Customer Reviews

Cannibal Holocaust [ NON-USA FORMAT, PAL, Reg.2 Import - Netherlands ]

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Well I'm not really reviewing the film as such - that is something for the viewer to decide.

I just wanted to point out that this particular release is the Australian 2-disc special edition released by Siren Visual. It is EXACTLY the same as the limited edition 11,111 2-disc set that was released by Grindhouse in the USA. I actually own both editions, and they have the same cut of the film, same menus, same features, same easter eggs, etc. So it appears that Siren Visual have just re-branded the American discs in different packaging for Australian release. It is not a limited edition in itself, it's just that not a huge amount were made for the small Australian market.

Having said that, the only thing limited about the American numbered limited edition 2-disc set is the packaging!!

***OK. First off let me state that Deodatos' Cannibal Holocaust is not for everyone. If you're in PETA and think it's perfectly logical to leave your pets money when you die then this film is most definetly NOT for you.***

Italians in the 70's loved nothing more than to take a good idea and run with it. "Go where the Lira is" was a way of life for a good many directors of the time. Like Argento's The Bird With the Crystal Plumage (2-Disc Special Edition) started the Giallo craze before him, Deodato is credited with kick starting the cannibal film craze. For those who dig on the sleazy and shocking underbelly of international cinema this film was long considered one of the harder to find titles. Banned in numerous countries for graphic, mean-spirited animal cruelty and snuff allegations leveled at Deodato by the Italian Government, it was almost impossible to find an uncut copy of this film. Now, thanks to a renewed interest in all things of bad taste, it's re-packaged, uncut, and ready to disturb a whole new generation of sickos!

Beautifully shot, the sweeping, panoramic views of lush rainforest at the start of the film, coupled with a feel-good melody scored by Riz Ortolani(Mondo Cane)quietly lull the viewer into a feeling they are watching something educational on the Discovery Channel or maybe Mutual Of Omaha's Wild Kingdom instead of being plunged into a world of images and sounds so realistic and profoundly disturbing that some I've shown it to state that they were overcome with a sense on numbness and overwhelming desire to shower upon viewing it to completion.

Cannibal Holocaust follows N.Y.U. Anthropology Prof. Harold Monroe's rescue mission into the amazon rainforests in search of a lost American film crew.

Monroe takes off to the Amazon and meets up with his guides, Chaco and Miguel(a hard-case amazon expert and his assistant), and a hostage from a nearby tribe to use for negotiation upon meeting the natives. After hiking deep into the green inferno they happen upon a rock-wielding native brutally raping and murdering what turns out to be his wife. The good Prof. is informed that the muderer is a member of the Yacumo tribe and is merely serving out the punishment his people reserve for adulterers. Following the tribesman closely, the party confronts him and offers up their hostage in exchange for permission to enter the Yacumo Village.

Once in the little village, the rescue party is confronted with anger, fear and hostility, until Miguel wins them over with a little old fashioned bribery. It seems that the last white people to come thru had left the village in turmoil. The next morning, the Yacumo leads the group to the edge of their territory, where they meet the neighbors: the Yanomamo and Shamatari. Both flesh-eaters, the tribes are perpetually at war with each other. The team witnesses the death of a Yanomamo woman at the hands of a group of Shamatari warriors, and then follows the warriors to a riverbank where they encounter a large group of Shamatari's preparing to massacre some Yanomamo men. The rescue team steps in with superior fire-power and the Shamatari warriors are forced to retreat into the jungle in fear and confusion. In gratitude, the Yanomamo invite the group to join them in their village.

