That people come to praise 'Sei donne per l'assassino' (1964) as a wonderful movie is totally beyond me. Oh yes I understand how their brains work and yes, the lighting is key in creating a stunning visual style.
But once you acknowledged Mario Bava's work to create this style, there only remains enormous flaws to list. I agree 'La maschera del demonio' (1960) was tense so you wouldn't have the time to notice the flimsy story, poor directing and lame acting. In this trend-setting color flick the style is clearly over the top: the irrational lighting, the vivid colors and the slow pace of the shots, all really create an atmosphere of its own. Yet there's absolutely no substance to sustain this surreal setting.
Actors are lame puppets brought together or aside in a dead-flat storyline. The framing of the shots is heavy and monotonous. The interior shots all look the same, which would induce a claustrophobia feeling if there was a real suspense to keep us on the edge of our seats but only adds up to the global film-making cheapness.
The worst comment critics can do about a boring movie they despise is compare it to watching paint dry. I would only say that a book of still photographs from this movie must be a real masterpiece. Now, those who over-hyped this dull motion picture are certainly proud of their taste, for me they just have zero ability to see beyond the big fat style: they are gobblers-viewers (fortunately some are fun enough to find some kind of social commentary in a thoroughly uninteresting yet colorful dud, ha).
But once you acknowledged Mario Bava's work to create this style, there only remains enormous flaws to list. I agree 'La maschera del demonio' (1960) was tense so you wouldn't have the time to notice the flimsy story, poor directing and lame acting. In this trend-setting color flick the style is clearly over the top: the irrational lighting, the vivid colors and the slow pace of the shots, all really create an atmosphere of its own. Yet there's absolutely no substance to sustain this surreal setting.
Actors are lame puppets brought together or aside in a dead-flat storyline. The framing of the shots is heavy and monotonous. The interior shots all look the same, which would induce a claustrophobia feeling if there was a real suspense to keep us on the edge of our seats but only adds up to the global film-making cheapness.
The worst comment critics can do about a boring movie they despise is compare it to watching paint dry. I would only say that a book of still photographs from this movie must be a real masterpiece. Now, those who over-hyped this dull motion picture are certainly proud of their taste, for me they just have zero ability to see beyond the big fat style: they are gobblers-viewers (fortunately some are fun enough to find some kind of social commentary in a thoroughly uninteresting yet colorful dud, ha).