SPOILER!!! I think everyone is missing something

This is completely absurd. You're all taking this waaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. This director has a cult following, and his loyal fans are seeing 'things that aren't there'.

What you guys are mistaking for an intensely, intricately-woven, intentionally-ambiguous plot is really just a confused, convoluted mess of a film.

You're all forgetting that these are exploitation films. They're made on a budget to cash in on a quick buck. And quite often the director is at the mercy of the studio or a host of other people in order to churn these films out.

Fulci didn't even write this himself. He was PART of the writing credits. Gianfranco Clerici, Lucio Fulci, Vincenzo Mannino and Dardano Sacchetti wrote the film. Who knows who wrote what and for what reason? Who knows what Lucio Fulci added and what Vincenzo Mannio or some other writer added? Perhaps having four writers on the team only confused things and made the plot less focused?

I like Lucio Fulci. His films are great for many, many reasons, and the man is indeed talented. In many ways he exhibits signs of genius, but plot construction is not f'cking one of them! For f'ck's sake guys, get a grip! You don't need to be a genius to understand that!!!!!!! I find it fascinating the lengths that fan(atics)s will go to to defend things they hold close.

I just watched this movie and was curious to read what other people had to say about it. This went over my head when watching the movie for the first time but now it makes sense. Few more important clues that you didn't touch on:

-During the scene where the professor's assistant (or whoever she is) is in his office looking at the picture of the dead girl he tells her "don't accept rides from anyone with two fingers missing". But the professor makes it clear he never believed the man with two missing fingers was the killer. It was almost as if he felt he needed to cover his tracks from the assistant and feed her BS information.
-The professor buys a sex magazine of men at one point during the movie and this purchase and scene are never directly explained. What this scene is likely establishing is the start of a foundation for the professor's motives to murder women, he simply hates the gender. Or it would at least explain why a male serial killer has zero sexual interest in young, attractive and sexually active women.

However, to fog up all theories, at the beginning of the movie the guy that examined the corpse indicates that the killer is left handed. I quickly re-watched many scenes in fast forward and it actually looks like every one in the movie is right handed. Examples: The professor signs papers with his right hand in one scene toward the end of the movie and Peter writes on the chalk board with his right hand. The only left handed scenes other than the faceless killing scenes is the knife fight at the end of the movie and surprisingly both of them grip the knife and stab with their left hand (???).

This was the second Fulci film I've seen, Zombi 2 of course was my first, and I'd have to say that I liked this one better. The next one I'm seeing is The House by the Cemetery, really looking forward to it.

This sick little number isn't ammong Fulci's better works, nor is it a shining example of a giallo, but I do like the fact you came up with an alternate (if completely unsupported) theory. I would love to read your thoughts on the ending of "City of the Living Dead", mate.

Actually, it is left hanging. I think too that the doctor was the killer, that and the bottle scene is what I remember from the movie. Imho the identity is left hanging, and you much choose whether or not the doctor was the ripper.

I just watched this again and I have to say that you people that are insisting the dr is the killer are NOT reading the rebuttals and the same topics keep getting argued over and over again.


YES--the freeze frame is definitely out of order in happened in the middle of the movie.

The gay magazine scene...the chess comment SIMPLY red-herring bait.

Why would a hottie like Peter hook up with an ugly nerd like the Dr. anyway =P
---
That's right we're here to shoot those frowns off your faces. POW! right in the face.

the entire movie seemed pretty straight forward and pretty damn stupid. a duck?? what the hell was he possibly thinking. when i first heard the killers voice all i could think was "wtf??"" it actually took a bit for me to process someone coming up with such a stupid premise. but alas i finally came to accept that it was a fulci movie.

[deleted]

Keep in mind that this was more or less a good 10 years after Dario Argento had pretty much made a career out of Giallos, much less his particular brand, which itself followed a pattern once you recognized it (a really good red herring is set up, close to being caught but then killed... unfortunately, the movie still has 10 minutes left, which even the main character(s) seem to be aware of, as they ponder.. "wait a minute.. this can't be... there's still something off...", whereupon the REAL killer is produced, along with semi-slick finale or anti-climax).

This could simply be Fulci's way of copying the Giallo formula, in that the boyfriend (who could have still killed some of the people, maybe even from the good Doctor's psychological influence) is set up as the obvious killer, with the duck voice and trying to kill his girlfriend and all. But all it takes is a few good edits and shots to point to the REAL killer, who could very well be the Doctor, as it would fit the pattern of the typical Italian Giallo.