The Yanomamo village is unlike anything you'd imagine. An elabotate shelter system is built into large clumps of trees, giving the place an overwhelming sense of malice and instilling in the un-initiated a sense of zenophobia. They quickly find that the same rules seem to apply here as in the Yacumo village...Don't Trust Whitey. In a bizarre attempt to gain some trust from the natives Prof. Monroe goes skinny-dippin in the river. Soon he's surrounded by brown skinned Yanomamo girls frolicking nakedly and playfully pinching at the good Professors johnson. When the bath-time fun ends, the small group of naked amazonians leads Monroe to a crude shrine made from the bones of the missing film crew. Prof. Malones worst fears are confirmed upon seeing the decayed remains of the Americans, but within them lies an unexpected bounty...Film Cans! Frustrated and angry at the brutality and viciousness the documentary team obviously experienced prior to their demise, Monroe confronts the tribe in their village and shows them the power of "White Man's Magic" by playing a tape recorder for them. Under the magical spell of the tape recorder, the leader of the Yanomamo trades the shiny film cans for the powerful, speaking box.

This is pretty much the end of the part of the film I like to call "The RIGHT WAY To Interact With the Natives", and the beginning of the "How NOT to conduct Yourselves while filming in Amazonia" part of the film...

Fresh from his arrival back in the states, Monroe is approached by executives of the Pan American Broadcast Company and they offer him the job of hosting the airing of the lost filmaker's documentary. The good Prof. states that he will only consider it if he can view the lost footage beforehand to see it for himself. The suits agree, and show him a short segment from one of the lost team's previous documentaries, The Last Road to Hell to get him up to date on the lost teams work. After the viewing, an executive tells him that the documentary was staged by the director Alan Yates to acquire more exciting footage. Puzzled, Monroe continues on to view the footage he himself fought so hard to recover from the Amazon.

The first film reel begins by showing the group preparing for their newest expedition. Joking, slap-assing, and playfully teasing each other in a way that illustrates the tight-knit unit that a documentary film crew often evolves into. The sight of a naked Faye drying herself non-chalantly, and barely registering any anger when she is teased by other crew members only strengthens the idea that these people are friends as well as co-workers.

Upon landing in the Amazon, Yates and his crew begin their journey into the "Green Inferno" and death and destruction are almost immediate. While making camp on the first night, the viewer gets a glimpse of what's in store as they witness the male members of the film crew(with the help of Felipe the guide)capture a gigantic turtle in the river and systematically destroy it under the guise of preparing a meal. The joking manner and adolescent way the western men toy with the decapitated and flayed-alive turtles still spastic head gives a glimpse into the true character of those in front of the lens. While the men prop the turtle head in front of the camera to film its futile gasps, Faye, the lone female on the trek gets sick at the sight and sulks along the riverbank in(soon to be hypocritical)protest of the poor reptiles treatment.

During the next days trek, Felipe is bitten on the foot by a poisonous snake. After killing the snake on camera, Jack cuts off Felipes leg in a futile attempt to save him from the poison. Quickly and painfully, Felipe dies. The crew buries him in a shallow grave, and argues about going forward with the filming faced with no guide. The film team decides to continue and in no time at all stumble into a small group of Yacumo standing in a clearing. While the tribesmen are in the open, Jack takes aim and shoots one in the leg with the idea of easily following the wounded tribesman back to his village, and hopefully, some great footage.

As the projectionist changes reels, Prof. Monroe voices his disapproval of the team's actions to the executives, stating that there are easier and better ways to introduce yourself to the natives.

When the second reel starts, the group is just arriving at the village. They descend on the villagers in a swarm of fire and gunshots, quickly herding terrified villagers into a large hut and burning it down to stage a scene for their documentary: the evil cannibal Yanomamos brutal burning alive of the Yacumo. After the fires, one of the crew shoots a baby pig in the head and watches as it slowly dies a suddering, pathetic death, while Alan and Faye make love in front of a large group of captured villagers.

Monroe breaks in with concerns about the films authenticity seeing firsthand that most of the footage is faked, but the executives ignore him and babble about how groundbreaking the documentary will be. They plan to air it without watching the rest and adjourn for the day. The following morning Mr. Monroe continues to view the reels alone, and in horror watches as a pregnant Yacumo woman has her fetus forcibly removed and buried in a muddy riverbank. Knowing that the executives are still planning to air the documentary having only glimpsed a taste of whats truly on there and hoping to change their minds, he decides to invite the suits to watch some un-edited footage that only he's seen.

