House by the Cemetery (1981)

Title: House by the Cemetery (1981)

Director: Lucio Fulci

Cast: Catriona McColl, Giovanni Frezza

Review:

This is the third and final film of the “Gates of Hell” trilogy, which is composed of City of the Living Dead (1980),  The Beyond (1981) and the film I will be reviewing today House by the Cemetery. The idea behind calling these three films the ‘Gates of Hell Trilogy' is to unite these similarly themed films that deal with magical books that open the Gates to Hell. The books presented to us in these films talk about a doomsday scenario where evil conquers the planet and humanity pays for their sins, not unlike the bible. An interesting fact is that House by the Cemetery has nothing to do with any of that. There are no magical books; there is no gate of hell and the earth isn’t in peril as in the previous two films. I guess symbolically speaking, the family in this film does open the door to hell when they decide to finally go down to the cellar of their new home, unleashing another kind of hell upon themselves, but that’s stretching it. What really unites all these three movies is actress Catriona McColl, who stars in all three of them as the main character.

In House by the Cemetery we meet the Boyle family as they are headed towards their new home in New England. The father, one Dr. Normal Boyle is moving there to continue the research of a colleague of his that used to live there but for some mysterious reason ended up committing suicide. The little boy in the family ‘Bob’ keeps getting these visions that warn him not to go to ‘Oak Mansion’. But of course, nobody listens to the little kid and so the family moves in anyways. Once they get there, they notice one odd thing about the house: the cellar door doesn’t open. For some reason it is absolutely shut down. Nobody pays much mind to this detail; they figure they’ll eventually get to it. No big hurry. Yet the cellar does hold a mystery to it. What is making all those weird noises in the middle of the night?

What House by the Cemetery does right is that it builds up the mystery surrounding the cellar. Just what is down there? If there’s one thing that Fulci did well in his films it’s the way he used ambiance and atmosphere. The house looks appropriately spooky, there are a lot of noises in the night, things move about the shadows, mysterious disembodied eyes peer at you from the velvet darkness. The house does have a cemetery near it, in accordance to the films title, heck we even have a tomb inside of the house! This is all great stuff, and the gore, boy the gore is awesome on this one. There are some truly grizzly deaths on display in House by the Cemetery! The gore is so plentiful and graphic on this one that it was heavily edited on many countries; as a result, there are various cuts of this film out there. The most complete one is the Anchorbay release which includes all of the gory goodness from the original cut of the film.

The problem for me with this movie is that a lot of the things that happen don’t really make sense, or happen simply for shock value, not because they have anything to do with the story whatsoever, this was a common thing in Fulci films. For example, one scene has a giant vampire bat attacking Dr. Boyle! The bat leaps out of the darkness and bites him on the hand. Apparently, these bats have one hell of a bite! When he is unsuccessful in getting the bat to let go of his hand, he gets a pair of scissors and stabs the bat to death, blood splurts everywhere and great, we have a shocking moment! But that’s it. That’s all it is. There’s no story development behind the bat. It tells us nothing! Great moment; but an empty one at that. Yeah, it’s exciting, it’s gory, and you probably won’t forget it, but moments later you are left wondering “why did that happen?” This will go on all the way to the films final frames. 

Another nonsensical scene has a terribly bloody murder committed on the living room floor, lot’s of blood gets spilled all over the place, a bloody carcass is carried all around the living room and kitchen floor leaving streaks of blood all over the house. The next morning, we see the nanny mopping up the blood as if it was nothing. The lady of the house doesn’t notice these buckets of blood spilled on the floor, she simply goes on with her business and makes herself some coffee. What the hell?! Wouldn’t the nanny find all the blood spilled a tad bit suspicious? I mean, suspicious enough to notify her employers? But no, nobody gives a damn, nobody notices. Its little details like these that take you out of the movie, suddenly, your suspension of disbelief is in peril. But this doesn’t surprise me coming from Fulci, many of his films have nonsensical elements about them, sometimes they come off as mysterious and ominous, other times they come off as lazy storytelling.

