Post by No Personality on Apr 12, 2010 7:43:21 GMT -5
(This rating based on the PAL version which is sped 4 minutes faster than the NTSC version)
Instead of "reviewing" this film, which I've already done before and never gets any easier or more fun, I thought I would just copy + paste two older reviews I've done. The first was written in 2009, after I'd seen the movie about a dozen times. The second was written after about 2 viewings, in late fall of 2006, after I had just bought the DVD. They are complete opposites.
#1
Lucio Fulci is one of the horror genre's greatest enigmas. He died in 1996. But while he was alive, he was considered a classic eccentric, a genius artist, a playboy with women, and nicknamed "The Godfather of Gore." He was a legend in cult horror film-making. But, what did his legacy produce? Mostly rip-offs of Mario Bava and Dario Argento's notorious 1960's and 70's giallos, some clearly misogynistic Euro-trash exploitation flicks, and a long series of flashy Gothic zombie splatter films. Which both pushed the boundaries, and questioned the artistry, of grotesque set-pieces and over the top gore. He wasn't the only director to try to turn the trash of European horror into art. But he was radically more successful than the likes of Joe D'Amato, Jess Franco, and Ruggero Deodato. At least in the case of this film, which has gone on to become a serious cult horror favorite, easily eclipsing 1979's rancid, anti-human pile of garbage, Cannibal Holocaust and 1982's "WtF?"-athon, Pieces. But what Fulci did, though it has its' admirers (Clive Barker and Quentin Tarantino), will never be mistaken for real art or confused for the true genius of a superior director like Dario Argento.
The Beyond is a perfect showcase for both the talent Fulci did have as a gothic stylist and also for what ruined him as well. When he would be on a roll, unfolding an interesting film with expert mood or that maddeningly delectable pacing... it would only lead up to a cheap, unconvincing, and poorly made gore effect. Rather than being able to continue to enjoy it, you're taken right out of the experience of the film, just to gawk at the ridiculous gore. You're so busy noticing the seams because Fulci puts the effect on full display, then wishing it would end quickly. But no, Fulci thought the camera should linger as long as it could on his awful special effects. Making me now have to ponder- who is loopier? Him for thinking it would work, or his psychotic fanbase for thinking it looks great. The best example of this is the infamous tarantula scene. Where, I kid you not, a pack of tarantulas crawl across a library floor, onto an injured victim for 2 minutes screen time (I know, I timed it) then start to bite him and tear apart his face. Which doesn't look real, not to mention now the spiders don't look real anymore either. They spend another 2 minutes eating him. I know, I timed it again.
When I first watched the film, I was fuming. That scene was so bad, and I was already so underwhelmed considering the heaping canyons of praise the film received online from various horror review sites. I paid $4.00 for the DVD and now I wanted every penny back. Which I guess goes to show you how much a person can be bothered by bad special effects. But it's more than that with me, it's the nerve of the director to think the audience only comes for gore. I like gore, but I also like a plot too. The Beyond is virtually plot less. Other than some nifty ominous monologues by the glamorously blind and creepy Emily, this movie was made for you to sit down and watch people doing "stuff." Not to understand anything or take anything away from the film. That's all well and good. And that certainly does have its' advantages at times. Fulci knows what to do with a camera. And his camera on The Beyond captures a lot of amazing shots. From gorgeous blonde beauties to the decrepit, crumbling old Louisiana houses, to some ugly Gothic nightmare-scapes (first rendered in a painting, then created as some kind of set), and of course- that huge, eerie hospital.
