Customer Reviews

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

5 star:		(62)
4 star:		(29)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(40)

 

 

`Cannibal Holocaust' is widely regarded as one of the most intense, affecting horror films ever, at least amongst the sorta viewer who would actually have seen this movie. I'd agree with this assessment. This film seems slightly less well known than `Cannibal Ferox', though I can't imagine why. On top of being far better made, it's a lot more outrageous and offensive as well. So, if you've seen that film, and weren't particularly impressed, don't just ignore `Cannibal Holocaust'. Certainly, it's still got many of the flaws that come with low-budget horror film making, mostly being that the acting is often pretty amateurish and the dialogue fairly blasé. But, as H.G. Lewis said, no one ever walked out of `Blood Feast' because the police investigator couldn't act, and I think the same can be said of the guide or professor or whoever in `Cannibal Holocaust'. And, again, these are standard shortcomings of the genre. If you can't live with the acting in this movie, you shouldn't be watching this sorta movie in the first place. But, if you do like this kinda thing, `Cannibal Holocaust is about as good as it gets.

Now, lotsa cheap horror films are fun to watch: They have cool gore or nice atmosphere or camerawork or whatever. But few are really all that powerful or intense. `Cannibal Holocaust' is, partially because of how it is structured. The film concerns the investigation into the disappearance of 4 documentary filmmakers down in South America. This allows for a sort of dual narrative, as we watch a professor and some others go search for them, then, and find that they're dead, but that their film reels survived, and so we watch them during the second half of the movie. This provides an interesting contrast, as the first half of the film is shot pretty as any film of this sort would be shot. It's well done, by the standards of this sort of thing, but not remarkable. But, the second half of the movie, specifically the film within the film, is shot in a very rough, pseudo-documentary style. The transition from the traditional filmmaking style to the mock-documentary is very effective, as the contrast heightens the relative realism of the tape. Of course, the documentary isn't terribly realistic, if you think about it all that much, as the acting is still questionable at times (though definitely better than the rest of the film) and it's all kinda theatrically amateurish, but it still tends to feel very realistic at the time anyway. Though, getting back to that, I actually think the acting by Yates' team is pretty good. Yeah, it's kinda hammy, but it fits their personalities. They've got a totally destructive and adolescent mindset going into the jungle, so their yelling and pranking all actually makes quite a bit of sense.

I can't precisely say what the appeal of this film is. With most gory horror films, I just kinda gawk at the extremity and ingenuity of the violence and the gore fx. As far as I can tell, there is nothing of real world violence in it. But, this is different. `Cannibal Holocaust' addresses violence in a more visceral sense, and it's not a fun movie, but it's got an undeniable appeal. The violence is often more about the violence itself, rather than just the gore, emphasizing the cruelty and brutality of the aggressor. (Most clearly displayed in how they callously hack off their guides leg when he gets bit by a snake, more interested in documenting it then helping him, and how the crew dances around and celebrates as they decimate the Yakumo village, and later how the Yanonamo just continue to hack away at their dismembered corpses, on and on. etc.) What can I say, it's just got a real gruesome intensity that makes it unsettling and yet compelling. Occasionally, I'd say it goes slightly too far, such as the rape scenes that seem to go on forever, and the forced abortion scene, which I really could've lived without.

Some people argue that these cannibal films aren't horror movies, and while it may vary on a film to film basis, `Cannibal Holocaust' is definitely a horror film. There is no adventure in the various treks through the jungle, just horror and death. And it just does a brilliant job of building things up and up, with ever increasing horrors throughout the film within the film. And the climax puts it all together perfectly, with the wild, amateurish camerawork and frantic pacing. The gore effects aren't up to modern standards, but they're extremely good for the time, and are surprisingly convincing. There is quite a bit of animal violence in this film, so if that bothers you ya oughta stay away. I don't find this kinda thing morally offensive, though it can be pretty nasty, particularly the killing and dismembering of a turtle, which is pretty much the grossest thing, ever. Also, there's is a *lot* of sexual violence, so if that bothers you too much, you'll need to steer clear. Suffice to say, if you've ever been offended by any violent movie, you probably oughta give this a pass.

The score is perhaps slightly overbearing, but it's very memorable and quite powerful. Definitely heightens the impact of the more graphic scenes.

