Holocaust or Ferox?

Discussion in 'Euro Horror' started by Arkiliknam, Nov 7, 2005.

  1. Cardiac Tom

    Cardiac Tom Guest

    The thing about the Cannibal flicks was that the animal killing was just there...that was not a selling point of it...Plus, it was a different time in a different country...What's done is done...

    Yeah, the live animal killings suck...but it does not deter me from looking at the important parts of the films...

    I thought the croc killing in Jungle Holocaust was way worse than the turtle in CH...

    And for the record, in the first Friday the 13th, they killed a snake...but no one seems to complain about that...
     
  2. old-boo-radley

    old-boo-radley They stay the same age...

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    The best thing about these discussions is no one is actually for the animal cruelty, so it's like people are arguing with themselves for no reason.
     
  3. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,639
    Likes Received:
    914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    I couldn't have said that better myself. Cannibal Holocaust is beyond a Worst Films of All-Time list. There was absolutely no point to that film having been made. I've gone on and on and on and on about why I hate that movie, and LOL nobody needs to hear it again. The movie is just worthless garbage. (I did like the opening music, though. However, from there it all goes SEVERELY downhill.) I don't have anything against people who liked the movie, I just think that there was no point to the film having been made.

    ~Matt
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2009
  4. X-human

    X-human I ate my keys

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,878
    Likes Received:
    600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Illinois
    You mean a story much like the one in Man Bites Dog and The Blair Witch Project? Take a out a turtle killing or two and suddenly it's called Criterion material and pegged on top of Greatest Horror lists. Pathetic film making? Come on, it's not all that different production value wise from Halloween, Nosferatu, Phantasm, Dawn of the Dead, Suspiria or many of its higher praised b-movie contemporaries. It ain't an A picture but it's got solid photography and sound design, especially considering the context. Let's call a spade a spade here.

    Take out the animal killings and would you really care that much that people like the film? Start a petition against Jesus Franco's 'Cannibal' if you want to decry a cannibal film for being pathetic.

    It's interesting the amount of emotional attachment for a turtle that died thirty years ago. You'd think there should be murder charges when a pet turtles gets run over by a car. What's the statute of limitations for emotional & psychological trauma, aggravated assault and turtleslaughter in the congo anyways?

    I strongly disagree. These films earned their reputations. Cannibal Holocaust and Victor Salva were fully responsible for their controversies. I say the same of Polanski. Even though I like Cannibal Holocaust and Polanski, I'm not going into denial over what they did.
     
  5. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,639
    Likes Received:
    914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Nosferatu? No, you can't even compare a movie like that to Nosferatu. It's different in every single way. Nosferatu is exemplary of the German Expressionist movement in the early-late 1920s. (It's silent, too so you can't even compare its method of production.)

    If we're talking about sound design and camera angles here, yes you can compare any film. But it is extremely different than every single movie you mentioned there. But production values are quite different as well. Terror Train had higher production values than Halloween, but which is obviously the better film?

    Halloween had style to go along with its narrative, carried by character development and strong, yet simplistic writing. Dawn of the Dead had strong social commentary that was carried out very well through excellent direction. Suspiria is almost an art film in the way that it is photographed. The story isn't always all there, but it has excellent photography that lifts it above many horror films.

    Cannibal Holocaust has what? Nothing spectacular. The photography isn't anything to lose your head over. It's actually rather poor. The lighting, okay that wasn't an issue, but what does the movie have to say? Nothing of value. Sure it showed the sheer brutality and cruelty human beings are capable of, but so did William Golding's Lord of the Flies. There's no message to this film. It was meant to be repulsive and nothing else. In that area it succeeds, but as a film there was no point to it having been made. There's no backbone, no substance. The movie doesn't make its point.

    And that's all I have to say on the issue. It's just that Cannibal Holocaust is different in every single way than the movies you mentioned, ESPECIALLY Nosferatu.

    ~Matt
     
  6. dirkwu

    dirkwu Bannable Lector

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    45 Grave
    ehh?

    Filmmaking is more than cinematography. The portrayal of story imparts a quality that makes a classic "timeless".

    Cannibal Holoclaust is devoid of this.

