instead meet a ruminative madman who tells the poet how the world may be saved.You have to be even more insane than Erland's character to consider this dull drama a masterpiece.
4/10
First of all, please use this link: http:// www.criterionforum.org/forum/ viewtopic.php?p=142178&highlight=&sid= dd58cd36ffe474e7bd315c810cb708e6. It will lead you to a hilarious forum "discussion" about this very comment! I'll also use this opportunity to say "thanks" to Cold Bishop and the other morons for taking my texts so seriously - and making me laugh very loudly!
Secondly, let me explain the high 7.9 rating on IMDb. Only around 2,000+ people voted, and they're mostly film students who FORCE themselves to like movies like this, and other pretentious boredom-seekers who find thrills in watching grass grow. "Nostalghia" is the IDEAL film to fall asleep to. I speak from experience.
I absolutely loved "Solaris" and "Stalker", two brilliant, intelligent sci-fi dramas. On the other side of the Tarkovsky spectrum, I was utterly confused by "The Mirror" - which had zero story to tell (though occasionally visually very nice), I was mostly bored to tears by "Andrey Rublev" (nearly 4 hours!), but thought "The Sacrifice", his last movie, was okay (in spite of being in Swedish, an unpleasant language).
Tarkovsky's two sci-fi films are based on (good) novels, and this may be the crucial point. It seems that he is pretty much lost when doing his own material. He gets bogged down in his dull poetry and philosophy, not bothering to inter-connect various parts of the two in a cohesive manner, failing to focus on the essentials. Hence all his other (non-sci-fi) movies are not much better than all the other pretentious European crap from various Godards, Bunuels, Bergmans, Triers, and other overrated, lazy "geniuses".
"Nostalghia" is an overly pretentious non-story that is far too self-indulgent even for a European director. If you make movies just for your own "artistic" pleasure then why even bother releasing them? This two-hour snooze-fest could have been EASILY cut down to half that length - and it would still not be fascinating. Watching the main character walk around endlessly without saying or doing anything is just GARBAGE film-making. Lazy, and made/written by someone who overestimated himself a tad.
The positive side to this movie - apart from the fact that it made me fall asleep - are some visually stunning scenes. Especially the long shots of water, which are pleasant, if a little sleep-inducing because they may be TOO pleasant. Tarkovsky seemed to have some kind of an almost-fetish for "aqua", because he filmed it in all its visual and audio glory in nearly ever movie he made.
My advice to those who consider this a masterpiece is to stop lying to yourselves about your own intelligence, hence to quit being in denial about how you TRULY, honestly, perceive certain movies. Writing about a movie such as this being a "stroke of genius" is just one of many ways some people deal with an inferiority complex.
Erland Josephson, as uncharismatic as he has been in all his Bergman movies, is a poor choice for the insane man. Besides, what was the point Tarkovsky was trying to make? That he is sane and the rest of us are the insane ones? What a cliché idea! So trite. And how about that last scene (a 250-minute scene, it seemed) of the Russian character carrying the candle for the insane man? Was this symbolic of something? Trying to save the world? The world needs saving from very pretentious, boring movies.
Erland's character locked up his family for seven years. Hence he is not only insane, but should be put away for life. End of story. What can we possibly learn from Erland? His impassioned, idiotic left-wing "back-to-the-caves" speech was just dumb. It's something a 17 year-old manic-depressive idealist would write.
Besides some nicely photographed scenes, there was a pleasant scene where the blonde actress bares one of her breasts.
Tarkovsky portrays Italy as a gloomy, dark, depressing place. I have no idea why. If Italy looks like this, what should he do with Russia or Finnland??
(Sick and tired of Euro-trash "classics", i.e. bad, overrated dramas? E-mail me if you want to read my totally altered subtitles of Ingmar Bergman's "Autumn Sonata", "Cries & Whispers", or "Passion Of Anne", but also the non-Bergman "Der Untergang".) - DirectorLamberto BavaStarsDavid Edwin KnightNancy BrilliCoralina Cataldi-TassoniA group of tenants and visitors are trapped in a 10-story high-rise apartment building infested with demons who proceed to hunt the dwindling humans down.There's so much to learn from a zombie sequel.
4/10
I have learned so much from this movie that I'd like to share it with you:
If attacked by a demon, cover him with a towel and then hide inside a cupboard.
If you're considering buying an apartment in a high-rise building - don't. It is easier to get inside Fort Knox than it is to get out of such a place. The windows are made out of transparent stainless steel, and all doors are locked, even when they haven't been actually locked.
If you have a pregnant wife and are surrounded by multitudes of blood-thirsty demons, the best way to help her is to leave her on her own and go somewhere else in the building.
For a particularly convincing movie zombie, it's best to equip a frail-built woman with some high heels and large teeth, and then tell her to run in an unscary way.
If you're an unborn baby, try to make your mother give birth at the exact day when she is running away from hordes of demons.
To further cheapen an already cheap-looking 80s film, include a very cheap 80s soundtrack which will lower the sense of dread and heighten the feeling of wanting to vomit.
If you left your child home alone and he is not answering the phone, make sure you rush home in such a way as to crash with your car with drunk neo-punks/posers so that your child has enough time to turn into a demon.
Male neo-punks/posers always drive at full speed while touching the legs of the female passenger sitting next to them.
When a child becomes possessed, a small demon grows inside his stomach, hardly waiting to come outside. Demons only enjoy being adults, never children.
If a small, unconvincing-looking demon attacks you by sticking his hand outside a small opening, make sure you first cut its nails/claws, because that's probably why he's sticking his hand out in the first place.
When Dario Argento writes a movie script, make sure you avoid that movie, unless you enjoy dull crap. - DirectorPier Paolo PasoliniStarsHugh GriffithLaura BettiNinetto DavoliPasolini's artistic, sometimes violent, always vividly cinematic retelling of some of Chaucer's most erotic tales.(This is an old review, I don't even know what rating I gave the film.)
