Oliviero is a burned-out writer, living at his estate near Venice, his dead mother dominating his imagination. He is also a degenerate: sleeps with his maid and his ex-student, hosts ... See full summary »
A teacher who is having an affair with one of his students takes her out on a boat. They see a knife killing on shore. Other gruesome murders start occurring shortly thereafter, and the ... See full summary »
A Canadian archaeological team in Sicily accidentally unleashes vengeful ghosts of five demonic nuns whom were murdered 500 years earlier and the ghosts now set out to kill the group and townspeople alike.
Small time crook Napoleone falls into an unlikely gang made up of a gangster, called The Baron, and his two cohorts, Agonia and The Captain, where Napoleone takes them to Rome where they ... See full summary »
Edward G. Robinson
Two dim-witted servants to an elderly, wealthy woman learn that they are to inherent the late woman's money, on the condition that they have to care for her rambuncous pet cat, which is not an easy thing to do so.
Florinda Bolkan plays the daughter of a prominant English politician who keeps having recurring "nightmares" in which she makes love to a bisexual nympho who lives downstairs and conducts all-night LSD orgies. When the nocturnal wet dreams become murderous, the neighbor turns up dead, and Florinda is the main suspect. Did she actually commit the murder she dreamt about? Is she being framed by her philandering husband? Did Florinda actually make nightly visits downstairs aside from borrowing the occasional cup of sugar? How DID Florinda's letter opener end up stuck in the dead neighbor's chest anyway? The complex plot unfolds amidst red herrings, outlandish dream sequences, lesbian hanky panky, and ominous close-ups of Florinda Bolkan's guilt-ridden facial expressions every time someone mentions the murder. All this takes place in swinging late-1960's London. Written by
Mike Justice <Fergus21@hotmail.com>
The scene in which Carol encounters the disemboweled dogs in the clinic became quite controversial because of the startlingly realistic (and graphic) appearance of the fake prop dogs. Director Lucio Fulci was nearly sent to prison because it was believed that the dogs were real and Fulci had allowed animal cruelty on the film. However crew members were able to testify in court that the "dogs" were indeed fake and no animals had ever been harmed. Special effects artist Carlo Rambaldi even presented the dog props in court to convince the jury. This was the first time that an effects artist had to testify in court that their work was fake. See more »
Guide wires clearly visible on all three of the knives Jenny throws. See more »
I'm not really a big fan of Lucio Fulci, but this wasn't a bad little murder mystery
I'm not really a big fan of Lucio Fulci, but this wasn't a bad little murder mystery. For once, the film concentrates on the actual mystery as opposed to the murders. There is a minimum of gore which may disappoint fans of European schlock, but adds to the credibility of the film. The mystery itself is cleverly setup and the use of red herrings was quite good. It contains one of those endings which is unpredictable but makes us feel we should have known all along. Also, Fulci proves to be a stylish and atmospheric director. The love scenes towards the beginning are surprisingly erotic. He is particularly good in the surreal scenes involving the hippie orgies. Its odd how a film could seem to be so against the Hallucination Generation yet carry such a psychedelic style. This dates the film poorly but also adds to the appeal for cult fans. Special mention also goes to a typically atmospheric score by Ennio Morrecone.
Still, this is no masterpiece. While the setup and mystery itself is reasonably clever, the dialog is dumb as all hell. Lucio Fulci is a director often accused of showing more interest in set pieces than in character development and script writing, and that is all too apparent here. Also, I was confused by Stanley Baker's character. I get the feeling that Baker, who could be a good actor (just see "Zulu"), was supposed to be a quirky scene-stealing inspector stock character (Jess Franco did this very well in "Diabolical Dr. Z"). He just came across as alternatively annoying and puzzling. Also, the film is too leisurely paced for my liking. I can deal with a slow pace if something interesting is taking place on screen, but there's too much talk and filler in this one. An enjoyable film, but not one I see myself watching more than once. (6/10)
3 of 5 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?