|
Directed by: Ruggero Deodato Starring: bunch of unknowns We always talk about it in GBS, now it has a Film Dump entry! So there's this film crew, shooting a documentary about cannibalism in the jungles of South America, but they go missing. So this professor guy decides to go find out what happens to the first expedition. They go out into the jungle, and find a lone cannibal to lead them to the motherlode. We get to see all sorts of bizarre cannibal activities, until finally, the professor dude comes up on the skeletons of the first expedition, complete with camera and reels and reels of footage that they recorded. After a bit more dicking around in cannibal land, the dude goes back to America where he tries to cut a deal with some publishing company of some sort. Then, they start watching the footage from the first expedition. We see all sorts of interesting rape, brutality on the cannibals (in a Spaniard/Central America conquest fashion) and then the titular cannibal holocaust occurs. The professor now sees why the cannibals were so crazy when he first met them. He also decides that this footage must never get out to the public and the whole deal with the publishers is laid to rest. This film has such graphic depictions of rape and violence, that the filmmakers had to on mulitple occassions prove that it was all special effects. Everything, of course, except the violence committed on a certain muskrat and turtle. So in conclusion, watching this film is like watching Faces of Death on repeat with some semblance of a plot, and with some really kickass cannibals. It's like a super graphic Blair Witch Project. 4/5 RATING: 4 PROS: Cannibals are cool, ridiculously real looking special effects CONS: none ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0078935 Eyecannon fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Dec 25, 2004 |
#
?
Dec 25, 2004 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
I watched this expecting some splatter/gore flick and was pleasantly surprised. Cannibal Holocaust's inaccurate reputation always precedes it, and it's not really even horror. The plot is essentially a trivial excuse for a bit of bloody mayhem and heavy-handed moral exposition, in that a professor goes to retrieve some footage from a tribe of cannibals a documentary group recorded before disappearing in the jungle. The first half of the movie concerns the professor's trip to a South American jungle, and is sufficiently entertaining if rather unremarkable. He comes across generally as likeable, as do his learned companions, and surprisingly for what is essentially an exploitation flick, the "cannibals" aren't really painted as just a bloodthirsty gang of cavemen - the prof does comment on their culture, giving their role in the film a rather appealing neutrality. Yes, they eat humans of a rival tribe, and devoured the doc crew but as the second act reveals, they have a reason for it. A few grisly set pieces occur along the prof's way, including the ritual slaughter of a woman including death by dildo. It's well shot; violent and possibly unsettling, but not exceptionally horrifying. The camera angles sell it rather than the specific acts (namely her bludgeoning to death). He encounters the cannibal tribe, blah blah, a big fuss is made of him showing them respect and leaving intact with the film footage. Act 2 then starts, which is the prof in talks with a TV station in regards to airing the footage. A short while is spent establishing the missing doc crew as loving jerks, which will become important by the end, including them "going too far" in creating a previous documentary on executions. It's all a bit Blair Witch, as the footage is shot on a handheld camcorder. You can smell the foreboding a mile off and it is heavy handed, but not overdone. The remainder of the film is the prof and TV exec's reactions to the footage, which includes (sadly genuine) animal cruelty (pulling apart a turtle and eating it, monkey killing) and the doc crew being abusive pricks and being murdered by the tribe for such atrocities as killing and rape in a few grisly, low-res, grainy scenes that really pack a punch due more to atmosphere than the physics of the violence. If you're expecting a splatter flick, you won't like it, as it's slightly more layered than you'd expect. The violence is in places loving horrible to look at but always compelling, and the ending moral message is just hammered home but logically does tie in to the movie's events correctly, and although the characters all overact, they carry off a decent performance. The cannibals are just great, and portrayed in a fair(ish) way. Recommended not as a horror but a horrifying mockumentary. It's not scary but man is it tense. You will probably cringe and may not even like the film, but you will appreciate it. Just skip the animal torture. 4/5 RATING: 4 PROS: Grim, intense atmosphere, slightly more high-brow than expected CONS: Over-acting, gross actual animal cruelty and actual execution footage exploited ZoDiAC_ fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Nov 3, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2005 22:01
|
|
|
Before the Blair Witch Project, there was Cannibal Holocaust. Pros: Interesting as a film experiment, fairly realistic, kind of saddening in parts, sympathetic and well-explained why the cannibals do what they do so that you're more terrified by the evil white people than them. Cons: Probably could have been better executed in certain areas. Torturing animals for a fake documentary is pretty low. 4/5 Spacedad fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Nov 3, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2005 23:31
