What baffles me is the fact the US released a R rated version that cut out the nudity but left the violence intact. So women getting butchered is ok but a bit of nudity is bad? Talk about screwed up priorities.
As for the movie itself I have an uncut version and I agree it is very brutal in the depiction of the killings. The only problem I have with it is the fact that the killer quacks like Donald Duck during the kills. I wonder what Fulci was thinking. It takes the seriousness out of the murders and makes them a little goofy (no pun).
I did like this movie despite the quacking. Also the fact that Fulci doesn't shy away from showing the women being brutally killed. You don't see movies like that anymore. No, I'm not a misogynist. In fact this is one of the extremely few movies I've seen where it shows women being graphically murdered. Also the only one of 2 movies that actually shows vaginal mutilation. (The other being Giallo a Venezia http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079207/)
I mention that last point because I've seen many horror movies involving the mutilation of male genitals (castration, being bitten off etc.) but, oddly, I can't recall any movies that shows vaginal mutilations. I find that rather disturbing to be honest. Why are there so many movies depicting male genitalia mutilation but not female?
That's what makes this movie and Giallo a Venezia stand out in the crowd.
reply
share