Eight stories, from which 4 and 6 are the most entertaining ones (also devoid of gay plots), with 3 and 5 close behind. The 4th one features Jenny Runacre in all her nude glory, and what glory it is: she has a spiffin' body. There are other nude women, but, unfortunately, there are even more nude men; Pasolini was a homosexual, after all. Clive Barker and John Waters also liked to shock... which kind of makes sense.
The 3rd story has a couple of amusing moments: "Charlie Chaplin" peeing on a building, and then later ruining a wedding by making an idiot out of the pathetic groom.
The rest of the film moves anywhere from the obligatory extreme violence (which Pasolini's movies are notorious for, as they are for the sexual perversion), to farting jokes. Half of the stories feature a man urinating - or at least a pee-dish being mentioned - while most stories have lust for sex as the central theme.
Most of the stories don't have a proper ending and randomly lead into the next story. There is no real point to it all, except the obvious mocking of the church, which the communist Paolo hated. Some stories (like 1, 4, 5, 6) are nothing more than typical 70s soft-porn sex-farces set in the Middle Ages. The rest is "deep", but only if you try very hard to read something into it which probably isn't there. I.e. if you're pompous and delusional you will find the meaning of life in this trashy tripe... - DirectorPier Paolo PasoliniStarsFranco CittiNinetto DavoliJovan JovanovicAn adaptation of nine stories from Boccaccio's "Decameron".Do we really need PPP to tell us that sex isn't sin?
4/10
Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Pee-pee-pee as I prefer to call him (due to his love of showing male genitals), is perhaps THE most overrated European Marxist director - and they are thick on the ground. How anyone can see "art" in this messy, cheap sex-romp concoction is beyond me. Some of the "stories" here could have come straight out of a soft-core porn film, and I am not even so much referring to the nudity but the simplistic and banal, often pointless stories. Anyone who enjoyed this relatively watchable but dumb oddity should really sink his teeth into the "Der Schulmaedchenreport" soft-porn German 70s movie series, because that's what "Decameron" looks like to me.
Besides, the movie is sloppy on nearly all levels, from start to finish:
1. Editing. An example: at 1 hour:15 minutes:45 seconds there is a chasing scene that is put quite clearly in the wrong place. It was supposed to be placed about a minute later, but I guess that Pasolini must have hired boozed-up editors who have little time for the "fine details" of movie-making. Pee-pee-pee's fans would probably counter this by saying that it was placed there intentionally - which I very much doubt. Besides, even if that were true, that would be even worse, because that story gains absolutely nothing by making it harder to follow. (This isn't exactly "Eraserhead" or one of Tarantino's broken-form films...)
2. Acting. Vey sloppy. Triple Pee's fans (all 8 of them) proudly declare how 3P-O uses "real people instead of actors". (Aren't actors people? Or are they Martians? Sure, many actors have sub-par IQs but does that mean we should treat them with contempt...?) Other directors have used amateurs and succeeded (such as Alan Parker or De Niro), so why are PPP's amateurs so utterly awful in his movies? The answer is once again appalling sloppiness. Pasolini is sloppy in everything, and that includes trying to get as much out of his toothless amateurs as he can. He is a lazy director, an IMperfectionist if you like. The anti-Kubrick, I suppose... Pee-pee-pee's principal goal when casting must have been to find as many toothless old people as possible (and young men that are to his liking). In Pasolini's world there is a simple formula: lack of teeth + strange face = realism. It's all well and fine to have them toothless, but at least try to eke out some at least semi-decent performances out of these inexperienced neo-thespians, otherwise you're an amateur yourself - an amateur director, in Pasolini's case. Whether 3P-0 wasn't capable of this feat or simply didn't care doesn't change anything. (Who knows... maybe he didn't even notice the awful acting?)
3. Audio. The synchronization. If 3P-0 felt that microphones are too much of a hassle when filming a movie, then he ought to have at least made a concerted effort in post-production, i.e. getting all these bum actors to say their lines on cue in the studio, so that we the viewers wouldn't have to watch mouths move while the elusive dialogue floats elsewhere in the movie.
4. Lack of concept. We have close to a dozen stories which aren't connected in any meaningful way. Some are anti-Church (more on that later), while some are merely sex yarns i.e. cheap male (sometimes gay) fantasies designed to titillate and nothing else. The stories and characters are not amusing (if at all) on an intelligent level, but on the basest level. 10 year-old kids can laugh here... And there is nothing wrong with that, but then don't call it exalted, intellectual art!
5. As a result of point 4, there is also a lack of logic in the order of the stories. That goes without saying. Pee-pee-pee could have arranged the order in any other way, and we would have had the exact same movie. This also means that you can feel free to start from the middle then go back to the beginning, etc. "Decameron" is like a bowl of spaghetti that way: when you start eating it you can begin with any thread you want, it makes no difference at all.
6. The pointlessness of the stories' resolutions. Most stories end with a cheap gag/joke, i.e. some damn dumb punchline straight out of a porn comic-book, whereas some stories don't even have a conclusion: they merely end. Finito. At best, the stories are watchable semi-anecdotes, barely any deeper meaning there - unless you find "deep" meanings in a porno. There is, of course, nothing easier than looking for and finding "meaning" where there is an absence of it. Hence even any hardcore porn film can be philosophized/mused over endlessly. It's easy and fun. Try it, oh ye 8 PPP fans!
As for the Church-bashing... Some viewers get all excited about his attack on Catholicism and what-not. In principal, that's all well and fine - after all, I'm an atheist myself - but what those people ignore is the simple but essential fact that Pasolini was a Marxist. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. A Marxist criticizing the Church for hypocrisy and stupidity? Where does he get the nerve? Besides, Pasolini wasn't an atheist, hence his high-and-mighty and self-righteous stance isn't justified. After all, Marxists are believers: they merely substituted the accepted god with the idea of a Utopia, which is merely another supernatural wishful-thinking fantasy. Hence I cannot get excited about PPP's anti-religion antics.