    Take out the animal killing and this film would have been forgotten. If you gotta kill a turtle to make a great movie then so be it. I ain't got nothing on that. But turtle soup and a slut on stick is no substitute for substance.
     
  7. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Despite how horrible the animal killings are, the only one that I really take offense to is one that didn't actually die (I think). It's that whatever it was called they had tied to a rope and were dragging around in Cannibal Ferox. Having that thing hanging off the side of the jeep and what have you. The reason I say thats the only one I take offense to is because I read somewhere that the rest of the killings in CH and CF were done just as they would have been done normally for food and that the animals were indeed eaten. If I am wrong please correct me and I'm sorry if that pisses off anyone who hates meat eaters or what have you.
     
  8. maybrick

    maybrick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    10,748
    Likes Received:
    636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Keene, NH
    I never said go in denial, but come on, I think we all know what they did here by now, and there are plenty other things to talk about in regards to these films but aren't because of the scandals always overshadowing them and running them off topic. And anyways, you say these films earned their reputations, but other than CH they didn't: The director's did. Unless you're talking about CLOWNHOUSE specifically then Salva's molestation is off topic, and in regards to filmmaking Polanski's rape change is totally off topic. What does Polanski having sex with an underage girl have to do with The Ninth Gate or Fearless Vampire Killers? Nothing, but some asshole always has to bring it up every single fucking time and shout the conversation down.
     
  9. dave13

    dave13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,467
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    I haven't seen CH or CF in years, and then only once, so im in no position to comment on the artistry involved or any visceral enjoyment that may be taken from either. But i do have something i wanted to point out - dismissing all onscreen animal killings as inexcusably wrong and dismissing the films they are a part of and the filmmakers who made them is as wrong and ignorant as any other blanket statement. Case in point, a Filipino water buffalo is slaughtered during the final moments of apocalypse now. In listening to Francis Ford Coppola's descriptions of the scene, not only are the actions of the film crew and actual slaughterers justified, but they really do add to the film in a way that staging the actions with puppets and cutaways wouldnt have. I'm not saying Deodato had similar justification, but I am saying that its possible. one can't simply dismiss the film without knowing the facts behind it.
     
  10. Enutz666

    Enutz666 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    So is it OK to kill animals for real if the movies is a classic & not an exploitation flick?Deodato was making a movie about life in the jungle where animals are killed everyday for a purpose. He wanted to show who the real villians were by exploiting the natives & there surroundings & he wanted the film to be as real as could be. I would've loved to see the rubber turtle they would have made if they decided to go that route lol
     
  11. gore

    gore Guest

    Arkiliknam, if your still out there :) and liked either CH or Ferox I would also recommend trying out Mountain of the Cannibal God, Eaten Alive (not Tobe Hooper film), and Massacre at Dinosaur Valley (for some cheese).
     
  12. sethsez

    sethsez Guest

    The stories are only superficially similar, and the "plot" isn't exactly what got either of those films their notoriety. Man Bites Dog in particular is also significantly more focused, well written, well shot, and conceptually solid than Cannibal Holocaust ever was. Get rid of the animal killings and you've got a poorly directed, poorly paced, poorly edited and poorly acted movie.

    It really is, though. It's the best of the cannibal genre but that's because it's a genre pretty much dominated by cheap cash-ins.

    Nobody's weeping for the turtle. The reason it's a problem is twofold:

    1) The animal was killed in a way that was extremely painful to it. Killing an animal to eat it doesn't tend to piss off nearly as many people (and although it's rare it's not unheard of in mainstream films), but it's generally done in a way that minimizes pain for the animal. Torturing goes well beyond just killing, and since you've had this discussion many times you obviously already know this.

    2) It undermines the point of the movie as a serious message piece by going for pure exploitation, which is exactly the kind of thing the film is supposedly against in the first place. We've got a movie showing how evil these people making their mondo film are... but then the actual people behind the camera are torturing animals to titillate and shock the audience. It takes all the air out of the "serious message."

    As a cheap piece of entertainment, I can certainly see the value in Cannibal Holocaust, even though I think it's trash as a film (I certainly enjoy plenty of movies I realize are bad) and don't want to watch it again myself due to the animal torture. But a good or meaningful movie it is not, even if it does have some superficial similarities to better films.
     

Share This Page