It's often said that Italian horror is the essence of style over substance. In Fulci's case, that's definitely true. The story really starts and stops at a young beautiful woman inheriting an old Lousiana hotel, starting to fix it up, and being haunted by strange goings-on, inside and outside. From there, the script is merely decorated with ideas of a story. What's disappointing about that is, although the film has incredible atmosphere, there is a hugely oppressive and heavy dragging quality to the story. Especially scenes involving the handsome British-accented doctor, John McCabe, and his sub-plot adjoining to Liza's sole character arc, where she questions her sanity as she begins to see things that don't really exist (or do they?). His skeptic routine is annoying to say the least, as evidenced by his tediously slow line deliveries. Actor David Warbeck would go on to become something of a man-crush for the straight male fans of the movie. Their obsession with him outright borders on gender-bending lustful thinking at times. As for how he acquired these fans, I can only assume it's his suave, James Bond-like "butch" quality (as Warbeck himself referred to it on the audio commentary he recorded for the film just weeks before he passed away in 1997).
The Beyond could've been Fulci's best film. It's not. But, the best sequences from Beyond are the best of his career. It's not that they're few and far between. Instead, it's that they start on the right track, then completely derail for the film's unbelievably fake-looking death scenes. Including- a man having his head impaled by shards of glass and spurting blood everywhere, a woman's head impaled onto a nail and having her eye shoot out, a man's face grabbed by a zombie hand which pokes his eyeball out, the before-mentioned tarantula scene, a man falling off a scaffolding and randomly spurting blood from his mouth, and a man being whipped with chains that tear the flesh from his body who then has his head melted by quick lime. A serious horror film knows better than to sell itself on such a novelty. The art of The Beyond should last longer and be more satisfying.
#2
I think the first thing that needs to be said is that this film has a tremendous horror fan following. They seem to have elected themselves the supreme, exclusive authority on being able to say whether this film is good or bad. If anyone does come along and says the film is bad, the fans elect someone or a fan elects themselves to tear the critic down. This is not just the case with this film, but several of Fulci's other films and of Fulci himself as a filmmaker. Roger Ebert wrote a negative review of this film. That review may well have been warranted, but the fans began seeing red and have gone to nasty ends to insult him and destroy his critical reputation. Online. Nothing new, of course- people had similar reactions to his TV rants of Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. And he deals with criticism of himself very well. Many people call him "fat," he reacts with a very 'so what?' attitude. Because his weight never had anything to do with his ability to understand film. And it doesn't. But this is just an example to show you how much integrity your average Fulci fan has.
That being said, however, Ebert's review of the movie wasn't exactly fair. Because first of all, a lot of his comments were, and he didn't hide this fact, put together through a process of guess work. Secondly, he didn't understand much about Lucio Fulci as a filmmaker. On that note, I'll admit that I don't either. It seems like only the fans do. But knowing about the director as a person doesn't always affect the quality of the film. I said Ebert's negativity toward the film was warranted and I'll stand by that as long as I live and breathe. Is The Beyond a masterpiece? Hell no. Unless of course, you're judging it by the made-up standards one usually has to invent just so they can actually make it through an entire Lucio Fulci film, which can be a very difficult task. But again, helps when you're watching one of his movies. When understanding film, the things that may have seemed impressive under the influence of Fulci-fan love (or mania - same difference) don't stand up to the true standards of film quality. And this is glaringly obvious in the case of Fulci's The Beyond.
Aka- Seven Doors of Death. Or- And You Will Live in Terror. All of these are cool titles, aren't they? But as for the film itself, here we have an example of a potentially good idea that is immediately drowned in the muck due to it's director. Lucio Fulci never saw a concept for a film and thought very ambitiously about it before deciding to adapt it. In fact, the Fulci method is usually- let's remove all logic (and I do mean, all logic) and storytelling elements so we can have people talking and people dying. Other horror filmmakers have been able to make these kinds of movies well. Because they actually had some respect for the concept of films with stories, and actually tried to inject their films with some kind of plot, logic, and / or characters. Lucio Fulci's films however are not typically like that. They are merely a series of mostly uninteresting images that take us to between a half dozen and a dozen gory set-pieces so we can watch people die. As something of a horror fan myself, I have no problem watching people die. But not this poorly.