Ultimately though, the film works. It is not Fulci’s best film, but it certainly is one of his good ones. At times it feels like a haunted house story, a ghost story, and at others it simply feels like a monster movie. What I love the most about Fulci’s horror films is that he really tries his best to freak us out. Nothing might be happening on screen, but the mystery is in the music, the noises, the spooky lighting, the actress suddenly screaming her lungs off out of pure fright. It’s the little buttons that Fulci pushes in our psyche that makes it all work, and ultimately, that’s what I enjoy about a Fulci horror film.    

Rating:  3 ½ out of 5 

City of the Living Dead (1980)

Title: City of the Living Dead (1980)

Director: Lucio Fulci

Cast: Christopher George, Catriona MacColl

Review:

In typical sleazy Italian horror movie fashion, City of the Living Dead (a.k.a. The Gates of Hell) is a film that’s derivative in some ways of George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1978) which by the way was made two years before City of the Living Dead was. I guess the excitement behind Romero’s Dawn of the Dead fueled Lucio Fulci into making not just one, but two zombie films. Fulci’s first ode to Romero’s Dawn of the Dead came in the form of Zombie (1979), a film that was actually released in Italy as a sequel to Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. City of the Living Dead was also an ode to Romero’s films, its original title was to be ‘Twilight of the Dead’, again, a cheap way of attempting to sound like a sequel to Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. Actually, posters were made with the ‘Twilight of the Dead’ title on them but had to be recalled. A lawsuit made the Italians change the title, so they changed the films title to City of the Living Dead or The Gates of Hell, two awesome titles on their own right. But were Fulci’s films really ripping off Romero’s?

If you ask this Film Connoisseur, I would say he wasn’t. In reality, the ‘ripping off’ element really comes into play in the marketing. Apparently, the people trying to sell Fulci’s films tried very sleazily to associate themselves with Romero’s highly successful zombie films. Hence the similar sounding titles, but Fulci’s film themselves? In my opinion they are diametrically opposed to Romero’s films. Save for the zombie element, Fulci’s zombie films dealt with completely different scenarios and situations than Romero’s. While Romero’s films dealt more with social issues through its plot, Fulci seemed contempt with shocking and entertaining you, and scaring the crap out of you while at it. While in Romero’s films no one knows why zombies now roam the earth, in Fulci’s they are here because of a strange mix of voodoo and science; or for supernatural reasons. Fulci’s zombie films also had a level of originality to them. For example, only in a Fulci film will you see a zombie go up against a shark! And underwater no less! Only in a Fulci film will you see zombies that teleport! So yeah, Fulci did put an effort in presenting us with new ideas within the zombie genre. Also, grossing you out was a top priority and speaking of grossing you out, City of the Living Dead will do that for sure!

City of the Living Dead is the first of a trilogy of films directed by Lucio Fulci dealing with the living dead, this trilogy includes City of the Living Dead, The Beyond (1981) and finally, House by the Cemetery (1981). The trilogy is called “The Gates of Hell Trilogy” or the “Death Trilogy” by others. Point is they are all about mystical books that open gates to hell, according to these films there’s 7 gates of hell and various magical books to open and close the gates with. One of these books is ‘The Book of Enoch’, another is the ‘Book of Eibon’. The mention of these books in Fulci’s films was his way of paying homage to legendary horror author, H.P. Lovecraft who mentioned these mystical books in his stories as well. Actually, City of the Living Dead has a lot of Lovecraft in it, aside from the books, same as in Lovecraft’s stories, characters see things that are too horrible for our feeble human minds to comprehend as evidenced by the films opening sequence.

The film opens with a séance; four people are trying to contact the dead. Unfortunately, they end up contacting more than they can handle! Mary, one of the people participating in the séance sees the vision of a priest hanging himself from a tree in the cemetery of a spooky little town known as ‘Dunwich’, by the way, Dunwich is another nod to Lovecraft’s short story ‘The Dunwich Horror’. Why does this priest commit suicide? Who the hell knows! And Fulci isn’t telling you either! But this event causes one of the seven doors of hell to slam open; and if this door isn’t closed before ‘All Saints Day’ then the dead will rise from their graves and take over the earth! So it’s up to the good guys to destroy this evil priest and close the Gate to Hell. Will they get there in time?