This film is not yet released in Region 1, but Grindhouse is supposed to be putting it out in late October. This may yet be delayed, however, as a couple companies have refused to print it due to the offensive artwork. (Presumably, it's the naked, impaled native chick that's on the cover which is making them balk. And, of course, the guys over at Grindhouse are crying censorship, and claiming the cover is 'banned', which is bullcrap. They're aren't preventing the DVD from being produced, they're just refusing to help. Claiming that is censorship is like claiming that your censoring a graffitti artist if you refuse to let him spray paint all over your house. Of course, they're also claiming this is the 'most controversial film ever' which is ridiculous, so maybe they're just trying to be showmen and hype this up as much as possible. But, whatever) Anyway, I doubt it'll be too long, and that version is doubtless going to be the best one in any Region. Personally, I have the Region 0 EC Entertainment version, and it looks pretty good, but I'm sure the Grindhouse one will top it in all areas.

Worthy of its reputation. I'm done.

Grade: A

When "Entertainment Weekly" put out a feature earlier this year naming the 25 most controversial films of all time, there were only a couple that I hadn't seen. Of course, me being me, I immediately went out and bought those titles--one of which was "Cannibal Holocaust." Now I realize that any list of this type is somewhat arbitrary, but the DVD packaging itself proclaims this to be "The Most Controversial Movie Ever Made." Indeed, the film is made in a pseudo-documentary style that caused many to believe the atrocities depicted had actually happened. The filmmakers were arrested and required to produce the cast members (who had died in the film) to disprove the film's "reality"--oh, the innocence of 1980. Subsequently, the film was banned many places internationally (or cut up). Quite a history. Well, I've never been accused of skirting controversy--so I jumped into "Cannibal Holocaust" head first.

Often cited as a huge influence on "The Blair Witch Project," "Cannibal" is shot with hand held cameras and filmed from the perspective of the fictional filmmakers. Four documentarians enter the South American jungles hoping to locate and record footage of actual flesh-eaters that still reside in the modern world. Aided by local guides, they integrate with different tribes as they go deeper into their quest. And being modern white men and women, they go with their usual bravado and superiority.

Of course, the crew will meet more than they expect! An interesting aspect of the film is that the quartet of "heroes" are not presented in a particularly good light. No, they are modern "savages" who value those they encounter as less than human. Much of the film's nastiness comes from the white "protagonists" as they pillage, plunder, and assault the natives. So even as you know they are headed for disaster, there is almost a retribution factor to it when it actually happens. The performances are surprisingly good, but the characters are far from likable. Not for the squeamish, "Cannibal Holocaust" features real animal kills, much gore, rape, brutality, and plenty of good old-fashioned eating sequences.

Many people will debate whether this film qualifies as "entertainment"--and I can see that there would be equal camps on either side of this issue. It is, indeed, an unpleasant experience. It will generate feelings one way or another. I can't imagine someone sitting through "Cannibal Holocaust" and being apathetic--no, there will be shock, disgust, disappointment, or relief. The power to evoke real emotion is the strength of the movie, and whether you love it or hate it--there is no denying its visceral impact and that it has stirred some reaction from you (generally a strong one). "Cannibal" doesn't qualify as "high art," but it is a successful underground film. It has been much studied and much copied in the lexicon of horror filmmaking. For that reason alone, it deserves its notoriety. The handsome and informative 2 disc set is an added bonus. But at 3 stars, I'm telling you that this isn't for the casual viewer. I can't say that "Cannibal Holocaust" is my new favorite movie, but I understand its place in film history. KGHarris, 12/06.

Filmed in the deep, harsh jungles of Amazonia in 1979, Ruggero Deodato's cannibal tale is a gritty film that also has something to say about it's own excesses and extremes when taken in regards to the media and how it portrays violence.

Grindhouse Releasing's new October 25th release, which has been dealt with much critisiscm due to it's numerous delays, has had 8 printers worldwide refuse handling their artwork due to the supposed offensive nature of the inside of the cover art. This would not be the first time this film has been met with such regard; Deodato and company were originally hauled off to court to prove the all-to-convincing effects weren't real.