This sophomoric humpdorama anthology ends with Pasolini saying rather pretentiously: "I wonder... Why produce a work of art when it's nice just to dream about it?" He wasn't actually referring to this silly little movie as art, was he...? In case he was - the poor deluded man - then I have to wonder why he didn't just leave it at dreaming, and NOT make all those bad movies... - DirectorPasquale Festa CampanileStarsRod SteigerVirna LisiUmberto OrsiniA young woman and a soldier team up to deliver an Austrian General to Italian forces during World War I. Their quest for the 1,000 Lire reward changes their lives unexpectedly.A funny Italian movie? Who would have thought...
8/10
This is a small gem, apparently totally forgotten and ignored by the multitudes of clueless movie fans and critics, who are very much focused on showering praise only on crap that they dig out from the past. I was surprised to find myself enjoying an Italian movie. The humour is slightly odd, at times very funny. There are those who consider Steiger not to be at his best here, but I guess for some people only frantic over-acting, complete with manic hand-waving and mugging, counts as good acting. ("Show mee the moneeeyyyy!"). Steiger is subtle yet everything he does that is in any way connected to escaping his dumb captors is hilarious: the way he touches the soldier's rifle, the manner in which he dashes away with the cow bell attached to his neck... Priceless. TGATG is strange little film, almost inventing a new sub-genre: the "war road movie". The trio of main characters move in war-torn territory that comes off almost as another planet, where food is about as scarce as brain-cells are in Sean Penn's bloated head. The struggle for the egg is a good example. The guy playing the Italian soldier isn't that great, but Virna Lisi is quite sexy. The fairly interesting Morricone score helps, too. - DirectorGiuseppe TornatoreStarsMarcello MastroianniMichèle MorganValeria CavalliMatteo decides to take a trip across Italy to go visiting his five children.7/10
STB is an Italian movie through and through - the only atypical quality being that it doesn't stink. (And that there isn't the usual amount of shouting.) This is a sort of sentimental road movie/comedy with the obligatory festival-crowd-pleasing surreal scenes, such as people freezing up at stations or a huge balloon/jelly-fish/whatever lifting up all of Mastroianni's kids up into the air. That's the sort of Felini-like stuff which IQ-starved film students go absolutely ga-ga over, regardless of whether it relates to the rest of the movie or not. "Weird stuff! Yeaaah!"
As far as I'm concerned, STB isn't dull and that's all that matters. Besides, its experimental approach (if one can call it that) never has an air of pretentious baloney about it. Perhaps we have Mastroianni to thank for that, who plays it very down-to-Earth. Even when he spits out wise words of advice to his offspring there isn't that unrealistic expectation from the viewer to gasp with shock, bewilderment and awe, something very common in so many other European movies, especially from the 60s and 70s. Too many directors think they reveal the secrets of the universe in their modest little underachieving flicks. Not the case here; at least not in annoying amounts. STB is likable and even amusing at times.
As for the "experimental approach", if every other movie that Italians (and other Continentals) release has the same type of surreal silliness going on, then it isn't really experimental anymore, is it? It becomes normal, unsurprising, stale even.
It's far easier to cobble up a script chock-full of "metaphoric" nonsense than to actually sit down and write a compact, stirring script with a beginning, middle, and end. STB leans far more heavily toward the latter. - DirectorFederico FelliniStarsGiulietta MasinaSandra MiloMario PisuVisions, memories, and mysticism all help a 40-something woman to find the strength to leave her cheating husband.Don't force yourselves to like this, insecure film students.
3/10
Did the genre section mention the word "comedy"? I didn't even chuckle once. I did yawn though.
The basic story of JOTS is Masina suspecting that her hubby is cheating on her. However, this allegedly main theme seems to take a backseat to a plethora of irrelevant characters and scenes (some of which will bore you out of your mind), indulgent stuff which has deep meaning only to the man who wrote and directed it. Perhaps not even to him. If you're going to use a basic premise only as an excuse to have a whole bunch of surreal-for-the-sake of-it film-critic-pleasing sequences then you might as well go all-out and have no plot at all. That would be the more honest - and braver - approach. Why pretend to have a story when you don't.
All this were forgivable if only the movie had a grand sense of style (like the surrealist yet brilliant "O Lucky Man!", for example), which it doesn't. Nice photography, to be sure (though nothing spectacular by any means), and a very pleasant and cheerful 60s soundtrack, but these two are far from making up for 135 minutes of occasional tedium. There are flashbacks and dream sequences, but they are mostly so uninteresting that you just become torn between the "stop" and the "fast-forward" buttons.
But it's exactly these kinds of scenes that have shaped the empty-headed minds of movie critics in the past 50 years or so. They wet themselves as soon as a character has a surreal experience, regardless of whether it's interestingly shot or not. Surrealism at all cost, and the pretentious souls who gawk at these bizarrely overrated films swoon with sexual delight. It's almost as if some people (movie buffs and film students in particular) have an inferiority complex regarding their own intellect hence need to believe that they comprehend the incomprehensible, merely in order to feel as if they'd made some magic intellectual leap, as if "yes, I have understood a movie which most wouldn't understand or wouldn't even bother watching". It must give them some measure of comfort, the poor deluded souls, that they share a "secret" only a few of them know, namely what the movie is about, in all its supposedly great complexity and artistic worth. What baloney.
Sometimes these poor souls (fans of Godard, Bunuel, Fellini and the like) finally catch some piece of "wisdom" floating about in one of those hyped films and this makes them as happy as a fisherman who'd just caught a 53-gram fish after a patient 5-hour wait. The sad truth is that what Fellini and co. "teach" us about the world and humanity can be found in any Chinese fortune cookie. Truly intelligent movies are extremely rare, and ironically almost never spring from the loins of those who are considered to be cinema's leading fortunecookienarians.
Masina looks lost in her role, unable to make it work. The reason for this is obvious: she was miscast. Her husband is a wealthy, good-looking guy "who likes women", so he marries THIS? How is the viewer meant to accept this? Surreal, for sure.
Masina is in nearly every scene of the movie, hence it would have been nice to actually reward the viewer's patience - for sitting through this drawn-out piece of Euro-indulgence - by giving us a gorgeous or at least reasonable-looking woman to look at. Instead, Fellini punishes us with Masina. Alas, he made a typical director's mistake, as old as film itself, of casting his wife/mistress/girlfriend in his movies. Get the BEST possible woman for the role and not your wife, just because she is desperate for movie roles and you feel you owe it to her to keep her crappy career afloat.