Various elements make City of the Living Dead an awesome zombie film, one of them being how far Fulci will go to shock the hell out of you! This is the kind of film I like watching with my friends, just to see their faces when things happen. Ever wondered what a girl puking her innards out of her mouth looks like? Look no further! Ever wondered what a brain looks like when it’s being squished by a zombie’s hand? It’s all presented on this classic zombie without any kind of remorse. I love how these Old Italian horror films don’t hold anything back. I mean, where any other American film would have cut away, Italian horror just keeps on showing you stuff, I love that about them. City of the Living Dead delivers in this department. Also, I enjoyed the films atmosphere. This was something that Fulci paid lots of attention to in many of his films: the spooky town, the wind howling constantly, the lonely streets.

Ultimately, City of the Living Dead is a film filled with many memorable moments. Actually, there is a scene that Tarantino was obviously inspired by for Kill Bill  Vol. 2; I’m talking about the scene in which a woman is buried alive and screams at the top of her lungs for someone to try and save her. That scene is so suspenseful! Gots to hand it to Fulci there; he created a truly memorable scene there. I dare you not to feel some sort of desperation while watching it! On the down side, the film does drag a bit in certain areas, but it doesn’t happen often; and same as in many Fulci films, plot holes abound. Why did the priest kill himself? Why to these zombies teleport? Are they ghosts? Or are they physical beings? Ultimately, none of these hiccups matter, City of the Living Dead is a fine piece of ZombieZinema. The gross out scenes are really out there! We get teleporting zombies which is pretty original and we have some truly memorable scenes; so much so that this is my second favorite Fulci film, second only to The Beyond, which in my opinion remains Fulci’s masterpiece. Highly recommend this one for a night of good old fashion Italian style zombie fun.

Rating: 4 out of 5

     

Manhattan Baby (1982)

Title: Manhattan Baby (1982)

Director: Lucio Fulci

Review:

In Manhattan Baby, we meet the Hacker family while they are visiting Egypt. The father, George Hacker is an archeologist conducting an exploration of ancient Egyptian catacombs. While he does this with a colleague of his, his wife Emily and his daughter Susie go around Egypt exploring buildings and architecture, taking in the sights. Suddenly, a blind old lady walks up to Susie and hands her an Egyptian amulet. The blind old lady then disappears into thin air. Susie seems to think nothing of the lady vanishing into thin air before her very eyes (how typical of Fulci!) and decides to keep the amulet  and take it back home with her. At the same time, while exploring the ancient catacombs, George comes upon an ancient hieroglyph on the wall; a symbol of a snake. Suddenly, rays of blue light shoot out of the symbol and blind him! Will he regain his eye sight? And what’s up with the strange amulet that Susie brought back with her from Egypt? What strange powers does it hold?

Watching Lucio Fulci movies can sometimes be something of a challenge. Case in point: Manhattan Baby which proved to be a difficult movie for me to follow. I kept trying to pinpoint why the hell this was so. I mean, I watch so many movies, why can’t I grasp the ideas that Fulci is trying to put across with his visuals? What is it that distracts me from following? Then I figured it out, its Fulci’s camera movements! I had to rewind certain moments and re-watch them instantly until I realized that Fulci sometimes focused his camera on completely unnecessary things that had nothing to do with the story. Here we are focusing on a light bulb….for no reason whatsoever! Here we are panning out towards….what? Something else that doesn’t even matter or say anything that’s what! Why did Fulci do this so much? It’s almost as if he didn’t want you to understand the film. Some might try and pass this off as “visual poetry” or what have you, but I say boloney! I think it’s just lazy filmmaking, or just plain bad filmmaking. While watching Manhattan Baby it felt as if Fulci was actually purposely trying to confuse me as a watcher rather than helping me understand his story. This got really annoying after a while. Is it the “Italian Way” of telling a story? I mean, I’ve seen a lot of Fulci movies and have encountered this same feeling, so maybe it’s not just this film. Maybe it’s the way Fulci chooses to tell his stories that I find hard to follow. Whatever the case, you’ve been warned! This movie just might get on your nerves to the point where you’ll suddenly find yourself completely lost. And it’s not that it’s a difficult story to tell, or even a complex one, it’s just the way Fulci unfolds his story that gets in the way.