|
|
|
I believe according to the special features that Ruggero (the director) was fined 10,000 dollars and sentenced to 2 years in prison for animal cruelty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2005 19:38
|
|
|
Mark Reese posted:I believe according to the special features that Ruggero (the director) was fined 10,000 dollars and sentenced to 2 years in prison for animal cruelty. Apparently he was actually put in prison not only because of the genuine animal cruelty, but for this reason as well. Deodato suggested his actors go "underground" for a while after filming this due to the impact he knew it would have. An unforseen consequence of this was that the government thought Deodato had murdered actual actors for this movie as well. Review: Yes, this movie is extremely upsetting, but the two acts are juxtaposed surprisingly well. We get a good perspective on the cannibals especially from two differing points of view. Overall, the movie can be extremely awkward in some points (most notably the ending line...was that really necessary?), but in a sense it's genuine comedy for a genuinely tragic movie. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2005 22:25
|
|
|
Cannibal Holocaust probably has some of the best gore FX ever. It's also a pretty good movie. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2005 11:53
|
|
|
It seems like alot of people have left low ratings without any comment, which I would have thought defeats the object of this forum entirely. Hopefully someone will actually bother to validate their low scores in contrast to the positive reviews already written. Personally, I think this film is very significant and powerful. It is one of the few films that really does live up to it's reputation of being both visually striking and also somewhat reprehensible. Enough has been said about the merits of the film, and also about the needless animal cruelty, although in the UK VHS copy I have, this has been cut from the film awkwardly, so I have not actually seen this footage myself. For those curious about the film but apprehensive because of this content, get the UK release, and get everything else but the animal cruelty. Theres more than enough faked violence left in the film to give you the shakes afterwards. The acting in the film is functional at best, and tends to be rather stiff but this was never a major issue in the era of exploitation cinema anyway. The film is well shot and very well edited, resulting in a very gritty and effective mood throughout the film, backed by probably the most memorable exploitation film score I can recall, which juxtaposes scenes of intense brutality with the pleasant music from the films opening titles, and then mixes it with a strange blend of percussion and synths to twist the mood as the images twist the viewers stomach. It's not an advanced film technique but it's effectively done in Cannibal Holocaust and works surprisingly well. The gore in the film is surprisingly effective, and during the films eventual 'breakdown' it comes thick and fast and it's unrelentingly graphic. In summary, this is not a film for the casual horror viewer, or those that find the likes of 'Saw' to be the pinnacle of film gore, either. This is violence with a very unsettling context, and that is what makes violence in cinema resonate, rather than just throwing in buckets of blood. That is why Braindead (aka Dead Alive), even though it is one of the bloodiest films I've ever seen, isn't remotely scary (which it blatently isn't attempting anyway), and that's why The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, for all it's lack of blood, is so intense and visceral. I give this a solid 4 rating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2005 15:04
|
|
|
This is probably one of the stupid loving movies I've seen since Red Eye. There are middle schoolers power point presentations that more entertaining then this movie, in fact I would rather watch grass cut in high definition then this piece of poo poo movie. The best way to describe this piece of poo poo is one of those stupid reality porn sites with a dumb gimmick. If you thought the porn site with the guy that has a dick through a pizza was absolutely stupid, then CH is something exponentially worse. Right now I'm depressed that I wasted that much of time time watching something so loving stupid. There is nothing clever about this movie. RAPE AND VIOLENCE LOL SHOCKING VALUE 5555555555555. No, gently caress that, and gently caress this movie. Pro: None Con: Everything
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2005 06:19
|
|
|
There are a lot of movies that are more bloody and/or offensive than this, but none of them have such a grim and uncomfortable feel. There are still a lot of people who think that the footage is real. Beats the hell out of Blair Witch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2005 10:27
|
|
|
