[FendersRule]

One of the most unique and grotesque horror films to ever be filmed. The director even went to court to prove that the deaths were not real in the film. Just that information right there is enough to raise some interest in this film.


This is a historically important film. What they were allowed to do during filming will never ever be done again. This movie is so effective, that I don't care in ever seeing it again unless someone I know wants to. I'm one of the biggest horror geeks around, and this movie is just repulsive, but it also is one of the most effective horror films ever made.


A very important movie to add to your collection.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=7139

 

[Fanboyz]

I don't like the real animal violence, but I can't condone a censored release.

 

[withnail]

Well, it does say that both versions will be included on the disc. It doesn't say if it will be region-free or not, though.


As for the animal cruelty, Deodato is absolutely full of ****. He's a very talented dude, but he needs to own up to his past.

 

[FendersRule]

I see it mostly as being non-animal violence.


Realistically, it shows how people survive in those conditions. To survive, you have to kill animals and eat them. That is what they did in the film. The movie wouldn't be what it is without it.


Now, with that said, they didn't necessarily have to chop the monkey's brains out (they did this twice, actually). They did however, eat them though. They ate everything they killed if I remember correctly.


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.


For the newcomers, Cannibal isn't about animal violence. It's about survival when you're out in no-mans land and surrounded by a different culture. There are no "laws" or "rules." And there isn't any "laws" or "rules" with making this film, either. Prepare to see it all. You're in-charge of your own person when in their conditions. Good luck!

 

[General Kenobi]

As much as I love horror this is one I've avoided. I've read enough about it to know it would be something I'd wish I could unwatch and would only watch to say I did. Inside (a l'interieur) was the same for me, couldn't handle that one again I don't think, at least not the last 5 min anyway

 

[FendersRule]

All horror fans must see this movie. That should be a rite of passage, must like how The Exorcist, The Thing, Alien, Halloween, among many other are. I would also put The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to that list.


Using Texas Chainsaw Massacre in comparison because they both are survival films depicting the worst of human nature; both of these are not movies that you'd care to re-watch often because they are so effective at what they do (that is, unless you are a sick person of course). They're both phenominal films in their own right, but you cannot in anyway deny that they are not some of the most effective films out there that will knot your stomach to the bone.


You would be glad you watched Cannibal: Holocaust in the same way. It will give you a truly horrific experience that you will never forget about. I'd say any film that does that is worth seeing once, period. The soundtrack is phenomenal in that it paints exactly what you are seeing.


Just have an open mind. You will see the worst of human nature. It quadruples the effect of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I made my dad watch it, and I could tell that he was truly mesmerized because he didn't believe anything he saw.

 

[Partyslammer]

I saw it once in the early 90's when it was released on a special edition laserdisc that included a barf bag (LOL) and that was enough for me. It *is* a landmark film for the obvious reasons, but like a few other movies like Salo, Faces of Death, etc, I saw it more out of curiosity due to the film's notoriety and afterwords felt... dirty.

 

[FendersRule]

I wouldn't compare it to Faces of Death because that's a bit insulting; but I see what you're saying. I will never watch Faces of Death because it's ridiculous. I already watched some of it as a child. It shows clips after clip of real people dying.


Cannibal has a story, plot, and it's a film. Great score, too. It's a film that makes what you are seeing so believable that your mind will not know the difference because some of the things that you are seeing are real.


Tell you what, I would totally not hang out with those tribespeople. But, the explorers brought it upon themselves. Again, human nature.

 

[General Kenobi]

Maybe I will add it to my October list but I may have to keep the finger on the eject button

 

[GoCaboNow]

I am a little gunshy after having just watched Antichrist.

 

[Kentai]



Quote:
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)...

The one with the barf bag and the LP was Cannibal FEROX, not Holocaust. Easy enough mistake if you're not a fan, though.