Personally, I would have cast her as Yoda's sister, but that's about it. I don't see any other filmic uses for her.
Was Fellini too under-budget to afford a mike, or does he simply prefer to dub his actors in post-production? Perhaps all the Italian boom operators were on an extended strike, dunno, Italians do have a bit of a reputation for going on strike every few days. I have noticed this awful tendency in Italian movies, a bad habit that extends well into the 80s even. I find it absurd that Fellini was filming in Italian and yet we have to watch the mouth and the sound be out-of-synch half the time. If you're going to dub it then at least make a decent effort later on. But that's the exalted European cinema for you, no perfectionists in sight, just a bunch of charlatans and deluded "artistes".
JOTS is a vastly overrated Fellini mediocrity, with dream sequences and many references to art and philosophy, as if that somehow makes this movie intelligent or worthy. Laughable. - DirectorPupi AvatiStarsGabriele LaviaAnne CanovasPaola TanzianiStefano, a young journalist, buys a used typewriter and accidentally sees that some text is still readable on the ribbon. He manages to reconstruct the story of a scientist, Paolo Zeder, who in the 1950's discovered that some types of terrain have the power to revive the dead that are buried in them. Stefano's investigations bring him in contact with a group of renegade scientists that are still making experiments to prove Zeder's theories."Ungratefulness of the Dead", more like.
5/10
Don't be fooled by the fairly high 6.2 average. Non-American (horror) films nearly always get higher ratings than they deserve. Besides, as of this writing, only about 800+ people voted, and that's a small hence unreliable sample. (IF you care what the masses think – and you generally shouldn't.) Most of these 800+ consist anyway most likely of patriotic Italians (much the way British IMDb users overrate bad British horror films), and the occasional non-horror fan who gets scared by his own shadow, let alone a cheesy-looking Italian-flick zombie which does in fact have more blood on him than a shadow.
The eeriness level - unlike what is bafflingly claimed here by many reviewers - is at absolute zero, and we're talking -273 here. There isn't one scene that is even remotely scary or even vaguely spooky, much like "City of the Living Dead" for example (in spite of its abundant gore). In fact, this lack of scariness is a common disease, a regular characteristic of Italian movies and one can only guess why that is. (Sloppiness and laziness might be the key.) People who described this movie as "scary" or "spooky" in their reviews most probably hadn't seen anything scarier than "Vertigo" – or even "Dumbo" – prior to renting this out. When the scariest thing you've ever seen is a blood-donor's bag of fresh blood or a broken finger-nail or a Marilyn Manson video, then it's no wonder you find "Zeder" to be a "scary, atmospheric ghost story". There is more atmosphere on the Moon.
But for us jaded horror fans who have witnessed stuff such as "Hostel" and "L'interieur", this little zombie flick comes off as an almost cute Mickey Mouse effort. You could almost let little kids watch it.
There is very little going on here horror-wise. "Zeder" is essentially a complex mystery with a supernatural premise and just a few zombie/horror scenes thrown in at the very beginning and the very end. Speaking of which, it was predictable both that the journalist would bury his girlfriend – and that he would get attacked by her a little later. This is the mark of some truly naïve writing. Again, not naïve but ideal writing for film fans that have seen only 3 horror films (including "Monster House") prior to this one.
The setting up of the mystery isn't bad, i.e. the movie is not dull, but the story ultimately makes little sense, the ending being incomplete and leaving a few loose ends. What happens with this mystery organization that investigates resurrection? Is their boss – who's been funding the experiments for many years - still having qualms about resurrecting the dead? (Especially when they always wake up grumpy, re-joining the world of the living with only one goal: to butcher and devastate. This "little" flaw seems to have eluded the attention of these "brilliant" scientists.)
Not to mention the logic holes and other absurdities (so typical of Italian horror films). How could the journalist possibly FORGET that he left all that important stuff with the fake priest, and then blame his friend for it having gone missing? How is it possible that the doctor they visited in that other city actually KNOWS the journalist's girlfriend from when she was still a small girl? (Is Italy just a collection of 5-6 small villages in which everyone knows everybody? 50 million people, and these two bump into each other - and the doctor JUST HAPPENS to be one of the key bad guys. Duh.) This was a huge coincidence, far too absurd to be anywhere near acceptable; an almost brian-de-palmian/dario-argentian moronic plot-device used just to throw the viewer into further confusion – which is in essence OK to do, but not at the expense of logic.
Even the alternate title, "Revenge of the Dead" makes no sense at all. What have these zombies got to be angry about? What's this revenge related to? If anything, the move should be called "Ungratefulness of the Dead" or "Extreme Confusion of the Dead"; just look at how the journalist's girlfriend "thanks" her man for bringing her back to life. She tears off half the ligaments in his shoulder-neck area, in what can best be described as a very ungrateful and highly absurd vampiric attack. - DirectorSergio MartinoStarsGeorge HiltonEdwige FenechIvan RassimovA woman recovering from a car accident in which she lost her unborn child finds herself pursued by a coven of devil worshipers.6/10
When I think of Italian horror films, I think of messy and flawed scripts, semi-amateurish acting, an above-average visual style, dubbed actors (whether in Italian or English, they always dub it in the studio, or at least used to), and last but not least, typical Italian horror-movie music.
ATCOTD has that typical Italian "la la la la" soundtrack. (Not all of it, obviously.) Literally - I mean a person actually singing "la la la la" on and on. You can't mistake an Italian horror film for any other country's movie; bad or good, Italian horror flicks are usually uniquely Italian. Sometimes goofy, sometimes effective (sometimes both), this la-la-la-la kind of music is usually catchy, making it difficult to forget that soon. The best example is Argento's "Deep Red" la-la-la-laing. I still have that melody in my head, in spite of having seen the film at least a decade ago.
