On the one hand, I'm given to understand that Lucio Fulci himself regarded this film poorly when all was said and done, and as a viewer, it probably wasn't the best choice for me to watch. On the other hand, while to date I've seen only a few of his works, I've yet to watch any horror film from the man that was actually good - the best was no more than "half okay" - so 'Manhattan baby' surely couldn't be any worse than, say, 'Aenigma,' or 'Demonia,' could it? Well, the good news is that no, this 1982 movie truly couldn't be any worse than those stated movies, because they were absolute rubbish, and the worst of Fulci's that I've seen so far. The bad news is that this pretty well fits in neatly alongside them as being dull and unconvincing, and I remain doubtful that the man should have ever been allowed to make horror movies in the first place.
I'm given to understand that a chief issue with this in Fulci's eyes was the lower budget than intended or expected, impacting what he wanted to do in terms of special effects. I suppose it's possible that in recognition of that lack, Fulci also altered what Elisa Livia Briganti and Dardano Sacchetti had written so as to cut scenes that would have taken advantage of those effects, and which wouldn't work without them. In fact, I think the generous view is to assume that's the case, because if it's not, then 'Manhattan baby' is even worse than it looks as is. And how it looks as is, I'm afraid, is just garbage. Either the cast can't act, which is certainly a possibility, or Fulci was just an awful director who couldn't put together a scene to save his life, because none of the performances are all that great to begin with, and there are many moments that just raise a skeptical eyebrow. Then again, whether or not there's any acting going on in a scene, from one to the next they're all a floundering, dubious mess, and I have to wonder how it was that Fulci had as long of a career as he did.
But hey, it might not be Fulci's fault, either, because if the finished product reflects what Briganti and Sacchetti wrote, then 'Manhattan baby' doesn't speak well to the screenwriters, either. The dialogue is appallingly bland and lifeless, if not also just unbelievable. The characters are empty shells of nothingness. The scene writing is laughably schlocky, with genre elements seemingly thrown in scattershot without rhyme or reason. Why, when you get down to it a substantial portion of the scene writing doesn't even make sense, and the same goes for the overall story. By and large the picture just feels like ideas thrown at a wall in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, some of them might land in a pattern that would form a cohesive whole. "Evil! So evil! Something is evil!" Briganti and Sacchetti said, and they hoped throwing ideas at a wall would somehow fill in the rest. Some of those ideas might be workable, but the key word is "some," and anyway - so what? With all this in mind it doesn't matter whether or not the effects are any good, because that which they are intended to portend is the real problem. Sound and music cues are tiresome. Some of Fabio Frizzi's music is half decent, but some of it is just ill-fitting for a given moment; while I can't place my finger on it, the one theme that is most repeated is one that I've heard before, and I'm inclined to think that means Frizzi just lifted it.
It's not specifically the fault of Fulci or 'Manhattan baby' that the dubbing in the widely available version is terrible, but nor does it help the title's case. What is the fault of 'Manhattan baby' is how some of the cinematography is simply overdone. Some instances are intended to heighten tension or something, yet there's no tension to be heightened with writing and direction this lousy, decisions like frequent and repeated close-ups of actors' eyes are almost funny for how kitschy they come off. Some of the sound effects are kind of quizzical, both in and of themselves and in how they are employed. The editing is overly curt, and sometimes the sequencing just feels choppy.
For what it's worth, the art direction is pretty terrific.
What's truly incredible is that I know Fulci actually was capable of making good movies. 1966 western 'Massacre time' had its problems, but was pretty enjoyable overall. 1967 comedy 'The long, the short, the cat' was utterly hilarious, and a fantastically good time from start to finish. So why is it that Fulci is best known for those films he made in a genre where his skills seemed to have just vanished right out of the gate with each production? I repeat that in this instance I don't think the man's dissatisfaction with the budget and the effects even matter, because the script is the problem. His direction is the problem. The acting is the problem. In fact, aside from the sets and props, the effects might actually be the best part of the whole picture! All I can say is that the filmmaker's priorities seem to have been profoundly misaligned, which says even worse things about him. A handful of good ideas, so far afield in their dispensation as to effectively be random, are not nearly enough to begin shaping an entertaining, satisfying, worthwhile horror film. Whatever it is you think you're going to get out of 'Manhattan baby,' you are mistaken, and your time is better spent watching anything else - truly, almost anything else. Good grief.