Fulci goes overboard with close ups of eyes on this one! 

   

There is a phrase amongst film buffs that is commonly used to refer to unexplainable moments in a film. That phrase is “What The Hell---?” or What the Fuck---?” In order to keep this blog family friendly, I’ll use “What the Hell---?” from here on in. The last Lucio Fulci film I saw that had an excessive amount of “What the Hell---?” moments was House by the Cemetery (1981). That one was a “What the Hell---?” type of film every step of the way. Just when you think House by the Cemetery  is starting to make some sense, right out of nowhere comes some image or situation that has nothing to do with the film, and ends up confusing you even more. I never thought the day would come, but House by the Cemetery is no longer the most confusing film in Lucio Fulci’s repertoire! Manhattan Baby has now taken its place! Manhattan Baby is overflowing with moments that have little to no explanation whatsoever. For example, on this film people disappear and are never heard of again…and nobody gives a damn if they do! Wouldn’t you be the least bit concerned if your co-worker suddenly vanished into thin air right in your own home? Wouldn’t you be freaked if some blind old lady handed you an amulet and she would suddenly disappear right in front of you? Wouldn’t that freak you for life? Well, not in the world of Manhattan Baby, things like these phase no one. And this are just some of the “What the Hell---?” moments I'm referring to, trust me, there are many more where those come from. So be ready for that. Manhattan Baby is a strange, strange movie.

As is the case with many Italian films from the 70’s and 80’s, Manhattan Baby was extremely influenced by a number of American films. First up, we open up with the exploration of an ancient Egyptian catacomb, something along the lines of something we’d see in Indiana Jones film. The films title Manhattan Baby is an allusion to Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968), in fact, the writer of the film actually admits that there was an attempt to turn this film into a Rosemary’s Baby of sorts, but honestly, I don’t see anything that even resembles Rosemary’s Baby except for the films title, and the fact that one of the characters in Manhattan Baby has the same last name as one of the Satanists in Polanski’s film. The film that Manhattan Baby most resembles is The Exorcist (1973), though it doesnt have a miligram of the atmosphere found in that horror classic. Manhattan Baby has possessed girls, exorcists and exorcisms. The only real difference between both films is that the demon who posseses the little girl in Manhattan Baby doesn’t come from Africa, but from Egypt. It also has a bit of Poltergeist in it, especially when it comes to how they handled the kids and the supernatural events that unfold in their rooms. So once again we have one of these Italian films that’s trying to be like a more successful American film. The only problem with these attempts at ripping off American films is that American films like The Exorcist and Poltergeist were made with millions of dollars while Fulci only had about 300,000 dollars to make Manhattan Baby. So what we got here is a film that needed more money in order to tell its story, unfortunately Fulci had to make do with the little money he had. The film suffered because of it in my opinion.

The film has some positives going for it though. First off, I loved how the film opens up in Egypt. The filmmakers actually went out to Cairo, Egypt and shot the opening sequence of the film there. Filming in an exotic location like that, with real pyramids and dessert vistas for a backdrop can add a lot of beauty to your film, and I must say Fulci really took advantage of filming in Egypt. Unfortunately, I learned later that these scenes in Egypt were actually filmed after the film had been completed so they could give a more international feel to the movie, to help sell it. That Egyptian opening sequence was just tacked on. Back in those days, Italians had an extremely messy way of making movies; sometimes it feels as if they were making them up as they went along. And I’m sure they did on many occasions. Manhattan Baby has some of Fulci’s trademarks. For example, on this one he went over board with the focusing on the eyes thing he always does in all his movies! We get animals turning evil on this one as well, only this time it’s with a twist. Yet, strangely enough, this film has very little of the traditional Fulci gore. It starts and ends with a bit of gore, but it’s not the amount we are used to seeing in a Fulci film.