This film has hands down the worst acting I have ever seen in my life. Worse than the Star Wars prequels, worse than Baise Moi, worse than anything I can recall. The biggest offenders are the female characters, but everyone is pretty pathetic in it. I've seen pornos with better acting. The storyline is a joke, it's just a bad excuse for gore. The pseudo-intellectual 'meaning' that they tack on is insulting to anyone's intelligence. There is nothing profound about it. The gore is reasonably realistic in most parts. However, be aware that this is all that the film has to offer. It's an 'exploitation flick'. All it's good for is providing some violence for the more depraved amongst us to get off to. The actual violence is horrendously unrealistic in several points. Most notably, at the end when the white girl is being killed, the motion of the cannibals hitting her with the sticks (where she's just obscured on camera) is pathetic, I can't believe that this wouldn't have been re-shot or something. The animal cruelty is immensely troubling to watch, especially the killing of the muskrat (or whatever that critter was). I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I'm not a vegetarian, I'm not a PETA member, I'm not a hippy or anything, but I absolutely loathed watching these scenes and turned away during them. I could not believe that this stuff was filmed - the actors and the directors are all guilty of a heinous crime for being involved. Editting is something that I don't really take notice of in films and I don't understand it when people criticise a film for having bad editting - I'm not a film student and I don't really know enough about it. That said, the editting in this film is terrible in several places, where dialogue just doesn't flow, and the pacing is hosed. I'm thinking mostly of the start of the film, the general "trekking through the jungle" is just loving boring and the editting is mostly to blame. I'm struggling to find something positive to say about this movie. It was worth seeing just to satisfy my morbid curiousity about it, now I can pass judgement. In my opinion, this movie is a piece of trash in every way imaginable. 0.5/5 TCC: Dude, you gotta play miniature golf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2006 17:39
|
|
|
I'd been trying to get a hold of this movie for some time. I first read about it while browsing IMDB.com and looking at the rating system of movies. I wanted to see what movies had been banned in certain countries, and I came upon this film. The title caught my eye, considering it's probably the most ridiculous and over the top title since that one about the African-American Aliens. "Wow," I said, as I noticed how many countries this movie had been banned from. In my adventures through the internet and subversive film, I've seen some pretty hosed up visuals in my time. There have been very few things that have actually caused me to become physically ill. It's somewhat desensitizing to be exposed to so much, so I'm always on the lookout for something that will really affect me. I read about this film and I thought, "I have to see this at least once, no matter how horrible it is." I was finally able to secure a copy through Netflix.com (who would've thought?) and I sat down to watch it. Cannibal Holocaust is a film about a film. The plot follows a man who goes to investigate why a film crew disappeared after a documentary expedition into the rainforest. The expedition was to investigate a mysterious native cannibal tribe, from which no person has ever come back alive. He recovers the film, and the latter half of the movie is the recovered film. The movie ends up being one part fictional documentary and one part grindhouse horror flick. In a true sense, it's what The Blair Witch Project aspired to be. Sergio Leone wrote to the director, Ruggero Deodato, after the film's completion: "Dear Ruggero, what a movie! The second part is a masterpiece of cinematographic realism, but everything seems so real that I think you will get in trouble with all the world." All of this statement is true. This film is almost the best fictional documentary film that I have ever seen. I say almost for two reasons: One, Peter Watkins' Punishment Park is the greatest. Two, the visuals in this film are so over the top that on occasion it takes away from the documentary effect. But the gritty, low-budget production on this film works perfectly in its favor. The actors and actresses act remarkably well within the environment. And now for the second part of Leone's quote. Cannibal Holocaust successfully added itself to the category of films that make me physically ill. I nearly had an anxiety attack after watching this film. If you are considering watching this movie I want to give you a brief listing of what you'll encounter: Multiple genuine animal killings (these are not faked), abortions, multiple rapes, genital mutilations, impaling, and generally hosed up situations like having sex on top of a pile of burnt corpses. Deodato pulls no punches in this film, and everything is graphically represented. This film left me wondering if someone can go too far to prove their point. If Deodato wants his audience to realize the saturation of sex and violence on television and how far it can go, he can always do so without pushing so far beyond the boundaries that he alienates his audience from his intended message. This film is so far beyond anything most people will see, that they'll either turn off the movie halfway through or remember only the violence and none of the message. 3 / 5
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2009 04:06
|
|
|
