Cannibal Holocaust is nasty,sometimes VERY hard to watch,arguably sick,horrible,you name it. It's also a near masterpiece by it's director Ruggero Deodato {who never came near the quality of this film again}. It's a horror film in the most literal sense. It's not scary in the slightest,it doesn't attempt to make you jump. Despite it's scenes of horrendous violence,it's not even a simple 'gross out' a la Braindead. What Deadato attempted with this film is to disturb the viewer, provoke a reaction and make him or her THINK. The film has a powerful message about man's cruelty and violence,and Deodato just tackles it totally head on. This,and the fact that it is so well made{lets face it,some of the so-called 'video nasties' seem laughable now}are probably why the film has had so much censor trouble. Even if you hate it,it sticks with you,it's horrifying images staying in the mind for ages.
And they are indeed many. People being ripped open and eaten,including even a penis being partially torn off. A woman having a foetus torn out of her and it buried in mud. Another woman raped with a dildo and than having a mudball with nails on thrust between her legs too. A brief fake documentary showing disturbingly realistic executions. The list goes on. You would be forgiven for thinking that this is just exploitative nastiness. However, {and this is just one of the many things that separates this film from the many other films of the cannibal subgenre],we are being shown this stuff to get us to think,not just about mankind's violence to each other and his ignorance of other races but also about violence in the news {and oddly enough,the glut of 'reality'shows on TV today also make the film pertinent}. And it also toys with our sympathies in a devilishly clever way. Cannibalism seems horrible to most of us, but at the end aren't we almost pleased to see the protagonists eaten by the natives when they have spent the previous half hour mistreating and abusing them?
The film is oddly structured,with the second half being basically the 'film' which the characters in the first half of the film find. The second half has the most power,even if there are shots which couldn't actually have been taken by the filmmakers. Deodato actually shows great skill in many of the gory effects scenes by showing just enough of the effects to be effective but not dwelling on them so the fakery starts to show,and the climatic orgy of cannibalism is all the more shocking because much of it is only partially glimpsed,making more of an impression. Riz Ortolani's often bleakly beautiful score is superb and even the dubbing of the {good if not great}actors is not bad.
The one thing about the film that is hardest to defend is the animal cruelty {unless you see the UK DVD,which removes it}. In one particularly notable scene a large turtle is dragged out of the water and in what seems like real time is disembowelled. It probably is sickening that animals were killed for a film,yet this IS how the natives of many places survive,by killing animals and eating them,and is this really any more sickening than the way chickens are couped up in factories, stuffed with food and basically bred to die? Answers on a postcard please.
Cannibal Holocaust is quite simply essential viewing not just for fans of extreme cinema but for adult fans of cinema full stop,as long as of course they can stomach it!
And they are indeed many. People being ripped open and eaten,including even a penis being partially torn off. A woman having a foetus torn out of her and it buried in mud. Another woman raped with a dildo and than having a mudball with nails on thrust between her legs too. A brief fake documentary showing disturbingly realistic executions. The list goes on. You would be forgiven for thinking that this is just exploitative nastiness. However, {and this is just one of the many things that separates this film from the many other films of the cannibal subgenre],we are being shown this stuff to get us to think,not just about mankind's violence to each other and his ignorance of other races but also about violence in the news {and oddly enough,the glut of 'reality'shows on TV today also make the film pertinent}. And it also toys with our sympathies in a devilishly clever way. Cannibalism seems horrible to most of us, but at the end aren't we almost pleased to see the protagonists eaten by the natives when they have spent the previous half hour mistreating and abusing them?
The film is oddly structured,with the second half being basically the 'film' which the characters in the first half of the film find. The second half has the most power,even if there are shots which couldn't actually have been taken by the filmmakers. Deodato actually shows great skill in many of the gory effects scenes by showing just enough of the effects to be effective but not dwelling on them so the fakery starts to show,and the climatic orgy of cannibalism is all the more shocking because much of it is only partially glimpsed,making more of an impression. Riz Ortolani's often bleakly beautiful score is superb and even the dubbing of the {good if not great}actors is not bad.
The one thing about the film that is hardest to defend is the animal cruelty {unless you see the UK DVD,which removes it}. In one particularly notable scene a large turtle is dragged out of the water and in what seems like real time is disembowelled. It probably is sickening that animals were killed for a film,yet this IS how the natives of many places survive,by killing animals and eating them,and is this really any more sickening than the way chickens are couped up in factories, stuffed with food and basically bred to die? Answers on a postcard please.
Cannibal Holocaust is quite simply essential viewing not just for fans of extreme cinema but for adult fans of cinema full stop,as long as of course they can stomach it!