Final words: this is not what I would call a good Lucio Fulci film. I am used to a certain amount of confusion from an Italian movie, there is something about how they tell their stories that can end up confusing the hell out of you as a viewer, but Manhattan Baby takes the taco as one of the most confusing of all. I get that they were trying to get away from zombies and what is considered a traditional horror film, by the writers own admission, they were trying to take horror to ‘new dimensions’ with Manhattan Baby. I guess by this he meant that he didn’t want to do what he’d always done with Fulci meaning zombies, ghosts and magical books that open doors to hell. On this one they were going for something just a little different. Demons from Egypt! I don’t think they were entirely successful in pulling off the story they wanted to tell, a lot of that seems to stem from their meager budget. I’d suggest this one to fans of Fulci films, everyone else will either be completely bored or confused, take your pick.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Lucio Fulci's A Cat in the Brain (a.k.a. Nightmare Concert) (1990)

Title: A Cat in the Brain (1990)

Director: Lucio Fulci

Comments:

I guess horror directors tend to worry a lot about how people perceive them. Many of them might be worried that people think they are demented psychos looking to bring their gory images to life. When in reality most of the time, horror directors are just mild mannered, educated, well versed human beings. I guess this film was Lucio Fulcis way of saying "I aint a criminal or a killer, Im just a regular guy who lives making horror films!"

Story goes something like this: Lucio Fulci (playing himself) is trying to direct his latest horror film. He is having trouble doing it because every where he looks and everything he does reminds him of some gory horror moment from one of his films. So he is constantly tormented by visions of gory mayhem. He will be doing some every day chore and whamo! some gory death will pop into his brain. He goes looking for psychiatric help, to see if he can calm down these horrific nightmares. Will Fulci start killing people just like his characters do in his movies?

While some people say that this is Fulcis 8 1/2, I really wouldnt go that far. Maybe in premise and themes, but obviously not in an artistic level, not in a quality level and certainly not in its acting and writing. This is after all, not Fulcis best film. This was really Fulci directing a film during his last days on this earth, literally. Id say its a low budget gory version of  8 1/2. A Cat in the Brain does have some elements you would find in a  Federico Fellini film, but ultimately, they are nothing alike. For example, Fellini had a fascination with women. His adoration for beautiful women was evident in all of his films. In 8 1/2 he has a whole sequence in which he mentally revisits all the women that have ever been a part of his life, and in the end decides to stay with his wife, and deletes all these women from his mind. Fellinis love for women was also evident with the extremely beautiful actresses he always chose for his films, Anita Eckberg being one of the first to pop to my mind, but she wasnt alone, there were many other extremely beautiful women in Fellinis films. Fulci does the samething, but he does his own sleazy version of it. While Fellini never showed any female nudity (that I can recall) he simply admired women from an aesthetic and psychological angle, Fulci goes into a more sexual potrayal of women. By this I mean, he has a lot of nudity in this film! Not only that, he has the movie end with him accompanied by a beautiful woman going on a boat ride with him in the sunset! Comparing Fulci with Fellini because of this film, just isnt right. They are two very different directors.

Still, its interesting to see Fulci doing such a personal film. And even more interesting to see him playing himself in this movie. The horror director trying to deal with the gore and violence that he sees everyday on his films. Apparently, after a while, making these kinds of movies can get to you and this is Fulcis way of saying "this shit aint easy on a day to day basis!" A Cat in the Brain is similar to Clive Barkers Nightbreed because of its premise. Fulci goes to his shrink to get some help from him, to see if his shrink can help him deal with the nightmarish images that keep popping up into his brain, but same as Nightbreed (spoilers ahead) its the shrink who decides to do the killing! (end of Spoilers) Now this is a more reasonable comparison then the Fellini one. I agree Barker and Fulci would defenetly play in the same ballpark. Both Fulci and Barker love extreme gore and shock.

