MovieChat Forums > Conquest (1984) Discussion > visually impressive

visually impressive

posted 9 years ago by Falconeer
2 replies | jump to latest

Having seen most of L. Fulci's work, I believe that "Conquest" might be his most visually beautiful film. Far from his best, but there is something about the movie that elevates it above others in this genre. I love the way it was filmed, although I thought the nasty gore elements were actually unnecessary for this one, and cheapened the film. See "Conquest" for the visuals, and the bizarre music and hallucinogenic qualities,,and you might want to smoke something beforehand..

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

[–] capkronos 8 years ago

Cool that you liked how this looked but my opinion is completely different. I found the photography genuinely awful. Entire movies aren't shot soft focus with gauze over the lens for a good reason PLUS adding near-constant fog to the mix was just way too much. There's a major lack of detail and almost everything has this annoyingly blurry look to it. You cannot fully appreciate the scenery (which COULD have been a real plus) or the special effects or anything else because of this. All I kept thinking is how much I wanted to wipe the camera lens and turn the fog machine off. I suppose this was an experimental approach but not all experiments work and I think think this is one of those cases (at least for me). The guy who shot it, Alejandro Ulloa, shot or helped shoot nearly 150 films and this is one of the ONLY instances he chose not to use his real name. I can understand why!

My horror movie blog:
http://thebloodypitofhorror.blogspot.com/

[–] Hey_Sweden 8 years ago

I agree with you. This COULD have been visually impressive, but the look of the film was just too murky and blurry.

What do you think this is, a signature? It's a way of life!