The final two reels contain images of the film crews brutal gang rape of a young Yanomamo girl and subsequent fall-out with the natives..
The glee and animal behavior of the men during the rape is countered by Faye's furious(but ultimatly useless)attempts to stop them. The final reel begins with the group arriving at a site where the same poor girl is clumsily impaled on a pole(the image most associated with this film). The crew slowly circles the girl on a stick while describing the atrocity as an "Obscure Sexual Rite" of the Yanomamo Tribe. Shortly after leaving the site of the impalement, the team is attacked by pissed off tribesmen seeking some serious payback for the girls horrific death. Jack the cameraman is stuck with a spear in the ensuing attack, and instead of trying to help, Alan decides to shoot him and film the natives torture of his buddy. They sit and watch as Jack is systematically emasculated, cut into pieces and consumed by the ash coved savages. Faye is captured by the Yanomamo after jacks demise and Alan forces Mark the soundman to go back with him to try and save her. The two sneak up on the Yanomamos and film from the bushes as the tribesmen each take turns raping Faye before chopping her head off. The remaining two members of the team are quickly found hiding in the bush and chased by screaming tribesmen before first Mark, and finally Alan both fall victim to their own bad deeds. The film reel flaps to an end as the final image of Alan's lifeless and bloody face falls in front of the discarded camera. The executives sit in shocked silence as Monroe walks away, finally in the end, one of them orders the film to be burned.

It's been said that Cannibal Holocaust's "found footage" premise was in part the inspiration for The Blair Witch Project, and after viewing both titles, I'd have to agree. While wholly different films, the core premise of both is that someone got lost in the woods/jungle with a movie camera...bad stuff happened, here's what they filmed.

Diese Rezension war mir, um es vorwegzunehmen, ein persönliches Bedürfnis: Grundsätzlich habe ich mir zur Angewohnheit gemacht, im Vorfeld möglichst wenig über ein Buch oder einen Film zu eruieren, um mir vorurteilsfrei eine eigene Meinung bilden zu können. Über "Cannibal Holocaust" wusste ich lediglich, dass es sich um eine kontrovers diskutierte, in Deutschland beschlagnahmte Mockumentary (eine der ersten ihrer Art, wird behauptet, wobei mir die Quellen für diese Behauptungen inzwischen eher unseriös erscheinen) handelt. Ich muss gestehen, dass ich meine Absicht, unvoreingenommen zu sein, in diesem Fall bitter bereut habe, denn als ich den Film dann schließlich sah, war ich einfach nur entsetzt und angewidert.

Ruggero Deodato lässt den Zuschauer in seinem Film unter Anderem daran teilhaben, wie einem lebenden Nasenbären-Jungtier mehrfach mit einem spitzen Stock in den Torso gestochen wird, bis es schließlich nach minutenlangem Todeskampf in den Händen des Schauspielers stirbt. Mit einer Machete werden eine Schlange und eine Spinne lebendig in Stücke gehackt. In einer anderen Szene wird eine Schildkröte auf den Rückenpanzer gedreht und dann bei lebendigem Leibe von mehreren Personen aufgeschnitten und anschließend langsam ausgeweidet. Kurz darauf wird der Zuschauer dann Zeuge, wie ein Totenkopfaffe beschämend brutal zu Tode gequält wird und wie dann, wiederum einige Minuten später einem Ferkel in Nahaufnahme mit einem Gewehr in den Kopf geschossen wird, nachdem ihm ein sichtlich amüsierter Schauspieler mehrfach mit beschuhtem Fuß in den Bauch getreten hat. Noch Fragen?
Was gibt den Filmemachern eigentlich das Recht, derartige Grausamkeiten an Tieren zu begehen? Es ist katastrophal, welches Menschen- und Weltbild der Filmemacher in diesem Film zum Ausdruck bringt. In "Die Brüder Karamasow" schrieb Dostojewski einmal: "Liebe die Tiere. Gott hat ihnen die Grundlagen des Denkens und die ungetrübte Freude geschenkt. Störe sie nicht, quäle sie nicht, beraube sie nicht ihres Glückes..." Dieses Zitat dekuviert Deodato als Nihilisten und Menschenfeind, auch weil er, um seine Botschaft zu vermitteln (dazu komme ich weiter unten) nicht einmal in der Lage war, die goldene Regel zu beherzigen. Deodato liefert uns hier ein Brechreiz und Traurigkeit hervorrufendes, destruktives Werk, das in entsetzlicher Weise bezeichnend ist für krankhafte Auswüchse menschlicher Geltungssucht, Gewaltvoyeurismus, Arroganz, Narzissmus, Perversion, Dekadenz, Gleichgültigkeit, einem Mangel an Empathie und einer Skrupellosigkeit, die hier wahrlich ihres Gleichen sucht. Dieser Film ist eine Schande und ein Verbrechen. Bei mir ist er deshalb direkt vom DVD-Spieler in die Tonne gewandert, denn nur da gehört er hin.