Unfortunately, inspite of the movie having an interesting premise (that of Fulci going slightly coo-koo from making so many gory horror movies) the movie kind of falls flat after a while because it becomes redundant. Okay, I get this idea that Fulci is having gory images flashed into his brain from time to time, and that its driving him nuts. But unfortunately the film goes on and on in a loop showing Fulci doing everyday normal things, and then showing a gory death. Fulci might be chopping up some tomatoes, and suddenly he'll think his chopping off someones head, things like that. But the movie goes on and on this way, without really getting any plot line going or anything. His shrink keeps following around, but even this side story is resolved very quickly and in a very unsatasfying manner. So the movie kind of becomes monotonous after a while.

I mean, dont get me wrong, the gory scenes are awesome, and fun to watch. And they are very extreme. One of the death sequences in the film has a girl being stabbed to death in a shower, which was sort of the gory graphic version of Hitchcocks shower scene. Psycho's shower scene is very effective, but it isnt graphic in nature at all! So this was Fulci saying, heres my version of it! I understand this film has moments where it shows its influenced by Hitchcocks films, but saying that Fulci has perfected suspense film with A Cat in the Brain was an overstatement.

The deaths are plenty, and they are graphic, gore fans should be pleased with this one.  Some of the deaths are really deaths from other films with Fulcis wrap around story in between. Some of the goriest moments come from other directors horror films. These are Italian horror film directors that Fulci apparently endorses, so he decided to include clips from their movies in his. The clips included in the film come from the following films:

The Ghosts of Sodom (1988) (directed by Lucio Fulci)

Dont be Afraid of Aunt Martha (1988) (directed by Mario Bianchi)

Touch of Death (1988) (directed by Lucio Fulci this one is on dvd!)

Bloody Psycho (1989) (directed by Leandro Luchetti)

Escape from Death (1989) (directed by Enzo Millioni)

Massacre (1989) (directed by Andrea Bianchi)

Hansel and Gretel (1989) (directed by Giovanni Simonelli)

All in all, not a very deep film. Though its a personal film and Fulci analizes himself and how his films affect his psyche, the film didn really make the best of its premise and became redundant and dull story wise. Gore wise you'll have a good time, but story wise you' ll be wanting a bit more meat.

Rating: 2 1/2 out of 5

Lucio Fulci's Conquest (1983)

Title: Conquest (1982)

Director: Lucio Fulci

Review:

After Conan the Barbarian was released in 1982, its success spawned a whole slew of immitations. Often times, these imitations would pale in comparison to John Milius's excellent fantasy tale. Amongst the american imitators the most prominent one in my book is Don Coscarelli's The Beastmaster, which is a fun little movie on its own, but is basically the same movie, same plot, but with a guy who talks to animals and a far smaller budget. In the Italian film market, many more cheap imitations of Conan the Barbarian emerged. Lucio Fulci, being one of the most prominent b-movie directors from Italy did his own cheap imitation of Conan. The result was Conquest.

Story is almost non existent, but essentially, what we have here are two guys living in a barbaric caveman like fantasy world filled with all sorts of weird creatures. Life is savage in this strange land, so these two guys team up to face the world together. One of them, Ilias, is a skinny wimpy looking dude, but apparently he is the son of a Zeus-like God who gives him a magical crossbow. The other guy is a Conan like barbarian who goes by the name of Mace, cause you know, he uses a nun-chuck kind of mace to protect himself from his enemies. Also, he almost always answers in monosilabic words, saying everything he has to with as little words as possible. Meanwhile, in some other part of the land, an evil sorceress queen who goes by the name of Zora has a vision in which this faceless warrior with a magical crossbow is going to destroy her. So she sends out her minions to try and stop him.