The film is purportedly banned in over 60 countries, and that simple fact alone has only added to it's notoriety; in 1995, Lucertola Media in Germany printed only 1000 copies of it's haunting, incredible soundtrack, which may be one of the best ever realized for this kind of film. The film itself has popped up in many countries, in a surprising amount of cropped and various forms, leaving some left in wonder and doubt as to what it's true uncut form really is. Many believed at one point there was a version including the infamous "pirahna baiting" sequence, but it has since been learned that scene was only photographed, and never actually shot.

There are two narratives which drive the film; it's second half takes on a pseudo-documentary style exactly as that seen in "The Blair Witch Project." This is also the most harrowing part of the film. It's first half consists of a New York City Professor who is sent to the jungles in search of four missing documentary filmmakers. He is led on this journey by a guide and a Yacumo prisoner, who "is like a passport into the green inferno."

The Last Road To Hell sequence, notorious and infamous in it's own right due to the fact that much of the footage is supposedly real, (shot out of Uganda), and this sequence is the very bridge that fills gap between the first and second half. This is the sequence that introduces us to the "footage" that is found by the filmmakers, which in turn, leads us into the films most devestating aspects. There are many ghastly atrocities commited in the first half of the film, but what proceeds to unfold in it's final half hour/45 minutes is nothing compared ot the first.

The film still stands today as a grueling testimony to the ugliness of 70's ultra violent exploitation filmmaking; it is remarkable viewing, but it's also not for everyone. Everything you have heard about this film stands true on it's own terms, and is a must see for anybody with the stomach to take it.

One of the most devastating atrocities ever commited to cinema. A true nightmare.

I recently purchased this movie based off of the rave and disturbing reviews I heard about it. Having liked disgusting horror movies in the past I thought I'd give this one a try to test my mettle. I had heard about the animal killings and rape scenes and nudity galore, so I figuerd what the heck. This movie, by far was the most disturbing film I've witnessed. I have a very strong stomach, but even I found myself becoming sick when watching the "turtle" scene.

The rape scenes are rather outrageous and a little too long for my liking(any amount of raping in movies disturbs me, but this was asinine). The countless bashings in the head and dimemberments were nicely done and were what I was expecting all along. But nevertheless, the animal killings will get to you the most, especially if you love the little critters like I do. Rightfully so, I believe the crew that went filming this "documentary" got what they had coming to them. With their torturing of the animals and the tribes' people,I kind of enjoyed watching these sick pukes get what they deserved. What goes around comes around, I suppose.

While this movie did disturb me, I can't help thinking what possesed me to buy it in the first place. I guess I just wanted to see what a true "shockumentary" looked like, and I definitely got it with the film. This flick and the revolting scenes of torture, killings, cannibalism, and animal cruelty will fry your senses. Not for the faint of heart or queazy, this film will stay embedded in your brain for quite some time. I'm nervous to bring this home to my wife once I return from Iraq. She would probably throw up all over me if I made her view it. Maybe it's best if I just sell it to the next private or sergeant coming in. LOL.

I gave this movie 4 stars opposed to five as I found the acting very laughable and cheesy, as well as the voice-overs to be quite bad at times. But that is expected in a film such as this. The gory parts are suprisingly realistic and very well done for that time period. No CGI, so kudos on that to the filmmakers. Overall, you get what you pay for-a sick, twisted, haunting depiction of cannibalism and torture, mixed in with rape and animal cruelty scenes aplenty. If you want a film that will stick with you and make your skin crawl for weeks and weeks to come, this is your scene. Pleasantly disturbing, but one viewing is enough for me. Enjoy.

