revival05 I think it all boils down to passion and driving force, the key thing that made Lucio Fulci the unique director he was and many of his movies absolutely fabulous. I can't really think of any director in the history of cinema who was so much about commitment and motivation. Maybe Edward D. Wood Jr, and that's an interesting comparison. While Fulci went straight on, seemingly against any possible sensibility and good advice, he had a style and a vision and an inner logic that somehow made it all work, albeit not for neither a traditional mainstream nor art-house crowd, whereas the same thing drove Edward D. Wood Jr to becoming known as the worst director of all time. It is a strange fine line though, because Ed Wood could certainly have made Sodoma's Ghost.When Lucio Fulci made movies he didn't just make a movie, it seems to me. With a history of both medical school and art criticism, I imagine him as this Leone-tempered butcher with a knack for art and a mind that's all happy trigger. The kid is going to get his brains drilled out, don't ask questions, it's not over the top! What do you mean you can't puke out your intestines!! I say it so it must be so! His creativity seems to have been radically set at random, he could to the silliest movies and still squeeze in some kind of more or less profound message and he could jump into whatever project that seemed reasonably interesting. Murder to the tune of the seven notes, "that sounds great! I want to make that movie!" Of course, when he pulled it all together, he made movies that, apart from being simply awesome, also totally challenge how we label art and genre in cinema. The Beyond for instance, is simply a great movie, but I can't really label it as anything else; A wonderful movie that could only have been created by a very specific and unique vision, executed with passion and driving force. And that was Fulci's trade and that's the reason that most of his movies are interesting, entertaining or at least positively watchable, if you appreciate him.That is also the reason why Sodoma's Ghost is a tragedy to watch. I don't know all that much about Fulci's life, so I can't speculate too much, but obviously he went downhill during the 90's and, if you follow the reasoning I presented just now, it must have been a mental fallback as well. Fulci's career was that of an explorer's and it seems logical that after being done with horror he could have ventured off into something else. True, all his later movies are more interested in more or less classical Gothic motifs, but it just isn't strong enough. Specially in the case of Sodoma's Ghost, which has got to be Fulci's weakest effort, and this is the key word here, 'weak'. On paper, Sodoma's Ghost has every chance to be a great Fulci movie. A nazi ghost in a cursed house infiltrates the minds of a bunch of kids on the road, making their own weakness their doom. It paves the way for his trademark pessimism, the eerie surrealism, clever gore and the classic Fulci theme of the human eyeball and "who sees what". I can even accept the hokey ending, which I won't give away. And once in a while, we are talking seconds or bare minutes of film, a splinter of a good thing appears. The first sequence is the only true good scene in the movie, but there are others involving our charismatic nazi ghost that float somewhere around the interest mark, but it never becomes worthwhile because you can so strongly sense the movie being simply dead.I never thought I'd have to say this about a Fulci movie, but the actors and their dialogs are crap. Who are these people? Maybe acting in Fulci movies in general isn't more "bad" than "melodramatic", but the people in front of the camera in Sodoma's Ghost look like random people picked up on the street. They read lines and make one or two attempts at acting, but what's worse is that Fulci has not given an attempt to make this movie worthwhile for anybody. "It's almost dark" the kids say upon arrival to the house, yet it's obviously daylight! They can't escape from the house - because they just can't! When the characters talk, you find that you barely comprehend the words they are saying, as said by these actors, because it is so stale and rudimentary that you begin to wonder if you shouldn't clean the house instead. One of the kids lay dead on the floor, the others mourn him. Minutes later they are cracking jokes by his corpse, which by the way is magically starting to fry. For a good part of the movie he lies around, they pass him and should see his oozing corpse, but not until they have to do they see his gory presence laying there in plain sight.There is not a single eyeball zoom-in in Sodoma's Ghost, and while some might think that is fan bigotry, I think it really is just an example of dead passion, or a way of thinking that this really isn't a Fulci movie at all. In fact, it ain't much of a movie at all! It consists of scenes, yes, but I think Sodoma's Ghost is more recorded data than a proper movie. There is not any point of reference given to make anybody understand the coherence of it, not in theme nor in plot, and as a director Fulci comes off as a dying animal in this movie. The shots seem barely finished, the movie barely cut together and you know, on a pure quality level, Bruno Mattei did better movies than this.