I'm given to understand that a chief issue with this in Fulci's eyes was the lower budget than intended or expected, impacting what he wanted to do in terms of special effects. I suppose it's possible that in recognition of that lack, Fulci also altered what Elisa Livia Briganti and Dardano Sacchetti had written so as to cut scenes that would have taken advantage of those effects, and which wouldn't work without them. In fact, I think the generous view is to assume that's the case, because if it's not, then 'Manhattan baby' is even worse than it looks as is. And how it looks as is, I'm afraid, is just garbage. Either the cast can't act, which is certainly a possibility, or Fulci was just an awful director who couldn't put together a scene to save his life, because none of the performances are all that great to begin with, and there are many moments that just raise a skeptical eyebrow. Then again, whether or not there's any acting going on in a scene, from one to the next they're all a floundering, dubious mess, and I have to wonder how it was that Fulci had as long of a career as he did.
But hey, it might not be Fulci's fault, either, because if the finished product reflects what Briganti and Sacchetti wrote, then 'Manhattan baby' doesn't speak well to the screenwriters, either. The dialogue is appallingly bland and lifeless, if not also just unbelievable. The characters are empty shells of nothingness. The scene writing is laughably schlocky, with genre elements seemingly thrown in scattershot without rhyme or reason. Why, when you get down to it a substantial portion of the scene writing doesn't even make sense, and the same goes for the overall story. By and large the picture just feels like ideas thrown at a wall in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, some of them might land in a pattern that would form a cohesive whole. "Evil! So evil! Something is evil!" Briganti and Sacchetti said, and they hoped throwing ideas at a wall would somehow fill in the rest. Some of those ideas might be workable, but the key word is "some," and anyway - so what? With all this in mind it doesn't matter whether or not the effects are any good, because that which they are intended to portend is the real problem. Sound and music cues are tiresome. Some of Fabio Frizzi's music is half decent, but some of it is just ill-fitting for a given moment; while I can't place my finger on it, the one theme that is most repeated is one that I've heard before, and I'm inclined to think that means Frizzi just lifted it.
It's not specifically the fault of Fulci or 'Manhattan baby' that the dubbing in the widely available version is terrible, but nor does it help the title's case. What is the fault of 'Manhattan baby' is how some of the cinematography is simply overdone. Some instances are intended to heighten tension or something, yet there's no tension to be heightened with writing and direction this lousy, decisions like frequent and repeated close-ups of actors' eyes are almost funny for how kitschy they come off. Some of the sound effects are kind of quizzical, both in and of themselves and in how they are employed. The editing is overly curt, and sometimes the sequencing just feels choppy.
For what it's worth, the art direction is pretty terrific.
What's truly incredible is that I know Fulci actually was capable of making good movies. 1966 western 'Massacre time' had its problems, but was pretty enjoyable overall. 1967 comedy 'The long, the short, the cat' was utterly hilarious, and a fantastically good time from start to finish. So why is it that Fulci is best known for those films he made in a genre where his skills seemed to have just vanished right out of the gate with each production? I repeat that in this instance I don't think the man's dissatisfaction with the budget and the effects even matter, because the script is the problem. His direction is the problem. The acting is the problem. In fact, aside from the sets and props, the effects might actually be the best part of the whole picture! All I can say is that the filmmaker's priorities seem to have been profoundly misaligned, which says even worse things about him. A handful of good ideas, so far afield in their dispensation as to effectively be random, are not nearly enough to begin shaping an entertaining, satisfying, worthwhile horror film. Whatever it is you think you're going to get out of 'Manhattan baby,' you are mistaken, and your time is better spent watching anything else - truly, almost anything else. Good grief.