Dennoch möchte ich versuchen, den Film hier etwas genauer zu beleuchten. Die erste Frage, die sich mir stellt, ist also: Ist es wirklich Kunst, die uns Deodato, ein in der Rückschau betrachtet weitestgehend erfolgloser Regisseur, da präsentiert? Ein Film wie z.B. Irreversibel" arbeitet ja im Prinzip mit ähnlich drastischen Gewaltdarstellungen und kann (selbst ohne viel Wohlwollen) als funktional bezeichnet werden, weil er es vermag, den Zuschauer auf sehr unangenehme Art zu berühren, um seine Aussage über Gewalt effektiv treffen zu können. Der Unterschied liegt hier lediglich in der Wahl der Mittel. Der eine Film greift auf Fiktion, der andere auf reale Tötungen zurück, um seine Wirkung zu entfalten. Genau deshalb denke ich auch, dass Deodato hier versucht, den in seinem Machwerk reißerisch gezeigten Perversionen und Abartigkeiten unter dem Deckmäntelchen der Kunst einen ungerechtfertigten, legitimierenden Geistesadel zu verleihen. Möglicherweise liegt das daran, dass Deodato die künstlerische Größe eines Gaspar Noe schlicht fehlte, so dass er seine Vision nur realisieren konnte, indem er den kategorischen Imperativ opferte und sich damit letztlich selbst wiedersprach. Sergio Leone, der bei der Premiere in Italien zugegen war, drückte es mal so aus: Was für ein Film. Aber sie werden dich dafür fertig machen." Deodato, der sich heute für die Tiersnuffszenen in seinem Film schämt, konnte bezeichnenderweise nie mehr an den Erfolg anknüpfen. In Italien musste er sich außerdem vor Gericht für sein Machwerk juristisch verantworten. Er gab damals zu Protokoll, dass die Filmcrew die getöteten Tiere nach Drehschluss verspeist habe. Als Rechtfertigung für die gezeigten Tierquälereien halte ich dieses Argument für vorgeschoben. Vielmehr dürfte es sich um haarspalterische Ausflüchte jämmerlich taktierender Winkeladvokaten handeln, mit dem Ziel, Deodato seiner gerechten Strafe zu entziehen. Gut, jeder hat in einem Rechtsstaat Anspruch auf die bestmögliche Verteidigung, der Punkt ist akzeptiert. Aber das heißt ja nicht, dass man diesen Schwachsinn übernehmen muss. Die italienischen Richter mögen es ähnlich gesehen haben, denn sie erteilten dem Regisseur ein mehrjähriges Berufsverbot. Die reißerisch-brutalen, gewaltpornografischen Bilder dienen ausschließlich dem Selbstzweck und führen das von Deodato angestrebte Filmkonzept (Ruggero Deodato versucht, eine moralische Kritik an der Sensationslust von Massenmedien anzubringen) auf paradoxe Art ad absurdum. Damit rüttelt der Film nicht, wie es mir mal ein Bewunderer dieses Filmes einmal so süffisant postete am selbstgerechten Traum von der Überlegenheit der Zivilisation", sondern lebt diesen Traum vollkommen unreflektiert auf exemplarische Art und Weise. Ja, liebe Fans, das ist ein Unterschied und sogar ein sehr wichtiger. Auch lese ich im Zusammenhang mit diesem Machwerk immer wieder, dass man den Tiersnuff unabhängig vom restlichen Film beurteilen sollte. Diese Meinung kann ich nicht teilen, denn es handelt sich um ein Kunstwerk, in welchem der Regisseur dem Tiersnuff eine wichtige Rolle für den Aufbau und die Verstärkung der Filmatmosphäre zugedacht hat. Eine Mockumentary ist ein Spielfilm, der vorgibt, eine Dokumentation zu sein. Die Atmosphäre ist somit, wie oft bei Horrorfilmen ein ganz wesentliches Element. Die Frage, ob das Projekt auch ohne den Snuff funktioniert hätte, beleuchtet ein abstraktes Szenario, welches zur Besprechung vollkommen uninteressant ist. Auch mit dem Argument vieler Fans, dass genau so doch das Fleisch auf den Tisch käme, gehe ich nicht d'accord. In der Regel kann man davon ausgehen, dass die Leiden von Schlachttieren möglichst kurz gehalten werden. Davon abgesehen geht es hierbei um Nahrung. Bei dem Film ging es um Unterhaltung. Das ist ganz klar ein wichtiger qualitativer Unterschied in der Motivation entsprechender Handlungsweisen. Und (wie ich es ebenfalls von Fans dieses Filmes gehört habe) zu behaupten, dass Cannibal Holocaust ja eh schon gedreht wurde und es daher keinen Unterschied macht, ob man ihn sich anschaut oder nicht, ist ja wohl ein ganz schmales Brett. Im übertragenen Sinne (um jetzt an die moralische Qualität von Snuff heranzureichen - die Genres sind in dieser Hinsicht m.E. durchaus vergleichbar, weil es in beiden Fällen um die bewusste - und filmisch dokumentierte - radikale Zerstörung von Lebewesen auf sadistische Art geht) kann man nämlich dann beispielhaft behaupten, dass der Konsum von Kinderpornos in Ordnung ist, weil es die ja eh schon gibt. Man kann einräumen, dass der Film eine Wirkung hervorruft. Das liegt wohl einerseits am hervorragenden Filmsoundtrack, zum anderen an den drastischen Mitteln, die der Regisseur einsetzt. Für mich wiegt aber die körperliche Unversehrtheit von Lebewesen schwerer als der Kultstatus dieses Filmes, und ich bin stolz darauf, nicht so gleichgültig zu sein, dass mir das egal wäre. Die realen Tötungen disqualifizieren diesen Film.