Fenders, I'm sure you know that most of the now legendary footage in Faces of Death was faked, right? Not that it harms your argument in comparison with Cannibal Holocaust being a "real movie" (which I agree 100% with), but it's worth mentioning just so people don't get the wrong idea. Faces of Death is no snuff movie, and the only one in that series to have a disproportionately small segment of fake footage is Part II, which I've never seen. (Didn't ever try to avoid it, I just didn't have access to it growing up. Go figure.)


I love Cannibal Holocaust, I really do. I love the score, I love the performances, and I even love the clumsily delivered message about human nature it tries to grab the viewer by the short-hairs and drag them through. It's a bold, brutal, and unique film that stands up 30 years later as just as poignant, offensive and - at times - beautiful as it ever was, and that's not something you can say often. It's not a film I'd sit my in-laws down to or anything, but if you see the redeeming qualities of stuff like Salo, A Clockwork Orange and Bad Lieutenant, you should probably give Cannibal Holocaust a spin and judge for yourself.


Still, knowing that footage is missing - even morally repulsive footage government censors removed - rubs me the wrong way and makes me wary of showing my support on principle. If the transfer turns out to be amazing I'm sure I'll pick it up anyway, but I can wait until we see some screencaps to confirm that it blows the 3 DVD copies I've still got out of the water first.

 

[tfoltz]

Quote:

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...

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.

 

[Matt_Stevens]

Badly written. Poorly directed. Poorly photographed. Noteworthy only for it's disgusting violence.

 

[FendersRule]

Quote:

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.

I'm only saying that people may be rating this movie based on the emotion that it gave them, rather than the movie's message and the quality of what's found therein, which is inappropriate. Therefor, I predict many people who felt "disgusted" with this movie, despite in how effective or unique it was, went and bombed the ratings. I think that's just the wrong way to do things. I think it's fine to have a mixture of both, but just downing a movie just because it pissed you off is egotistical. It's a director's dreams to rival and stir human emotion about the human condition, and that's exactly what this movie does.


It's like when I watched Trainspotting a few nights ago. I seriously was angered throughout the entire film. That movie is in no way, fun. I felt like **** the whole time. Several scenes were just downright disgusting. But in the end, after some thought after my emotions died down, I realized that the reason I was feeling that way is because the movie is touching and effective at telling its story, and should be rated accordingly. Do I want to ever watch it again? No, because it's not an experience I like to feel very often. But it's mighty effective and it deserves a high rating...


So I don't think this case is any different. If you are a viewer that can't take blood, guts, and some serious human nature that isn't bound by any set "rules", then keep away and go watch Pocahontas. If you care to be moved in a horrific way and gain an unforgettable experience, a tale of uncontrolled tribal nature mixed with modern society, then please indulge. I'm glad I did.


My main point behind all this anyhow, is just to state that the animal killings is blown way out of proportion. It isn't animal "torture." When I kill an animal and eat it, I'm not "torturing" the animal. Just because it's shown on film doesn't make it "torture" or "pro animal violence," either.

 

[NIN74]

But this will not be uncut as far as I know?


One of my top 10 of all time.

 

[FendersRule]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NIN74 But this will not be uncut as far as I know? One of my top 10 of all time.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post20854678

 

[SaxCatz]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens /forum/post/20859254


Badly written. Poorly directed. Poorly photographed. Noteworthy only for it's disgusting violence.

I truly hate this film... but for none of the reasons that you list. I question whether you have watched the film prior to condemning it.

 

[LaoChe]



Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio /forum/post/20860346


Garbage...

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.

 

[Damnationdoormat]

It would be nice to finally see an excellent presentation of this. Grindhouse's DVD, for all their crowing and fraudulent reviews lauding the PQ, actually looks like total crap. The Alan Young Italian DVD looks much better, but suffers from being way too bright and compression issues. The EC Ultrabit retains the same transfer without as much compression bugs. Still too bright though.

 

[withnail]



Quote:
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.

It looks like people are confusing the method with the final product. By any reasonable measure, the film is a complete success on its own terms and a masterfully executed piece of work.


While I despise the means that Deodato & Co used to create it (and despise his denial of responsibility almost as much) anyone with even a passing interest in the genre needs to respect the achievement.