Considering how amazingly idiotic Italian horror/thriller films can be, especially those made by a certain overrated "master" Dario Argento that I just mentioned, ATCOTD has a fairly thought-out script, without any excessive plot holes or glaring logic issues. Everything falls into place in the end, although it isn't 100% clear whether the horroric goings-on were supernatural or not. I'd have to assume they were, because otherwise many things would be too far-fetched.
A silly plot-device that was used over and over was Bella constantly being left alone, in spite of having hallucinations, nightmares, and generally getting depression or running into trouble whenever left alone. You'd think that at some point her boyfriend would have realized he should never leave her alone. Half the movie is various characters promising to her that they'll "be there straight away" to help her.
The visual look of ATCOTD gets top marks, especially during the scenes in the various parks, which is when the movie looks excellent. Filmed in London, but decidedly un-London-like in the mood it creates. The movie creates a strange kind of London atmosphere; I couldn't get away from the strange feeling that everything was going on in Continental Europe. They could have aimed the camera squarely at Big Ben and held it there for five minutes, but still it would not have seemed like London. - DirectorDario ArgentoStarsDavid HemmingsDaria NicolodiGabriele LaviaA jazz pianist and a wisecracking journalist are pulled into a complex web of mystery after the former witnesses the brutal murder of a psychic.4/10
The only thing memorable about this mediocre Argento thriller is the very catchy nursery rhyme.
Na-na-na-na naaa naaa, na-na na na na na na-na-na-na na na, na na na na naaaa naaaaa, na-na na na naaaaa naaa.
I can't read or write music, so this will have to do.
Perhaps it's a nursery rhyme to me, but to Italians it's a black metal track. I really don't know.
The murder scenes are grizzly and solidly shot, but the ending is unsatisfactory as far as the motive for the murderess is concerned.
"Motives? But that would imply logic!" - how I suppose Argento would respond to the above - DirectorDario ArgentoStarsAsia ArgentoCristian SolimenoAdam JamesAn American art student in Rome accidentally triggers the return of Mater Lachrymarum - the Third Mother - and must use her latent magical powers to end the witch's reign of terror.The Mother of Tears has breast implants.
5/10
Even witches aren't what they used to be. Argento's Rome witch first had to get a boob-job before making her grand appearance on Earth. Did she feel insecure that Hell's Minions wouldn't take her seriously if her breasts only had a B cup size, or if they were droopy? Even Hell's Minions aren't what they used to be. This world is going to Hell.
That's how "aesthetically gifted" Argento is. He doesn't even notice that an actress playing an ancient witch has fake boobs. That's how little he cares. He's sloppy, and he's lazy.
The acting is pedestrian, as always, not helped at all by the fact that these Italian and German actors can't articulate their basic English skills too well.
"There is a booger in my studies that might help us" says Uwe Kier. He meant "book" of course. Still, no hard feelings, since I am a big fan of unintentional mishaps, especially in clumsy horror flicks. Uwe will be Uwe, never in the mood to pick up a English For Beginners book.
"The buddy was found lying down". The "body", of course. "Parents" become "barents" and so on. It helps to watch this little Argento flick with a hearing aid and subtitles.
Casting your daughter isn't necessarily the best decision either. Perhaps Argento could have learned from the mistake of a certain fellow Italian, Francis Ford Coppola. Asia Argento is, always was, and always will be a mediocre actress. Nepotism is a disease and it doesn't work most of the time.
I had to wonder though why Dario had decided to film his daughter in the nude, lovingly following her body inch by inch, yet again. The scene was totally unnecessary, unless he wanted to make sure the viewers knew that the main character had a proper wash before she stepped into the arena to fight Evil. Or he just wanted to make sure we were all reminded that his daughter has a fine set of knockers.
Or he is just a filthy old man with incestual desires which he isn't ashamed of at all. Klaus Kinski, anyone? There was however one actor who struck me as really good. Yes, I am referring to the little monkey who played the witch's loudest emissary. I thought his performance was quite convincing. His animal trainer must be very good.
Which begs the question: should more of Argento's actors be coached by animal trainers? Perhaps that would improve their performances. What worked for the monkey might work for the humans. Not to mention an obligatory ESL crash course for everyone, including the monkey (should he get lines the next time around).
Dario should either make a movie in Italian or in English with actors who speak the language. This in-between "solution" has often compromised his films.
We are told that the mother of tears loves chaos, which means she is basically just like Dario Argento: his chaotic scripts are only matched by the chaotic movies he makes out of them. Still, this time around the illogic was comparatively mild.
What was the point of that lesbian scene? Just for the sake of it. - DirectorLucio FulciStarsTisa FarrowIan McCullochRichard JohnsonStrangers searching for a young woman's missing father arrive at a tropical island where a doctor desperately seeks the cause and cure of a recent epidemic of the undead.5/10
Many B-movies have an identity crisis, but at least these films don't have alternative titles that are schizophrenic i.e. contradict one another. "Zombie", "Zombie 2" So is this the original or a sequel? If the latter, a sequel to what? This movie starts off with a very limited zombie apocalypse; one Tor Johnson look-alike killing a single cop, so I have to assume that this is the first part. If it's a sequel, then I suppose nothing much happens in the original – aside from the Tor Johnson zombie killing off a few people on a boat.
Another title is "Woodoo". I think they meant "Voodoo".
Another one is "Zombie Flesh Eaters". What, as opposed to zombie vegans? That title is a bit like "Manos: The Hands of Fate". I thought it was understood that zombies are without exception carnivores, not soya-munchers or salad-fetishists. Even when Hollywood Buddhists and New-Age hippies rise from the dead I expect them to start hungering for good ol' flesh. In fact, humans and many other mammal species are flesh-eaters too, so how this title is supposed to separate Tisa Farrow and the other humans in this picture from the undead puzzles me. "Human Flesh Eaters vs. Zombie Flesh Eaters": there's another alternative title for consideration, since I presume that none or only few of the devoured and attacked humans in ZFE are/were actual vegetarians. (In which case they probably deserve to be torn apart into bits.) Admittedly, ZFE doesn't address the issue of the humans' eating habits because it's already overloaded with showing the dietary habits of zombies – in all its Italian make-up effects glory.
