Customer Reviews

Cannibal Holocaust

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

Just thought I'd pass on the word, that this 2008 edition of Cannibal Holocaust from Grindhouse, is in fact the 25th anniversary edition ( just with a new cover and no limited edition numbering).

The discs have the same "film reel" design art work, and even the insert from the 25th anniversary edition is included.

So now you can get your cannibal jollies, without having to pay the close to $100 asking price, for the out of print 25th anniversary edition.

CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST will be a cheap exploitation film to some. And a complete grab your blanky and hot co-co to others(like me :)_ This starts off with a warning note on the movie you are about to see(a lot like another HORROR masterpiece did in 74)while the warning is being shown you are hearing some of the most HAUNTING music put to celluloid. We then are in a plane flying over the coffee like water of the Amazon(No! Not this Amazon) we then jump scenes to New York where a T.V.commentator is telling you the viewer that a so few hours flight can take you to the life of Cannibals(DA DA DUN) We are introduced to 4 very young and brave individuals who will fly to what they call the Green Inferno and document the lives of Cannibals(DA DA DUN)well they don't come back and a T.V. station hires a professor to find them with a search party. To make a long story short he finds cans of film and brings them back to N.Y. to view them. What he and the others(including you the viewer)see is truly HORRIFYING!!! I can only tell you this...I have a vast HORROR collection and no HORROR film has done to me what CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST has done! I'm not saying it is the grossest horror film,nor am I saying its the best horror film. But I will say their is a scene in this movie that made me pause the DVD and get up to go to the bathroom splash water on my face and say YOUR O.K. Clint c'mon just actors having a good time"COUGH"get a hold of yourself...Thats a good lad. If you are looking for blood,blood,BLOOD! Then you might be disappointed. If you are looking for a movie that will make you be grateful for the life you have and cherish each breath you take then my dear friend this is the movie for you...THE ONE THAT GOES ALL THE WAY!!! LONG LIVE THE CAUST!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been vowing to never watch Cannibal Holocaust, Cannibal Ferox, and Lucio Fulci films since I was 15. That was when I really got into horror films by George Romero, Dario Argento, Sam Raimi, Wes Craven, and on and on. Recently I watched Cannibal Holocaust uncut at age 19 on the internet thinking I was ready but I wasn't ready enough(lol).
Ruggero Deodato directed this and remains a cult director today, even appearing in Hostel II and currently making Cannibals(a sequel or Americanized version of Cannibal Holocaust) for mainstream release. The cast includes former adult film actor Robert Kerman, several lesser-knowns, and mostly real natives(if it's true but not sure). The film is actually centered on a professor who goes to a South American jungle to find out why "the" documentary crew disappeared. The professor brings the reels back, then we find out what happened and see the footage(which is part of the story). The film has 80's independent Italian drama graphics while the "footage" has realistic documentary graphics. The score has mainly two theme tracks with one as the pleasant theme track and the other as the disturbing theme track(which stays in the mind).
Now I'm sure people want to know alot about the content. It's graphically violent and graphically sexual. There is frontal male and female nudity as well but it's mostly cultural and the male nudity is not up close. The violence is again graphic and looks real in the "footage." I was disturbed by some killings and animal slayings. The animal killings where genuine, graphic and some even perpetrated by the actors(other than the natives). The sexual content is graphic, not hardcore, but graphic since there are brief rapes and casual sex scenes. This is not for everyone and not many get away not shocked.
My opinion is the film is bad for the acting and such but yet it's good for it's cinematography and elements. I like how it's a film-inside-a-film like those films about a fictional snuff film inside like 8mm. This film has no point yet it does have satire. Anyways I really don't like the film but I do see something more than sensationalism. I only have respect for the film. I won't watch it again and I may not see Cannibal Ferox unless I can be convinced it's not as disturbing and traumatizing. I wan't to point something out. This has been mistaken as a snuff film but it's not. Even the "footage" is fake and fictional. The only real killings were done to the animals which I condemned since they were only used as props. AGAIN, this film is not for everyone and not many are desensitive while watching it.

I think the stigma that still floats around this film--ie. claims that it is the most "shocking", "banned", and "controversial" film of all time, or Grindhouse's fallacious claim that this is the film "that goes all the way!"--is actually doing it a disservice. I would also argue that these claims are grossly inaccurate in this day and age.

True, there were multiple waves of chaos and outrage stemming from the film's release. In fact, Deodato was thought of as a murderer or a "snuff director" and had to produce the living actors in the film in order to clear his name with Italian authorities.

But there is also more to this film than shock, gore, and over-the-top violence. This is what separates Cannibal Holocaust from every other film in this genre. The cover, the description, and the assumed basis of the film lies to you. This is not a shock film about watching tribes cannibalize others.