This is the type of film that would never be made today and not even a million years later, it is so brutal, gory and sadistic that you will definently feel disturbed no matter who you are. Although this film is only recomended for the gorehounds and hardcore horror fans you know who you are, other viewers should watch something else you have been warned as this film is not for the faint of heart or those who have a weak stomach, this film is probably the most controversial film of all time not only for its realistic gore scenes but for the reason that it was banned in more contries than you can think of. Director Ruggero Deodato and his crew had to go to court because the Italian goverment thought it was real snuff, in order to show them that the special fx were deffinently fake the director brought in the actors who played in the film, the viewer is constantly shown one shocking scene after another but don't expect this film to have just that it does have a storyline. A group of film makers who set off for the jungles of South America to make a documentary soon disapeare never to be found again. A rescue team is sent six months later, what they find is to horrific for words. I must admit that the real animals being slaughtered was done in bad taste and was offensive but if you choose to ignore this just fast forward through the scenes then you will realise what a fantastic horror film this is, this is definently one of the best cannibal films and no other cannibal film has been able to surpass it better and more realistic than Cannibal ferox thats why it has been a rare cult horror film among horror fans. Some of the gory stuff includes a castration scene, flesh being torn off and eaten, a forced abortion, a native girl being impaled on a large stick and two rape scenes there is alot more but I won't ruin the surprise, to tell you the truth I almost threw up when I first saw this film I have a bootleg edition and alot of the special features were in Italian I bought this in 2003 but don't worry now you can get this official release from Grindhouse right here on Amazon. The characters who were shooting the documentery were truly dispicable and they completely act like savages themeselves so its almost a relief when you see them get killed in horrific ways the message was pretty clear in the film so I'm not going to mention it, so there was no plot and some parts were kind of dumb but then again it is an Italian gore film something that the snobby film critics need to realise before making a dumb mistake when reviewing this film.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980) is one of the most legendary of the legendary video nasties, mostly because it features scenes of actual animal slaughter, and all manner of faked rapes, beating, stabbing and, in one particular scene, a violent, ritualistic abortion, and all that is on top of the titular allusions to cannibalism and physical dismemberment!! The plot prefigures the über-successful Blair Witch Project, in the respect that the second half of the film is supposedly made up lost-footage from a film crew who disappeared whilst making a documentary in the heart of the Amazon rainforest. Thus, the first half of the film involves a university professor who retraces the steps taken by the film crew in order to retrieve the lost footage. This half of the film plays (almost) like a Werner Herzog film, with the roving, naturalistic camera work and drifting shots of rivers, swinging tree-canopies and locals positioned ominously amongst the tall jungle grass.

The second half of the film is where the nastiness begins... although, to be honest, none of the actual human atrocities can rival the appalling sight of a turtle being dragged out of a river to be butchered and played with in graphic detail!! Director Ruggero Deodato revels in every moment of the violence and the gore, but sadly, fails to offer anything approaching character, drama, tension, artistic intelligence, imagination, technical proficiency, or depth. With the exception of the lead character, the aforementioned professor, none of the characters manage to become anything more than obnoxious frat-boy caricatures, leering and mugging to the camera and possessing all the charm and talent of a plank of wood. The only saving grace of the film is Deodato's moralistic message (which really arrives far too late to take on any real relevance), in which the filmmakers turn out to be morally bankrupt opportunists only there to torment and torture the Amazon natives in order to create heart-wrenching social propaganda (the director further reinforces this idea by showing us the crew's previous film, snappily titled Road to Hell, which features actual stock-footage of real-life political executions).

Deodato's concept of a morally-bankrupt media in love with ratings and awards at the sake of human suffering is an important one... a prospect still very much relevant today, what with the over-abundance of reality TV shows, atrocity websites and the concept of happy slapping. However, for me, the relevance of the debate is dwarfed by Deodato shocking treatment of animals. To my mind, any film that uses violence in order to comment on the violence in the media (or, indeed, society) is unbelievably hypocritical, and, in depicting the violence in such a glorified and exploitive way, is really just as appalling as when such material is used to sell newspapers or to illicit sympathy during the six o'clock news. You may disagree with me and see some sense of truth in Deodato's sub-textual ideology... either way, you've gott'a ask yourself, why are you watching this film?? Instead of creating an intelligent and emotionally moving depiction of media manipulation and the double-standards of war (the most successful aspect of the film were the allusions to Vietnam, with the American film crew, apparently the heroes, invading these small, peaceful villages and causing a great deal of damage and offence in a manner that recalls the massacre at My Lai), Deodato mostly creates a sluggish vacuum of attention seeking set-pieces and over-the-top gore.