Wenn ihr eine gut gemachte Mockumentary sucht, kann ich euch beispielhaft "Mann beißt Hund"(eine Medienkritik mit wunderbar sardonischem Humor) empfehlen. Wenn es eine Gewaltstudie sein soll, seht euch Irreversibel" an. Ihr werdet garantiert in euren Sitzen immer kleiner werden. Aber lasst euch bitte nicht in den Dreck ziehen, in welchem sich Ruggerio Deodato mit seinem sadistisch-nihilistischen Tiersnuff-"Cannibal Holocaust" suhlt. Der Mensch ist entgegen Deodatos unwürdigem Menschenbild durchaus in der Lage, zu differenzieren und eine Beleidigung auch als eine solche zu erkennen.

this movie is pretty messed up, but if you can handle hostel and the human centipede (which is a classic and everyone should watch it), then you can handle this movie. also, minimal special effects were used.

The review given on the main page says that the anmal killings are "very realistic". That is because they are real. This movie is known as The Most Controversial Mvie Ever because it shows real brutality. The actors were forced, at gunpoint, to disembowel a massive sea turtle, shove a knife through a monkey's throat, and other horrific things that actually caused one of the actresses to lose her lunch on camera. The actors, once free from their ordeal, described the director as a "madman" and talked about the movie as though it were a hostage situation. The film includes real locals from the area, and fantastic human SFX, but the animal brutality is more suited for a Faces of Death movie. After filming, the director fled to Europe, and most will say he was only seen, anonymously, in the film Hostel Part 2 as the cannibal fetishist. He was in the film, though stories circulate about him making films in Europe whilst incognito. The story is difficult to follow, sort of a pre-Blair Witch thing, but it's one of those films that everyone should see once, then put away and lend it to friends. It is that disturbing once you know most of the terror and mayhem was real.
The point: Real horror, real violence, and really scared actors. If this is your thing, then buy the limited edition. If you sympathize with living beings, buy the no-frills edition, and watch it, knowing that fairly warned be ye, says I.