Robert Kerman makes a pretty good transition from the world of pornography into the world of cannibals. He plays Professor Monroe, "NYU's noted anthropologist", who is commissioned to travel to South American Amazonia to determine the fate of a documentary crew comprised of 4 young adult documentarians. These "brave children of the space age" are partly artists, partly thrill-seekers, and partly sadists. The crew became lost while documenting two primitive tribes on the Orinoco River. Monore is fairly excited about getting in the jungle, and nobody that has been exposed to the jungle can see what interest he could possibly have in the "Green Inferno" (the Rainforest) or in the Amazon "savages".

The film is shot in "found footage" or "gonzo" fashion. This adds a gritty, yet intriguing quality. Perhaps one of the main points that comes across in this film is the uneasiness of the cast. Sure, there was supposed to be some tension built into the script. However, there is a very real, very palpable tension that becomes pervasive and supersedes the actor's roles.

There was a lot of sub-textual communication and struggle evident in the film. The actors appear to have become drained, both physically and mentally, both on and (presumably) off-camera. There was a lot of unintended tension and sorrow that inadvertently 'contaminated' the final print of this film. This adds a dimension that extinguishes the novelty of the cannibal movie genre and casts this flick into a different territory altogether.

There are some negative things about this movie I would be hard-pressed to ignore. The animal violence can be troubling, as Deodato went through 2 monkeys, a river turtle, a pig, a "muskrat" (a South American coatimundi), a snake, and a tarantula (I think). The graphic, up-close cannibal dinner scenes are plentiful. And the documentary team from the new world act as savages in their own right in some very difficult, non-palatable, and chaotic scenes.

While the film has it's share of hard-to-stomach scenes, it also reflects a somewhat simple innocence throughout, highlighted by a better-than-expected soundtrack. Monroe, Chaco, and Miguel are like little kids on a treasure hunt. In this hunt, we observe a savage way of life, but the difficult imagery forces us to question the basis for our contextual morals.

Does modern Westernized society really exemplify human progress and development at the core? Is there really a divide between the state of nature and the exploits of "advanced" thrill-seekers, adrenaline junkies, and exploitative 'artists'? Who are the real antagonists in this story? These are the questions that Kerman's character, and by extension Deodato, force us to confront.

If you are looking for a simple and semi-ridiculous cannibal tale, check out "Cannibal Ferox" (Kerman's other major offering in the cannibal genre), "Eaten Alive", or any other of the cannibal-exploitation era's notable offerings. If you are looking for a thought provoking, challenging, and curious film, give this one a chance.

Let me get this out of the way...

This one is absolutely positively NOT for kids...let me say that again, as a father:

THIS MOVIE IS NOT FOR KIDS!!

There, I feel my burden of responsibility fulfilled.

OK, now that you've read my title, I can say that while it's a true statement, it doesn't reflect my opinion of the movie as a work. I myself haven't enjoyed quite a few Best Picture Oscar-winners, but that doesn't mean they were bad films.

I'd heard of this feature for years, everyone telling me how gruesome and horrific it was...I'd heard how the director was arrested for murder, and had to produce the actors to prove he didn't actually kill anyone, etc...so finally, I was able to take the plunge and have a screening of this "holy grail of horror-dom"...

...I can't say I was disappointed, but I wasn't thrilled, either. For the time this movie was made, I found the misleading title interesting on my viewing...the cannibals were the VICTIMS here, thus, while accurate, the title takes you to a more horror film place in your mind. That said, the movie didn't SCARE me in any way...I was deeply unsettled by the animal scenes (although I agree with another reviewer that one can see much worse on NatGeo or Discovery, I tend to lean with the reviewer that said it was done in this film as shock value, and thus simply used the poor animals as exploited props; let's face it, it could have and SHOULD have been faked), put off somewhat by the gratuitious nudity (nudity in some respects would be necessary in a film about tribal natives, but this film definitely went further than it needed to), and found the attitudes of the characters deplorable and morally reprehensible...but it never SCARED me.

So it was quickly obvious, this film is a social statement about how little we as humans have actually evolved from our primitive beginnings disguised as a "horror film", using brutality and shock to make us understand it's point.

Now is this movie a standing social statement to be lauded? In some circles, perhaps; it IS effective in what it attempts to show us, albeit over the top and without explanation in some cases, and I certainly don't believe it was ambitious enough to "change your life"...but it could definitely change your outlook, depending upon the objectivity you watch it with. There IS a message in the film...one we might not want to hear.

Now before you grab the straightjacket and shuffle me off to the booby hatch, I'm not in any way trying to say that this movie is Oscar quality...heavens no! However, it's cinematography, score, and theme was surprisingly well done, especially for it's time...as the ancestor to "The Blair Witch" and "Cloverfield", I think cinema owes this little film a debt, especially us horror fans. The acting wasn't very good, but it held it's own with other horror flicks of the time (and even today, in many cases).


Again, I did NOT enjoy this movie... but I don't think it's intent was to be enjoyed.

This film is controversial as all hell. I'm sure many know that the director was charged with murder shortly after the premiere because it looked so real. In fact, the contracts for his actors said that they were not allowed to appear in public for 1 year after the debut, which, naturally, made the allegations of 'Cannibal Holocaust' being snuff all the more real.