As a result, Cannibal Holocaust only really works as a morbid-curiosity piece. Like most of these once-banned video-nasties, the film is one that anyone with an interest in film should see, in order to see how things used to be. It's also likely to attract an audience who just want to see how violent the film is, or to revel in the excess and the cruelty. I watched it to see if the Slant Magazine review was accurate when they referred to it as; "artful enough to demand serious critical consideration, yet foul enough to christen you a pervert for even bothering". They're probably spot on. Not only is the film shallow and empty-headed, it's also quite dull. The 95 minute running time drags at a snails pace (as I've said before, the first half feels almost like a demented take on Herzog's Cobra Verde, whilst the second half is a vacuous collection of shock-moments and calculated gross-out tactics), whilst the rough editing, over-exposed images and out-of-synch dubbing (not to mention the atrocious acting) is enough to drive you to distraction.

Seriously, arguments that the footage is purposely bad in order to evoke a sense of reality are bull-sh*t. I've studied TV production for three-years. If the quality was so wilfully bad, it would never get shown on TV (simple as)... the same can be said about the Blair Witch. I don't buy the validity of the moral message either... anyone with so much compassion for the human race wouldn't feel it necessary to chop a monkey's face off, or cut off the head of an endangered turtle before waving it around in front of the camera. There's also a lot of sexual violence, particularly involving women and blunt objects being inserted into various orifices. This kind of leering, voyeuristic excess renders the anti-war, anti-consumerist, anti-media message obsolete (you can say the same about Man Bites Dog, Funny Games, etc). The people who have written about this film as if it's some kind of important social document, or worse, a horror film that is actually scary (it's not scary at all... we want the filmmakers to die and the cannibals to win, and they do... huzzah!!!) must have been watching a different film than me. Even the notoriously dodgy Zombie Flesh Eaters was more disturbing than this.

If you really want to see how violent this film is, then by all means, give it a try... if only to satisfy your curiosity. But please, don't buy into the hype that this is some kind of disturbing, ultra-realistic parable about man's capacity for violence (the prosthetic gore effects are really dated anyway), and don't waste your money on something you'll probably only ever watch once.

I cannot even begin to describe how this movie scarred me. I have read other reviews and am glad that I am not the only one who felt sick to my stomach while watching this. I had to turn it off and only wished that I had turned it off sooner. If only there were a way to erase those images from my mind. The only reason anyone even watches "Cannibal Holocaust" is to see what all of the fuss is about. That is why I wanted to watch it myself. I just wish I had known that I would be watching cruel tourture of innocent animals. I had to turn away and actually covered my ears so that I couldn't hear the poor animals dying. I only wish the actors torture scenes were real, they deserved it for allowing themselves to be involved in such a vile production. A special place in Hell is reserved for everyone who had a hand in making this piece of trash.

It took me over a year to get up the guts to watch this movie, while I've been working my way through the "most controversial movies of all time" list. It falls under the category of Horror probably more than any other "horror" movie out there. You have mayhem, murder, animal killing, rape, misogyny, torture and racism all bundled up in a film that uses the guise of some sort of serious social commentary on the modern world. Knowing the history of the film, I felt naughty just having it in my house.


Don't let the grainy "documentary" style film quality fool you; the film is powerful, visceral, and disturbing. It's a weird blended movie within a movie with an awkward narrative, mixed with the realism of a documentary. Most disturbing to me was the unsettlingly but, elegant music in the film. It provided this weird undercurrent to the gruesome images on the screen. I can't tell if the film makers actually made their underlying point to the film, or make a mockery of it. Personally, I didn't care for the "who is the savage" message, because not all "civilized" people are like the "documentarians". Then again, I willing watched the movie knowing what it was about, so just how civilized am I, I guess?

Where do I even begin? This one will shake you to the core. I went into this mentally preparing myself to see the most disturbing horror film of all time and reading reviews about how people had to turn off the movie or look away during some scenes. I went into it scared and it got worse when the opening scene rolled. 'The Disclaimer' warning viewers of what they are about to see scared me. During the first 20 minutes it was somewhat boring and i was there anticipating on what could happen next. I managed to get through the whole thing without looking away or turning off the tv in a somewhat apathetic state about the whole thing. Ive seen many horror films and this one was some parts documentary, media and what humans are capable of.

The film centers around some filmmakers who head into the south american jungle to find some cannibals. A professor manages to get the footage of these filmmakers who never returned. What they find on that film you will most likely never forget and never want to remember again.

