I don't like the real animal violence, but I can't condone a censored release.
Originally Posted by Partyslammer /forum/post/20855851
I saw it once in the early 90's when it was released on a special edition laserdisc that included a barf bag (LOL)...
|Originally Posted by FendersRule |
...Point being, it wasn't "senseless" or "tasteless" killings. It was done for food, and on film. They didn't run around the forest and kill stuff and leave it to rot on the ground. What you see on this film will never happen again. That is why I claim it to be a historical film. Very very effective. I can see a large bulk of the population who would turn it off in disgust (with some ignorance involved).
Personally, seeing this film once is enough. It left me with some horrific scenery and emotions that I never want to experience again. You can call this a "bad movie" (which many ignorant people do), or you can call it a horrifically effective movie where once is enough...
|Originally Posted by tfoltz |
I know your point is geared to people who just make judgements based on what they hear/read...but in this case one does not have to be ignorant to be disgusted with this movie, and/or consider it a bad film. My opinion only, of course.
|Originally Posted by NIN74 |
But this will not be uncut as far as I know?
One of my top 10 of all time.
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens /forum/post/20859254
Badly written. Poorly directed. Poorly photographed. Noteworthy only for it's disgusting violence.
Originally Posted by NagysAudio /forum/post/20860346
Originally Posted by LaoChe /forum/post/20860964
That is an understatement. This movie is THE worst movie I've ever seen. I can't believe they'd waste their time converting it to BD.