If The Beyond is only as good as it's special effects, than it sucks. Because the special effects are, on the whole, everything you were warned about by the likes of Roger Ebert and those critics who frequently pan Fulci's works - terrible, laughable, gratuitous, repellent, shoddy. The worst sequence of the film is inarguably a scene of a man whose face is eaten by tarantulas. That's right, spiders - nothing wrong with the idea. The execution however, is another story. For over 2 minutes, we watch the spiders slowly tear his face apart. Though not the whole face is digested or ripped off (give Fulci some points for subtlety), we are forced (unless you turn the movie off, I however am braver than you smarter folk who did) to watch over 2 minutes of this process. That's 2 minutes from the first shedding of blood to the very pan over his face that ends on the book page he was viewing before the beginning of his death. And not counting the scene's end, and beginning, where the spiders' descent upon him itself lasts over another slow, slow minute.
The effect is ghastly. Though not in the way you would expect. The spiders change color and texture several times during the sequence, the face is a painfully obvious fake, and the victim actually slips in and out of an innumerable number of states of consciousness - so we can't even tell if he's alive or dead during most of his death. And this whole sequence doesn't even have anything to do with the movie. Anything, that is, that has been explained. So the whole reason to watch it is really just for the horrible special effects. Or the effect of watching a terribly long death scene that has nothing to do with the plot. Follow this same formula throughout the movie, and you know what you're getting into. So the film ends up feeling more like a bizarre snuff film. There are about 4 more death scene set-pieces like these, most of which end in eyeballs being removed from the victims' heads (about 3- 3 different eyeballs, 3 different heads, 3 different people, 3 different scenes all in the same movie - how's that for creativity?). If this is why you came to see the movie, then there are 2 decent special effects moments. The first being a woman's death scene in which her throat is torn out by her dog and she gushes blood- as well as the side of her head / her ear which also gushes. The second being a little girl's exploding forehead when a man fires a bullet through it.
As far as the story goes, it's fair to say- what story? The film literally has practically no story or plot, and makes no sense. Because while Fulci fans have often said there are simple logic problems or plot holes, the truth is that there is zero logic altogether. But there are shades of something. Basically, there is an old hotel in Louisiana built over one of the seven gateways to hell. Somehow it is opened, we aren't told how (maybe the Plumber did it, but I doubt it), but one thing can stop it. Which is the man that is killed in the film's opening. Since he dies, all hope is lost from the getgo. Which is okay since this isn't a film about hope. It's about people who talk a little and die violently. But since what little flashes of a story that we do get sound pretty interesting, it's a tragedy that the film doesn't explore them. Or even try to. No, what we get instead are a couple of weird scenes where the blind character, Emily, begins to tell us what's going on- but the "presence"s won't let her. Zombies? Ghosts? Both? Neither? Since it doesn't matter, I wonder why the movie has them to begin with. Why is it important to know anything about Liza's past of working fashion / acting jobs in New York? It seems, as per usual with Fulci, women are relegated to the role of talking too much and to anyone who'll listen. So really, nix acting quality, regardless of the fact that it's dubbed anyway.
Many people seem to have latched onto the doctor character played by David Warbeck. That in itself is an enigma. Because his character is one of the least dynamic I've ever seen in a horror movie. He literally is just handsome and almost intense onscreen, that's all. His character has to doubt everything he's told and most of the things he witnesses, which again deals a further blow to the film's ability to make any sense. Because, that's right, after he sees a storm erupt within the hotel itself, he flees to the hospital and gives a speech about this all being irrational and that he won't try to believe it - which mirrors my sentiments exactly, but what about those rabid fans? They obviously believe in suspension of disbelief (to truly unbelievable heights) or we wouldn't be here now, me writing and you reading. So, the film's doctor is really just a handsome dork. Did anyone else have the same, "what the f...?" reaction to his line about calling the FBI? Do doctors typically have direct numbers to the FBI? Are the FBI generally this interested in strange going-ons at rundown hotels in Louisiana? Perhaps director Fulci doesn't actually know what the FBI is. So I guess you now know there's no point in coming to the movie to enjoy it's fine selection of characters. They could almost be considered quirky- though we have the ludicrous plot to thank for that and nothing actually performance related. In essence, the film shouldn't even feature anyone talking. This would truly enhance the special effects.