this series of movies is the scariest i have ever seen, because it is likely to be close to the truth about mankind's darker side

As a huge fan of the horror genre, I sprang for a brand new copy of cannibal holocause a few months ago. After seeing references to this movie in the documentary "snuff", hearing the tales of what Deodato went through after this movie was released, and knowing how much this film influenced the slasher/gore flicks that would appear in the coming decades I couldn't not see this film. A snow storm delayed the arrival of this dvd and I eagerly awaited the arrival of this dvd with much anticipation and little patience. When it finally arrived weeks after I had ordered it, I drove two hours to watch this with another horror film buff friend of mine.

What a let-down.

Everything you have heard about this movie is true, except that it is good. It is gory, violent, sexually violent, cruel to animals, and more. None of this bothered me, I know the difference between reality and a movie, and although the animal cruelty scenes may upset some people, it is no worse than documentary footage of slaughterhouses like "Blood of the Beasts". What is unforgiveable is that this movie is BORING! The dialogue is so poorly written that I wouldn't have been surprised to find out that the whole film was adlibbed. The acting is par for 70's horror (so it was bad) and some of the action sequences where so incongruent with the story line that one can tell the scenes are only being filmed to shock, and not to advance a plot of any kind.

Save your money, save your time. Life is too short to watch bad movies.

There are plenty of great horror movies out there, this is not one of them.

This film has been declared as the most controversial, disturbing, and brutal film ever made by most who view it, it is still banned in numerous countries, and director Ruggero Deodato had to prove the actors in the film were still alive. Due to the notorious reputation of the film and its status as a '70s Italian cannibal film, one may expect this film to be yet another gore-flick. Surprisingly enough, the film carries a somewhat strong and poignant point addressing the dangers of the media. It is typically viewed by gorehounds and people with strong curiosities at face value; look underneath the graphic displays of violence and anthropophagy, and you will see that Deodato is speaking against the media and using the nauseatingly realistic scenes to invoke sensationalism in the viewer. This is what sets this film apart from mindless, self-indulgent gore flicks such as Saw II-VI, Hostel, Lucio Fulci's movies, and Cannibal Ferox--which, unfortunately, is often compared to this film. This movie also effectively uses the technique of role-reversal; in other words, the civilized become the "savages" and vice-versa. Cannibal Holocaust must be commended on for its great gore FX, naturalistic photography, and Deodato's somewhat meticulous realism with the "documentary" footage which ultimately got him into trouble with the law. The continuously-commented-on animal deaths, although not defendable or justifiable, further add to this realism. Despite the graphic nature of Cannibal Holocaust, it is, nonetheless, a film I can recommend because of its versatility of being viewed thematically, metaphorically, and allegorically, or viewed at mere face value to satisfy morbid curiosities and gorehounds.

The other review for this movie did not give an insight to this movie. I bought it anyways and im glad I did because its now out of stock. The movie is said to be The Most Controversial Movie Ever Made! I found it not be that shocking because movies always try to raise the bar. However, I did enjoy the movie. It showed a guy filming his voyage then cut to a office and then they watch the film with the four filmmakers. I dont know how it happened but oh well. The final forty minutes are very realistic and brutal. It shows the filmmakers destroying a village and then the villagers take revenge on them. It does contain scenes of rape, animal killings, and cannibalism. It was a good movie and very surreal. I wouldnt really call it a horror movie because this stuff really happens in other countrys and does look real. Maybe its so controversial because it says something about humans and what we do for revenge.

I enjoyed this movie, but it's very dark.

There are many parts of the movie that seem *ucked up; but it's worth watching if you can stomach it all.