Quote:
Originally Posted by platostotal  yep, it's just I hate finding a good flick like this and knowing it's pointless to steer peeps towards it,"too grim for me, switched it off", same applies to 'cannibal holocaust', no point whatsoever, trying to say "great, ahead of it's time acidic look at so called news channels.", even the chopped vipco version still gets short shrift from friends even today, remember showing anchor bay's 'suspiria' on vhs to college kids at a party, they thought it the best horror they'd ever seen, I felt great opening the door to Italian gold for em, tho they didn't rate 'profondo rosso' so high, sigh. |
Too grim? You really think so in an age where people lap up all the gruesome carnage in stuff like the
Saw franchise? I think most people would laugh off the rather primitive gore FX in this day and age.
Cannibal Holocaust is a different kettle of fish (or turtle?) altogether, as it employs real death and suffering in its production, which is
always going to be grim viewing, no matter how dulled a viewer's senses might be.
So, personally, I do rate
NYR quite high up in Fulci's body of work. As for Fulci being twisted, no more so than the likes of Eli Roth and the guys who made the aforementioned
Saw series. And, actually, when it comes to a film's themes and content, isn't that more in the hands of the screenwriter rather than the director? After all, Fulci simply shot what the scriptwriter had written. It's the writer who comes up with these ideas rather than the director (unless the director also wrote the screenplay, of course). Of course, the director decides how those ideas are executed, but they're not his/her ideas in the first instance.