The young filmmakers in this movie are asking for trouble by taking advantage and setting the cannibals huts on fire and doing unspeakable acts to them. In a sense they are almost as bad as the cannibals, you dont know who to side with. Most definitely not the cannibals but also i dont see how anyone can have sympathy for the victims until maybe the end when they suffer a horrible and disturbing fate.

The most disturbing scenes were the turtle and the blonde guy at the end who gets it from the cannibals. Now during the film im telling myself this stuff has most likely happened in the past, maybe even in more recent times somewhere out there and to view it with an objective mind. Animals are killed all the time but that does not excuse the animal cruelty. The turtle scene was unecessary in my opinion.

I didnt realize the impact this film had on me until after it was all over. Let me put this way, i couldnt eat for 2 days, i could barely look at food and i could sit through 'Dead alive' eating something. If you dont know what Dead Alive is its probably one of the most gory films of all time though more comedic.

Cannibal Holocaust is not what i would call 'scary' per se. Im sure if i was there to experience this nightmare I would be scared but I can only describe this film using one word- Disturbing.. to the max. As for me, not so much while watching but after is when the majority of feelings came into play. This is a cruel violent yet realistic in a sense movie. This is hard to swallow and i cant say i would recommend this unless you are a HARDCORE horror film lover. I am and this one had some kind of effect on me. During the turtle scene i was thinking, hmm, who would enjoy this movie? a certain serial killer came to mind. If you have a stomach of steel and can handle brutality and gore unsurpassed then maybe you should watch it. If you want to call this horror then its 4 out of 5 stars but im going to leave it at 3 and let you decide on your own.

Ruggero Deodato made a couple of dozens of movies, and hardcore horror fans might know some of them, but in cinematic history he will be forever remembered as the creator of "Cannibal Holocaust" - one of the most disturbing and nauseating flicks ever made. By the way unlike many other "most disturbing" movies this one, made a quarter of century ago, still shocks. Seems like time doesn't affect it at all.
Probably "CH" was originally intended to be another exploitation film - like "Cannibal Ferox", "The Last Cannibal World" of Deodato again, "Eaten Alive" - to pertain to this subgenre of cannibal horror. But somehow Deodato managed to make it out of the genre's framework, and "CH" now I think may be viewed not just by gorehounds around the globe but by more general audience in spite of the fact that it's really gory and violent.
If to compare "CH" to Umberto Lenzi's "Cannibal Ferox" you'll see that the latter copies and echoes Deodato's film practically frame by frame, line by line, but nevertheless
"CF" has no sense - it's simple and stupid exploitation schlock. But "CH" has some meaning if you will. I strongly believe those who say all the film's torture, mutilation, mayhem and brutality was gratuitous are wrong. They were director's instruments to show the inadequacy of today's world. To show the corruption and vice of "civilized" people who would do anything for money and fame. Who'd maim and rape just to get their 15 minutes. And all the cannibals' cruelty is just an act of self-defence - by means appropriate TO THEM. It's their savage world, it's what they used to. By the way we can clearly see the difference in how distinctly cannibals accept intruders. When they are visited by people with no evil intentions they welcome them and no one dies.
We see the greed of TV-officials who want to air the brutal "cannibal documentary" no matter what to get their poll numbers. Even knowing it's a pseudo-documentary, knowing beforehand what their relentless crew was capable of. Only professor Monroe played by Robert Kerman tries to study out the situation and prevent the notorious documentary from being aired.
So I saw much more to "CH" than it seemed at first. And I guess most of the people don't get it right, their eyes being shadowed by all that violence. But when you watch it draw your attention to the music which marks the most shocking scenes - I'm pretty sure this downbeat sounds were to emphasize their effect. When you hear this music you realize all the brutality was not gratuitous - the director knew quite well what he was doing, and he was doing it for a reason.
And finally I have to say: think twice before you watch it. If you're squeamish better don't. It's utterly disturbing at moments just like some docu-footage of wartime atrocities. By the way (and this is a well-known fact) all the animal cruelty in the film was real. But the Grindhouse Releasing edition has a feature letting you to skip all those scenes. Anyway if you could handle "August Underground", "Men Behind the Sun" or "Scrapbook" you'll manage "CH".