Wow, sure a lot of cry-babies in this thread. Waahh Waahhh Animal Cruelty! Please. One pig gets shot and they catch and eat a turtle in the jungle. Guess what; jungle natives eat turtles. You'd be grossed out by how burgers get made yet scarf down Big Macs© like the greasy fatasses you are, so don't be such hypocrits. The movie itself is by far the most horrifying film I've ever seen. A group of college kids go into the jungle to find the "Lost Tribe of Cannibals", yet they never return. Curious about why they vanished, an Anthropology professor travels to South America to find out. While trekking through the bush, he comes across the lost film canisters of the missing students. He takes them back to the states and plays them for an audience, and the film turns into a 'film within a film', with horrifying results. The acting is quite convincing, so much so that many thought the film was real when it was initialy released. It's terrifying, but not overly gory, the clamor about "animal cruelty" is hugely overblown. At first they seem noble, but as the jungle fever creeps in the students soon devolve into immoral animals wielding their God-like powers. As the film concludes, you discover why they never did return. A treat for Horror fans, a great flick to show that friend who "Doesn't get scared by movies". This movie is the embodiment of horror. 5/5 Stars
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 23:00
|
|
|
Garbage. The only point of this movie is to cram as many shocking images as possible into 90 minutes of footage. It attempts to have a plot and a message, but whether this attempt is a half-hearted afterthought or a sincere failure is anyone's guess. My money is on the former. In one scene a comically self-aware character remarks, "Today, people want sensationalism. The more you rape their senses, the happier they are." Hey, just like the movie that we're watching! Right now! Weird! The media overloading us with violence and sexuality may be a legitimate complaint, but making a splatter flick in response is at worst counterproductive and at best unclever. Yes, the violence is realistic. So what? It's cool from a "I wonder how they did that," standpoint, but it doesn't make for an interesting movie. I guess it satisfies if the only reason you're watching it is to see just how violent it is, which you are, right? I suppose I'm guilty too. Let me save you some time and boredom: it's very violent. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
This film is more of an experience than a film. It is shocking, unintentionally funny and backed by some fantastic music. Cannibal Holocaust is also an exercise in enduring shocking imagery - you may find yourself desensitized afterwards. While not as shocking as I've read (some may disagree) it is a very unpleasant experience. I would like to comment on the supposed animal cruelty in this movie. In the infamous turtle scene, the head is cut of first. For the animals involved in the various scenes, the cruelty comes mostly from what I will assume is a terrible feeling of helplessness on their part. You may have read about the monkey killings - although it may seem cruel to us, the killing was performed by the indians themselves, as the monkey brain is a delicacy. One should instead ask whether or not the mass execution of animals in factories is better than what is seen in this film. I would recommend this movie for the experience, the weird feeling afterwards and the beautiful soundtrack. Violent? Oh yes. Good acting? No way. The acting is at points laughable, which results in some unintentionally funny moments. There is not much more to be said. It is a hard film to rate. 3/5 - Watch it. It is not a good movie, but it is sure to invoke emotions. This movie hits you like a punch in the face. Actually, rating this movie is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
I simultaneously hate this movie, am totally disgusted by it and also think that it's a must see. Once. Even though, I rate this film low, I also think that it is a necessary film in many ways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Absolute garbage. Average at best 70's shlock horror combined with close ups shots of animal snuff footage. 0/5 - dvd went in the trash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
While I'm usually entertained by bad movies, this movie was bad in a way that I can't accept. Little known fact: the monkeys saw what happened to their companion and died of heart attack. If you liked this movie, please consider seeking professional medical help because you're most likely a psychopath. 0/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
Likely desensitized by modern movies, I found nothing particularly shocking or disturbing about this movie. It's basically a run of the mill late 70s/early 80s horror movie made slightly more interesting by the fact that it's actually filmed in the amazon with real indigenous tribespeople. The found footage premise is cliche now, but at the time it may have been more novel. The animal cruelty stuff is also massively overblown. If you've ever eaten meat in your life you have imparted more suffering on animals than this movie did. Pretty much the only reason to watch this is to see what all the hype is about, and since the hype is really unwarranted you will probably be disappointed. 1.5/5, the setting elevates it that extra .5
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:01
|
|