This is just another run of the mill Italian rip off, and trust me, there were many of those! What Fulci did was, he gathered all these elements from a bunch of previously released American fantasy films and went his own way with it. So what we have here is a jumbled mess of film that incorporates elements from far better films of its genre, all of which had bigger budgets then this one. Ill mention just how many films Conquest was a rip off of, just so you get an idea. First one in the line is Beastmaster. Why? Because Mace, the super tough dude who looks an awful lot like Arnold Schwarznegger, can communicate with animals! He talks to eagles and dolphins! We get elements from Conan the Barbarian, because Mace looks like a cheap imitation of Schwarzneggers Conan. You know the kind. A big tough muscular dude who doesnt say much and wont think twice before cracking your skull in two. Another thing we get from the Conan the Barbarian is the evil Queen who belongs to some sort of snake worshipping cult, just like Thulsa Doom did in Conan the Barbarian. Also, the film is centered around revenge. Same as in Conan, the evil snake worshipping cult kills the good guys family and destroys his village, so he has to go on a revenge spree. The cavemen on this movie look and even act exactly like the cavemen in Quest for Fire. And to top things off, this movie also rips off Clash of the Titans because one of its main characters (Ilias) is a son of a Zeus-like God (just like Perseus in Clash of the Titans), and even gets a special weapon from this God to aid him through his quest. So as you can see, this isnt exactly the most original of films. Fulci just fed off a bunch of other films.

Problem is, that Fulci ended up taking elements from films that had a far bigger budget then the one Conquest had. So what happens is, this film ends up falling short in the make up effects and visual effects department. What you end up getting is a cheap, laughable version of all those other films that I mentioned before. Biggest problem for me is that Conquest ends up being boring as hell. Why? Well, its normal in a fantasy film for characters to go from battling one monster to the next, and this happens on Conquest. Ufortunately, the monsters arent all that impressive. Its just guys in really cheap monster suits. Over and over again. And what happens when the good guys fight these men in monster suits? Not much, basically the same thing you see in all these cheap Italian films: people hurling each other through the air, fighting and wrestling for a couple of minutes until the good guys beat them. So its that kind of a film. No budget? Well, just get a bunch of guys to fight and wrestle each other on the screen for a while, then move on to the next boring ass fight.

"But its a Fulci film!" you say. Yeah, its a Fulci film. But you have to remember, Fulci didnt always hit the mark with his films. He has quite a bunch of just plain bad films on his resume. In my opinion, he was better off directing horror films. Fulci did fill this film with more gore then you'd normally get on a fantasy flick. The first few scenes open up with a Werewolf Clan (yup theres a werewolf clan on this film!) tearing up a native into shreds. Its a pretty graphic sequence, where each werewolf takes there favorite limb and rips it right off! Sadly, the movie does not maintain that level of entertainment all through out. It was just an amusing way to open up the film. And then there are some scenes that will really test your patience! There was this one scene where Mace is being crucified by these monsters (yeah, same way Conan was crucified in the tree of woe) and then while still crucified falls into the ocean. He is under water for far longer than it is humanly possible! More than ten minutes pass before he reemerges from the water. And this happens because he telepathically asks these dolphins to help him out! Fulci decides to show off this nifty footage of dolphins swimming left and right and it gets so freaking annoying! One starts feeling like "get to the fucking point goddamit!"  Its that kind of a movie. This being a Fulci movie, zombies make it onto the film somehow, and this being a Fulci movie, we gets tons of naked women all through out the film, and I mean lots. Dont have a budget? Just get every actress to appear topless! Guys will no doubt show up to see the movie that way. Gotta say, the actress playing the villain was hot as hell. Kudos to Fulci for choosing hot babes for his flicks, it helps alliviate the pain of being bored to death.

I guess you could say Conquest is an amusing film in the sense that its so stupid and silly, that you cant help but continue watching. Its what held me through till the bitter end. I wanted to see where Fulci could take this film. Turns out, Fulci could take this movie really really low! Try this one on for size: the main character uses a magical crossbow that shoots a lazer like arrow that devides in the air and hits all of your villains at once! Why didnt this guy use this magical crossbow earlier in the movie?? Funniest part is when the guy calls up the arrow (cause you know, you just gotta call up your weapon so it comes to ya!) it flies to him across the skies and lands right in his hand! Funny, funny film. If your in the mood for a cheap laugh, by all means, pop this silly fantasy film in your dvd player. Not Fulcis best thats for sure, but it just might entertain ya with its silly antics and its cheap ass effects. Oh, wait, did I mention the terrible dialog? Well, I just did. You've been warned!

Rating: 2 out of 5