However, he killed no humans. Even the impalement scene was easily accomplished by having the actress sit on a bicycle seat affixed to the end of a wooden pole and balance a piece of balsa wood in her mouth.

So while no humans were harmed in the making of 'Cannibal Holocaust,' 7 animals were killed, some in a fashion more violent than others.

I'll break down what exactly happened to each animal.

1. A coatimundi was stabbed in the neck by one of the actors. I do not know if it was later eaten.

2. A turtle was decapitated and had it shell removed. The actors cooked and ate the turtle. I assume the rest of it was later eaten by the Natives used in the film and that the shell was also put to use. Its legs continue twitching after it's decapitated, but that's probably (I'm no doctor) a physiological reaction that comes from decapitation and not 'pain.' You can't feel pain if you have no head because pain is controlled by the brain.

3. A large spider is killed with a machete. If you have ever smushed a spider or indeed any insect, then you can't complain.

4. A snake is killed with a machete. It was probably eaten by the natives after the scene was filmed because snake is known to be quite tasty.

5. A squirrel monkey has its face cut off with a machete. This scene was filmed twice, resulting in the death of two squirrel monkeys. It has been confirmed that the indigenous cast members ate both monkeys because it's considered a delicacy.

6. A pig is kicked twice and then shot. I assume it was later cooked because...why waste a pig?

--

Now, I don't approve of the use of real animals and Deodato himself said that it was stupid to involve animals. However, the point was to show the barbarism of humanity, and, especially, Western 'civilization.' This point could have easily been relayed through fake animals and special effects.

However, if anything, this film made it necessary for animal usage in films to be overseen by a member of the ASPCA, so it did prevent further cruelty to animals in film.

As for the film itself, it's important because it was a pioneer of the 'found footage' sub-genre. It blurred the lines between film and reality, and if you can't take anything away from it, at least appreciate the fantastic score.

If you're a student of film, you should see this because it's a landmark title, especially in the realm of horror. But it's not for the faint of heart.

OK, the title for this review has nothing to do w/ my overall opinion of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. However, I feel compelled to say that I HATE the scenes of animal slaughter in this film! I prefer my mutilations to be done through special FX, and NOT in reality! As for the movie itself, it is a classic cannibal movie, far better than any of its imitators (CANNIBAL FEROX, SLAVE OF THE CANNIBAL GOD, etc.). The "found footage" approach was quite fresh and arresting in 1980. The message of "who are the true cannibals? (the tree people? the journalists? The viewers?)" is well presented. The (human on human) violence and gore are extreme, yet necessary to the narrative. HOLOCAUST is meant to be shocking, as well as shaming to our rancid, media-obsessed culture. Should the kids or granny see it? No, unless shown to them by a sadistic psychopath! I'm glad I watched it, but I'm certainly in no hurry to see it again!...

The tribe took the shell off and kept returning to pull little bits out of the turtle's innards.This is not horror it is live sadism.We knew the turtle was still alive as its legs were moving. The john i was watching the movie with groaned.And by the way tormenting animals is how people who end up tormenting humans get their first introduction.These 5 and 4 star reviews don't indicate the real numbers of people who like this film,let alone the majority of people who support an ethical treatment towards animals.So i suggest the rave reviews are there because of the sick manics out there who have to prove their o.t.ness to be something special.Real people just groan and avoid the sensationalism of even bothering to post any review.
The music throughout is really cheesy for the genre and kept reminding me of the silly dialogue at the start of a cheap porn movie.

When "Entertainment Weekly" put out a feature 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.

Robert Kerman, aka porn star R. Bolla, plays a famous anthropologist Dr. Monroe who travels to the Amazon jungle to try on rescue mission for four documentarians who journeyed into the jungle to film indigenous tribes. Two months later, Dr. Monroe, attempts to locate the four and eventually recovers and views their lost cans of film which reaveal the missing filmmakers fate... and their atrocities!

This film was directed by Ruggero Deodato in a semi-documentary style, and Entertainment Weekly has hailed "Cannibal holocaust" the 20th most contraversial film ever made, that includes six real life animal killings, including a muskrat, turtle and pig. But the real controversey is perhaps on the set. There are stories of verbal arguments between the director, Deodato and the cast, especially Kerman. Even with his crew onthe issue of the animal killings. Even the actor originally playing Alan quit, and production was delayed two weeks until a new actor was found. This film as been said to have been banned in over 50 countries, but their is no way of verification.

Aside from the controversial animal cruelity, and the apparant fights and arguements on set this is a rather good film. It is a somewhat shocking and in serval scenes very disturbing images to behold. All in all, this is perhaps one of the best "Cannibal" films ever made and highly recommended.

Compared to many of todays violent films, this is somewhat tame, with the exception of the cruelity to animals issue. Even I looked away in digust to the animal killings. A truely must see film!