The make-up and the gore are done quite well, a rare example of actual effort being put into an Italian movie (of any kind). I was even somewhat impressed with the zombie-vs-shark scene, something Hollywood would never do. Apparently, the shark was heavily sedated for the scene, hence was probably unaware that it was engaged in fin-to-hand combat with an undead human.
What completely surprised me was that amidst all those zombies it's Tisa Farrow, playing a mere human flesh eater, who comes off the zombiest zombie of them all, more zombie-like than the zombies themselves. But that's what you get when you cast nepotists; wooden acting straight out of Amateur Hour. Personally, I wouldn't have even given her the role of zombie no. 93. While somewhat more attractive than her crap-looking sister Mia (which isn't hard), she is nevertheless an even worse actress than Woody Allen's ex-wife – and former bringer-upper of Woody's current wife/daughter/muse.
The stupidest scene by far is when the very sexy Auretta Gay gets killed; a zombie approaches her at a very generous snail's pace, giving ample time for invalids to escape it, let alone pro divers, and yet she is frozen with fear, unable to even budge a millimeter. That would be all well and fine – were it not for her impressive survival instincts in fending off attacks from both a tiger shark AND an underwater zombie flesh eater just a day earlier! So when in water she can fight two major flesh eaters at once – but once on safe, dry land her survival skills fall to nil when faced with a slowly approaching half-rotted zombie. Of course, zombie scripts are not exactly thought-out, I am aware of that. Oftentimes it takes a zombie to write a script about zombies, and this movie must have been another such case.
The soundtrack is a strange hodge-podge of standard horror-movie music and Casio-keyboard melodies that have no business being in a horror flick. In other words, a typical all-over-the-place Italian horror-movie soundtrack. Several scenes would have benefited without any music, giving the film much-needed sense of tension and menace.
And that is the essential problem with ZFE. There is never any real tension or sense of menace. This is a problem with nearly all Italian horror films. The main reason for this may be the typical cardboard characters whose well-being is of little concern to the viewer. - DirectorUmberto LenziStarsGiovanni Lombardo RadiceLorraine De SelleDanilo MatteiThree friends set out to disprove cannibalism on a trip to the Amazonian jungle, where they meet two men trying to escape a vicious cannibal tribe.1/10
There were a bunch of Italian trashploitation flicks in the years 1980-81 with the word "cannibal" in the title.
Cannibal Ferox (what a stupid name: a feral ox? does it devour cows?)
Cannibal Schmolocaust
Eaten Alive (OK, no "cannibal" in the title but it's about cannonballs)
Papaya: Love Goddess of the Cannibals (1978, not 80-81, nobody's perfect... why can't I be sloppy when talking about sloppy Italian cinema?)
Jungle Holocaust (not 80-81, fine, and no "cannibal", but it's about cannonballs and it's in the jungle once again - where as we know all cannibals reside coz it's easier to get away with culinary homicide in that green shrubbery)
Cannibals in the Streets (OK, so not ALL cannibals live in the jungle, some are more urban)
Emanuelle and the Last Cannibals (I'll just assume Emanuelle is NOT a cannibal)
Slave of the Cannibal God (again, not 80-81, but it's got a jungle and a blonde chased by cannonballs)
Zombie Holocaust (I know zombies aren't TECHNICALLY cannibals, but why would my list be any less sloppy than their cinema? besides, it's got "schmolocaust" in the title)
I watched this in the early 90s so don't recall much aside from it being totally trashy, consisting of the torture and killing of a turtle. Or was that "Cannibal Schmolocaust"?
Same crap...
Same year. - DirectorLucio FulciStarsChristopher GeorgeCatriona MacCollCarlo De MejoA reporter and a psychic race to close the Gates of Hell after the suicide of a clergyman caused them to open, allowing the dead to rise from their graves.Only 1,736 worms have been hurt in the making of this film.
3/10
Worms impersonating maggots, and brains being torn out from behind - those are Lucio Fulci's running themes here.
A gory yet quite goofy and somewhat dull Italian horror flick which has a far higher rating than it deserves simply because it is European and not American. That amateur European touch, often sold to us as "artistic", is very obvious.
Fifteen minutes into the movie, and we were still being introduced to new characters. Finally, when the 158th character was presented, the confusion abated somewhat.
Plenty of dumb things going on here:
1) Sandra finds a corpse in her bedroom, but instead of calling the police or running away from her house (preferably both), she calls her shrink and then waits for him to arrive. He arrives, but do they leave the house? No. The corpse has started howling and shrieking in the meantime, breaking things around, making a lot of ghoulish-type noise on the upper floor - but are Sandra and the shrink anywhere near making the obvious decision to LEAVE? Nope. Broken glass pieces start bleeding, but where are Sandra and her dopey shrink? Yup, still inside. Not leaving. Not even close.
Eventually, they do leave the house, and only seconds later a granny zombie approaches the door. They were lucky the zombie was an old woman, so perhaps a little slower than the younger minions of Hell.
2) There is a unique moment in horror/thriller cinema, when the journalist (a George Segal clone, an amazing replica) can't make up his mind whether to go back to the grave and check on the noise he's not sure about hearing, or whether to continue walking away from the grave. The ambivalence is almost child-like. This doofus keeps pacing one-step-forward one-step-backward instead of just going back a mere 5 meters to see once and for all whether the noises were real. Eventually (after several minutes of pacing to-and-fro) he realizes that the woman in the grave really is alive, and he proceeds to take an axe to free her. Or was he trying to finish her off? He misses her face on several occasions with the tip of the axe, so it's hard to know whether evil intent or abject stupidity are involved.
3) The little boy tells Sandra over the phone that his parents had just been murdered by his undead sister, so what does Sandra do? She goes over there – alone – without calling the police (who are strangely absent here, as is often the case with silly horror flicks) – and of course gets her brain torn out by the boy's zombie sis. Bravery, stupidity, or just bad Italian-horror writing?