Scarecrow-88 American college kids on a trip to Paris, take a detour(..ALWAYS a no-no)down a rural road leading to a French villa which once occupied Nazi soldiers having an orgy with prostitutes, bombed by enemies in WWII. The group fall prey to madness and seemingly supernatural forces as the Nazis, in spirit, return to haunt them. Attempting to get back to the road to Paris, they find themselves driving in circles, leading right back to the villa. Soon, the windows and doors are shut and the group find themselves trapped inside. Spirits begin to appear to certain members when they go to their rooms separately, often manipulated by them. Will they escape or are they doomed forever? I'm not that crazy about Fulci's beloved zombie films(..except his first one, ZOMBI 2), but one thing they weren't and that was boring. For a good hour, nothing much happens except the characters argue with each other, drink booze, contemplate their difficult situation, some converse with the spirit of a male or female German who have ulterior motives behind their actions, promising pleasure but secretly plotting something else. Fulci never establishes a strong story-line and SODOMA'S GHOST features a rambling series of supernatural occurrences which never quite work. The opening orgy is a deadeningly dull, poorly staged and protracted sequence which fails to even titillate. It's over an hour before the gorehounds who admire Fulci so much get what they seek out when looking for his movies..and even when you get the gore, it's minimal(..one male victim attempts to grab the breasts of a female German ghoul, only to rip apart her deteriorated flesh, eventually confronting a friend, believing he's a Nazi, tumbling down a flight of stairs, crushing his skull at the bottom, and soon his corpse begins to rot with puss oozing from slowly appearing sores and decaying skin). The entire film consists of one uneventful sequence after another, with nothing exciting ever produced. And the ending is yet another "It's all a dream" scenario..yawn. The characters are routine and trite, and their plight you could care less about. I believe even his most ardent admirers would have a hard time defending this misfire. It's one of his raunchier films, but lacks any kind of eroticism whatsoever, as Fulci teases with possible lesbianism(..at least he could've delivered a nice female lovemaking session to spice things up a little, but even here, Fulci couldn't deliver)without executing anything properly. Dreadful movies like this fuel Fulci's critics with proper ammunition. I'm not sure if it was lack of inspiration or funds available, but Fulci doesn't even create an atmosphere in the film, with nothing but boobs to capture your attention or divert your mind from looking at your watch.

BA_Harrison During the 'golden age' of Italian gore films (the late 70s–early 80s), director Lucio Fulci was at the top of his game, delivering extreme doses of graphic violence that more or less compensated for his less-than-stellar story lines. By the mid 80s however, the master of outrageous splatter was on something of a downward slide: his Flashdance-inspired giallo Murderock (1984) left fans dissatisfied due to its lack of creative killing; Aenigma (1987), a supernatural revenge tale inspired by De Palma's Carrie, suffered from an awful script that offered several laughable death scenes (including a ridiculous snail attack!); and A Touch of Death (1988), although very gory, proved almost unwatchable thanks to an incomprehensible plot and a few heavy-handed attempts at comedy.However, worse was still to come: 1988 also saw the release of Fulci's The Ghosts of Sodom, a very weak ghost story that relied heavily on stale genre clichés, used copious amounts of nudity and softcore sex to try and detract from its awful acting and lousy dialogue, and which totally failed to dish out the carnage.The film opens in a remote French villa during WW2, where a Nazi orgy ends with a bang (literally) when the place suffers a direct hit from an air raid. The action then cuts to the present day, and follows six travellers en route to Paris who stumble upon the (strangely intact) villa after taking a shortcut (I said this movie was clichéd, didn't I?). After opting to spend the night in the old building (which, to their surprise, is fully furnished, has electricity, and offers a great selection of vintage wine in its cellar), the group suffer from a series of terrifying supernatural occurrences that tests their friendship and pushes them to the edge of sanity...In the right hands (or should that be 'wrong hands'), this tale of debauched sex, ghostly prostitutes, and repressed lesbianism (one of the girls is a closet rug-muncher) could have been a slice of exploitation heaven; Fulci, unfortunately, fumbles the ball, and manages to make his salacious subject matter seem incredibly dull: his sex scenes are not nearly sleazy enough and the horror simply lacks guts. After 85 minutes of mind-numbingly naff Nazi nonsense and ghostly guff, Fulci ends his film with an insipid cop-out finalé, which sees all six friends (even the supposedly dead ones!) escaping with their lives from the (now ruined) building.Possibly the least entertaining horror film by the director (I still have a few more to watch, but I can't see how they could be any worse), The Ghosts of Sodom is definitely one to avoid.

HumanoidOfFlesh Lucio Fulci's "The Ghosts of Sodom" is so dumb that it's very difficult not being at least a little entertained by it.A group of kids arrives at the old Nazi mansion and soon they are haunted by Nazis from the past."The Ghosts of Sodom" must be among the worst films made by Italian horror maestro Lucio Fulci.There is almost none of the Fulci magic left.The film is also pretty boring and filled with unnecessary dialogue.There is plenty of nudity,so if you like them sleazy you won't be disappointed.No gore to speak of apart from some nice shots of decaying corpse.The film is quite rare and hard to find,so if you like Italian horror give it a look.4 out of 10.