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.

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.

In an all-too-familiar scenario, a group of teenagers traveling in Europe discover an isolated villa and choose to stay there overnight, unaware of the mansion's dark, war-time past. Italian filmmaker, Lucio Fulci, ventures into the realms of Nazi-exploitation with this crudely produced, yet strangely entertaining, obscure, low-budget film. 'The Ghosts of Sodom' begins in a typically sleazy manner, with a short portrayal of a drug-laden Nazi party of debauchery being filmed by one member of the party who we will soon come to know as Willy (Robert Egon). Despite the pseudo-eroticised nature of the opening segment, the sequence soon takes a rather unpleasant, repellent tone before the cut-shot quickly transports the viewer back to the present day. It is here that we are introduced to the main characters and, rather characteristic of a Fulci film, these characters remain underdeveloped throughout and seemingly have no individual personality. This is an unfortunately consistent flaw with a large number of Fulci's movies but more so with this film. Despite a few brief instances, the majority of lines in the film could have been spoken by any one of the six main characters. Sadly, this rather glaring fault is coupled with numerous instances of wholly pointless and asinine dialogue. However, this is not to say that 'The Ghosts of Sodom' is an entirely bad movie. In fact, for a production of this type, it is a rather accomplished piece of film-making. Fulci utilises a beautiful, enchanting soundtrack in a professional, productive way to create a dynamic, dramatic and foreboding atmosphere when coupled with the astonishingly gloomy, despairing and mesmerising visual elements that had become one of his trademarks. Although there are only a few gory shots to satisfy those viewers who have become accustomed to Fulci's often-excessive usage of gore, one should be able to appreciate that the erotic and supernatural elements of the film provide the fodder here. Unfortunately, the rather slow-pace and often empty, prolonged instances of tedium can certainly subtract from the viewing enjoyment and distract the viewer from appreciating the more intricate and important plot-aspects; a true concern as the story is far from enormously intricate. However, in reality, how many similar films do not suffer from these same problems? One can appreciate this film for the superb, atmospheric presentation if they are able to ignore the predictability, plot/character flaws and kitsch of the whole production. Despite the somewhat inane storyline (although adequate for the production) and often-ridiculous scripting of the movie, one can certainly waste eighty minutes on films far poorer than this. 'The Ghosts of Sodom' is quite simply Nazi-exploitation with a supernatural twist which, in places, is full of tension with the 'Russian Roulette' sequence being the absolute peak of heart-pounding suspense. Fans of Fulci's other films may be disappointed, but fans of the sub-genre may find various things to like about this film despite the movie not being as explicit as other movies of its type. My rating for 'The Ghosts of Sodom' - 6½/10.

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.