4) A middle-aged geezer sits in a bar, talking about the past abduction of his daughter - very matter-of-factly, as if she'd been kidnapped into the woods at least 59 times. (I warned you about the amateur acting.) Later, he goes into a murderous rampage when he sees the same guy in his garage, next to his daughter, and proceeds to drill a hole in his skull, showing that way that he does care about his daughter, after all. No supernatural forces were involved, simply a father looking out after his daughter by utilizing mechanical tools to split open a man's head.
5) The soundtrack. COTLD would have been a better picture had the appropriate music been selected for certain scenes. I generally like Italian-horror-flick music, it's often quite listenable. However, some monks humming a semi-evil tune over some cheap 80s keyboards may work as an introduction to some lame-a** black metal album, but doesn't quite work as an atmosphere-maker when zombies rip out guts and scalp people.
The scene at the end, in which the priest gets killed, is a case-in-point. Supposedly the highlight, this scene is rendered almost totally horror-free through the use of a very lame melody, more fitting for a Disney picture than a European chop-'em-up trash-fest.
6) How about that last scene? The evil priest had been killed. The kid runs toward the blond. The blond starts screaming. WTF? So is the kid haunted too? There was no zombie make-up on him, he looked perfectly fine to me. Wasn't evil supposed to lose after the priest gets killed? Does the psychic chick have a boy-phobia? Duh.
If you're a newcomer to the world of horror films, make sure you first see all the good zombie flicks before wasting your time on this mediocre, somewhat dull oddity. Not scary, not too interesting, and with silly gore effects that mask the obvious flaws. - DirectorLucio FulciStarsPatrick MageeMimsy FarmerDavid WarbeckA professor with the psychic ability to communicate with the dead uses his powers on his pet cat in order to take vengeance upon his enemies.Another entry in the "cute horror" genre.
6/10
"Based on an Edgar Allan Poe story", it says in the opening credits, meaning that both the movie and the story have a black cat in it. That's about it.
"The Uncanny" had already amused us with its rather silly theme of evil cats, but Fulci must have thought it wasn't enough, that there was more to be eked out of this sub-genre – and he was right. There is ALWAYS more potential when it comes to filming cats. (Just look at YouTube.) After all, a killer-cat is always funny, no matter how often you see it cause bloody havoc. Besides, on the absurdity scale of death-defying savage beasties with a predilection for executing bipedals, cats are certainly more credible than bunnies or rats, which had also been the stars of various "cute horror" flicks.
Fulci added something we hadn't had before among murdering felines, and that's a cat-hanging! The cutest moment in the movie (as weird as that may sound) was seeing a tiny cat-noose being prepared, by none other than Patrick Magee. Imagine how silly that noose would look in a killer-hamster horror film. Magee then actually hangs the black cat, and I sure hope that Fulci didn't actually hang a real cat to shoot that scene (we see only the shadow). But not to worry, what Mike Myers can do, so can a black Italian cat: the vicious feline resurrects and soon continues its bloody path of mayhem and destruction. Magee, smart as he is, forgot that cats have nine lives. If only he had hung him eight more times.
As is almost a tradition with Italian horror films, there are loose ends in the story. Magee stated that the cat was out to get him, but it's never even hinted at why this is the case. What caused the black cat to "hate" Magee so much? Did it not like "A Clockwork Orange"? That's hardly possibly, because as everyone should know by now, cats are intelligent animals hence presumably enjoy excellent movies. When Magee tried to take control over the American camerawoman early on, the cat attacked him thereby stopping the hypnosis. The cat didn't really have a motive to protect the woman from Magee. It did that simply because it felt like it? Still, TBC is much less maligned by holes in the script than the vast majority of other Italian horror films, and certainly superior in every way to Fulci's awful "City of the Living Dead". TBC overstays its welcome a bit, should have been somewhat shorter, but it does have a decent visual quality, a solid cast, and of course all those black cats working so hard together to flesh out the title character. - DirectorFederico FelliniStarsMartin PotterHiram KellerMax BornA series of disjointed mythical tales set in first-century Rome.(Here's another ancient review.)
I had almost no idea what was going on plot-wise. Actually, I'm not sure this thing has a plot - in the classic sense. The second half is especially weird. However, the weirdnesses are interesting at times and it's therefore altogether worth watching.
Going back to the plot; if a film is plotless, i.e., tries to be "artistically" abstract, then it better be visually nothing short of captivating. This film isn't utterly captivating but has its moments in that sense. It's stylish. - DirectorUmberto LenziStarsHugo StiglitzLaura TrotterMaria Rosaria OmaggioAn airplane exposed to radiation lands, and blood drinking zombies emerge armed with knives, guns and teeth! They go on a rampage slicing, dicing, and biting their way across the Italian countryside.They don't come any dumber than this.
3/10
An extremely goofy, hopelessly unscary film, filled with moronic dialog, cast with bad actors, and utterly short on logic in every aspect imaginable. In short: an Italian horror film. By the time the movie reached its final quarter, I found myself giggling at every other scene. The following paragraphs don't do enough justice to the film's stupidity, of which there is considerably more than I've covered here.
I generally don't pay much attention to continuity errors, but this movie is so full of them they're impossible to miss. (Italians, and Europeans in general, don't care about the details as much as Americans; they tend to be sloppy.) 1) blue-skies/gray-skies transition, 2) a zombie isn't on fire, but just because the main character briefly glances to his side, the zombie suddenly IS on fire, 3) zombies ravage a female carcass just seconds after killing a male guard; so who is the female?
Where there are a dozen continuity errors, there must be at least several dozen logic problems, right? Wrong. Hundreds. The army issues orders to have the zombies shot in the heads only, and yet the soldiers guarding that top military installation – the one that issued this order earlier – act as if they haven't got a clue about this new directive, and get slaughtered like a bunch of cretins. (Later on, the silly journalist (more on him later) shoots them only in their heads despite not even knowing about this weakness.) Not to mention the amazingly stupid decision by both the government and the military to keep things hush-hush from the public – the same public that is totally overrun by zombies, getting killed in their thousands on an hourly basis. That's like trying to keep it secret from the public that Sean Penn is a moron; I mean everyone knows already, frcrissakes.