One last note on the characters - there is another doctor character in this film, who may very well be the dumbest fictional character in all of cinema. There is a scene in which the doctors get a corpse which could be the Sweik character from the film's opening - the "Key" to the film's gateway to hell. Warbeck's assistant is so incredibly stupid, he actually insists they hook this decrepit, crusty, burnt toast thing (think Norman Bates' mother in Psycho, when we finally see her) to a machine to read either its' heart beat or brainwave activity. Long story short - it won't have any. It's been dead so long that it's become an object and bares practically zero discernible human qualities. And if it did, it would be a scientific miracle. Miracles rarely happen and every last retard knows it. But the justification for his idea - "why not?" That's it... He just says, "why not?" I swear to God, that's what he says. To answer any question of "why not?", we must first ask "why?" And if there is no reason why, then there is every reason why-not. For the record, a few reasons why not: it's a waste of money, time, and energy, it's a strain on the equipment (regardless of how minor), and people will look at you funny- with good reason. And for the film's artistic license (I know, I'm laughing too), the only purpose for doing this is so we can see the flatline suddenly come to life. Which might sound genius to some of you, but it's not. Because we know what it is the second we see it working, so therefore we know what's going to happen. So- no fear, no tension, no buildup to the scene we know is coming anyway.
On that note, actually, the next 'infamous' scene involves a woman's face eaten by acid. This is a supernatural movie, so that explains the self-emptying / spilling bottle of acid. But not the way the woman falls victim to it. She basically sees it, screams, and then, offscreen, completely spins her body around. We know this because when we see her next, she is facing the opposite direction (very obviously) and is several feet closer to the shelf case than she was before or would have gotten to it. Especially if they had reacted to the sight of this in extreme terror. If a normal person had seen this they would have bolted for the hills!! Not walked over to it, laid down on the floor in a position where it would definitely fall on their face and then, take a nap / pass out!
This whole Eibon thing seemed like it might have been interesting. One thing I desperately wanted to see expanded was the concept of Seven gateways to hell. Is there any significance in 7, other than its' being considered a lucky number? Where are the other 6 gates, what distinguishes them from one another? Why is there more than 1 gateway when we only see 1 gateway in the movie? Alas, nothing happens with all that and so, it seems Eibon was invented purely for this film. But there should be some reason for it. I guess when it comes to a film that actually has conviction for its fiction, we have to keep relying on genres with things like "fiction" in their titles. With films like The Never-Ending Story in those genres, because these sorts of horror films never feel it's necessary to give us anything to think about. Just some incredibly thin threads to hang from the ceiling, each of which having its' own abrupt cut-off point.
So basically, every element to the film so far mentioned, has failed. All that's left is atmosphere, because the film does try for it. If there is any, it's all driven by the film's music score. The score is attempting to communicate a few tones of depressing hopelessness, by film's end that is, we finally sort of see what purpose the story was attempting to serve. Lifting its veil and revealing that it's all doom (thanks for small favors). I can't lie, the music score is exceptional. But as for the rest of the film, the set-piece nature of it and the lack of story severely damage it's quality as a scary film. The utter stupidity of it also takes us out of the mood. So by the end - which may legitimately be the only part of the film that is genuinely effective - it's too little, too late. The film on the whole is basically a murky drag. Boring, dumb, and lacking any true entertainment value. Taken on it's own, the score is fascinating and would suit a better movie. That is, taken on it's own - far, far, far away from this terrible movie.