We've got a hospital surgeon moaning about having to deal with "6 emergency cases in two hours". Is that supposed to be a lot? Sounds normal to me, especially for a metropolitan area, and not at all the kind of numbers I'd expect when THOUSANDS OF ZOMBIES ARE KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AT A VERY FAST RATE. Duh.
The journalist has the kind of face only a mother would not find funny. I don't know whether it's his beard, his curly red hair, or his awful acting, I can't quite put my finger on it, but he looks bloody silly, especially when he looks concerned - which he always does; he's got one facial expression throughout. There's a wonderful scene in which he slaps his girlfriend/mistress/whatever very hard, after which they start kissing passionately. Wonderful stuff - though not quite as wonderful as the nonsense early on: the stone-faced journalist and his cameraman stand still, filming the first zombie attack as if they were witnessing a school-play, as if filming a zombie horde were a daily assignment for them, and making no effort whatsoever to get to safety, at least to film behind a truck or something. Do they actually believe that zombies give a toss about journalists' rights? Still, the zombies, as if knowing that attacking journalists in a war-zone would not have been in line with proper etiquette, only attacked the cops and the soldiers.
So concerned are these unusually advanced zombies with etiquette and proper manners that several of them even wipe blood off their mouths just after a blood-sucking binge over a corpse. I'm half-surprised one of them didn't ask for a napkin. Then again, these aren't real zombies: they use semi-automatic rifles, they run, they think, and they have pizzas smeared all over their faces. One zombie even uses his fists, punching his victim, which I thought was rather stupid – though NOT too stupid for this movie, I might add.
We also have Mel Ferrer here, the token Italian-flick American star, probably trying to pay off his debts by agreeing to star in just about anything. The hands-down most ridiculous characters are Ferrer's daughter and her pacifist husband. These two hate the military so passionately, it almost makes you feel like you'd been transported into some bizarre hippie version of "The Naked Gun" movies. My favourite line by the husband: "something strange is going on, usually these roads are filled with traffic". He says this while standing in the middle of a wheat-field in a remote part of the countryside.
Now that I've covered the amazingly stupid bits, it's time for some ASTONISHINGLY stupid stuff. Check this out: the journalist's wife (an artist) finds her freshly-molded bust lying on the floor of her studio, pierced by a huge kitchen knife; her face turns to terror. "Where's this psychotic intruder?!" she must be thinking – right? Wrong. The movie leaves her for a while, and then comes back, a half-hour later, to find her doing what? Shrieking in terror? No. FIXING THE BUST, very calmly, as if nothing had happened. Wow.
Most of the first half is concerned people phoning their friends and relatives to warn them. Predictably, a lot of these phone-calls fail – sometimes even because the people on the other line don't want to answer! And here I thought all along that Italians loved to talk, anytime anyplace anywhere. Well, apparently not during a zombie Armageddon (which they're of course not aware of yet).
The movie even gets political, spewing some rather embarrassing/cringe-worthy B-movie wisdom, with its anti-military/anti-Capitalism message: "we'd be better off without nuclear energy and Coca Cola". What better illustration of left-wing imbecility than a dumb horror film trying to propagate its dumb ideas. Perfect. I thank them for that.
And you'll never guess the amazingly original surprise end-twist. Hint: "The Wizard of Oz". Yup. And then some "Dead of Night" thrown in, just for good measure.
Rifftrax really need to look into doing this amazingly bad movie. It's ideal fodder. - DirectorPier Paolo PasoliniStarsSilvana ManganoFranco CittiAlida ValliRescued from abandonment and raised by the King and Queen, Oedipus is still haunted by a prophecy--he'll murder his father and marry his mother.I've got no review for this, and no rating either. I presume it was the usual Pasolinian rubbish...
- DirectorLucio FulciStarsChristopher ConnellyLaura LenziBrigitta BoccoliAn archaeologist opens an Egyptian tomb and accidentally releases an evil spirit. His young daughter becomes possessed by the freed entity and, upon arrival back in New York, the gory murders begin.2/10
(Very old review...)
A very, very dull and utterly predictable Italian horror. Egyptian excavation, a possessed child - pretty much borrowing some stuff from "The Exorcist".
As is typical of Italian horror films, the soundtrack often doesn't suit a scene at all and thereby ruins the atmosphere rather than help enhance it. Plus, when you use synchronization you pretty much limit the quality of the film regardless of how well it's done. It's absolutely insane to film actors and dialogue in this way: while one actor speaks in English - which is later overdubbed(!?) again in English - the other person is responding in Italian which is dubbed to English. And then Europeans say that Americans are dim... - DirectorDario ArgentoStarsJennifer ConnellyDonald PleasenceDaria NicolodiA young girl who has an amazing ability to communicate with insects is transferred to an exclusive Swiss boarding school, where her unusual capability might help solve a string of murders.1/10
It's been a while. All I know is it was illogical, absurd garbage. - DirectorLucio FulciStarsKeith Van HovenKarina HuffPaolo PaoloniThree lowlife punks are trapped in a posh villa while trying to rob it and become at the mercy of the murderous owners whom have the power to stop and reverse time via their mystical clocks.6/10
A relatively atmospheric, violent horror, one of few Giallo horrors with both a solid story and very nice photography. Surprise twists, which is perhaps a bit unusual for Italian horror films.
Yet again, an Italian horror that can't do without torture of animals, whether real or within the plot. Why Italians find so much pleasure in harming or pretending to harm animals is certainly something for "nation shrinks" to analyze.
Nor do I understand why it took Italians many decades to get with the program as far as getting rid of the asinine, needless dubbing that they are "renowned" for. Were boom-mikes that expensive or complicated to use? Getting actors to babble in the studio in post-production is one of the best ways to ensure the movie turns out weaker than it should be. - DirectorFederico FelliniStarsMagali NoëlBruno ZaninPupella MaggioA series of comedic and nostalgic vignettes set in a 1930s Italian coastal town.
- DirectorLucio FulciStarsJennifer O'NeillGabriele FerzettiMarc PorelA clairvoyant woman discovers a skeleton in a wall in her husband's house, and seeks to find the truth about what happened to the victim.