Holocaust or Ferox?

[Arkiliknam]

The thought of the Cannibal movies makes my stomach turn, but I've only ever read about them.

Now my sisters comes to me, asking if I've got Holocaust, as some of her net friends have seen it...

Maybe its time I delved into the dark, evil italian exploitation, and visit the Cannibals...

I know Holocaust came first... was Ferox just a rip off? Or are they both worth watching? Should I bother with one, or the other, or either?

If I was to get one, or both, I'd want to get the uncut ones (since I'm a dvd freak), and I know that the Grindhouse R1 version is pretty much as good as it gets, next to getting the LE Dutch version. What about Ferox? Is there a "Piss your pants edition"? Or is it a miss?

-Arkiliknam

[RyanPC]

They are both worth watching, IMO-- Cannibal Holocaust for the "disturbing" factor and Cannibal Ferox mostly for the laugh factor, but both are pretty shocking. :D

If you had asked me which one was my favorite before I got the Grindhouse release of Cannibal Holocaust, I would have said Ferox... but now that I've given Holocaust another chance, I've realized that it is one of my favorite films. You can laugh at the film, if you have a very dark sense of humor, but really the film is just relentless and, to me anyhow, disturbing as hell because the effects are much more realistic. That's what I like about it. I don't like the fact that both films have terrible animal violence (and Holocaust is yet again even worse than Ferox in that regard), but I'm not about to watch the animal violence-free version of Holocaust on the DVD because it'd take away from the impact of the film.

After watching Cannibal Holocaust, Ferox almost seems like a nice movie. :lol:

And you're right, the Grindhouse release of Holocaust is the best DVD of the film there is in terms of extras, but I've heard there have been better transfers overseas. So it all depends on what you want; me, I'd rather suffer through some irritating pixelation just to have those great extras. :)

The Grindhouse release of Ferox is also the best, I'd say. The Sazuma tin has the best transfer and the Grindhouse transfer is really washed-out and grainy (not to mention it's non-anamorphic), but the extras are fantastic. I have both releases of this film because I love it so much. It might be nostalgia, though... I have good memories of watching this one via the ThrillerVideo VHS entitled Make Them Die Slowly! :D

[SaviniFan]

I prefer Ferox of the 2 because of the cheese factor along with the gore. Makes it a bit easier to watch. If you get it be sure to get the Ultrabit Tin by Sazuma.

[betterdan]

If you are a pussy about animal violence skip them but if not then read what Ryan said. You can trust Ryan, he loves these flicks. He even told me that he masturbated during Cannibal Holocaust one time.

[Atmims]

He even told me that he masturbated during Cannibal Holocaust one time.
:lol: :lol:

I like them both, but Cannibal Holocaust is the better film.

[Golgo13]

CH all the way.

[badnewsbrown]

.

[KR~!]

Cannibal films are not for everyone, but Cannibal Holocaust is the best.

The Import Ultrabit has the best trasnfer and is uncut with ok extras.

The grindhouse version has the best extras, the part that is cut from the film is included in the extras.

[Surge92]

Both films are worth watching and owning, in my opinion. FEROX was Umberto Lenzi's attempt to one-up CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, and although it has some shocking scenes and great gore, it's not as grim or ferocious as HOLOCAUST. Some fans like that, other's don't. I personally do. As far as the definitive DVD releases are concerned, I'd go with the EC Ultrabit version of HOLOCAUST and the Sazuma Ultrabit version of FEROX. Yes, I do own the Grindhouse HOLOCAUST DVD, but extras aside, I'm pretty disappointed with it (too much pixellation for such a ballyhooed, high definition transfer).

My DVD Collection (http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=ANF&id=surge92)

[Devo1313]

I prefer Cannibal Ferox. Just Cannibal Holocaust signed by 2 of the actors up at Chiller Theatre.

[The Chaostar]

Cannibal Holocaust is a better film. I don't know which one of the two I preffer - it depends on my mood. If I want to have some cheese mindless fun, then Lenzi is the man. If I want to watch something more serious though, Holocaust is the only choice from this whole genre. Great film making.

[The Chaostar]

For those interested in the Sazuma version of the film, you can take a look at this
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews7/cannibalferox.htm

The guy obviously hates the film, and I can see where he's coming from, but it has some big snapshots where the quality of the transfer shows.

[KR~!]

You can take a look at this
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews7/cannibalferox.htm

The guy obviously hates the film, but it has very cool and big snapshots.

yes, but this is a funny ass line:

"It comes in a totally gaudy (but appropriate) metal case - perhaps to protect it from frequent attempts at being set on fire."

:lol:

[KillerCannabis]

After being familiar with Ferox and just recently watching Holocaust's new disc, its a bit of a toss up for me. I find Holocaust to be more intense, but not necessarily more graphic. I think Ferox has a little more edge in terms of torture, revenge and gore. Holocaust is definitely not for the squeamish and has its moments, but I still thought Ferox was a little more hardcore. I didn't have a problem watching either of these, so I say dive in head first and buy 'em both.

[RyanPC]

If you are a pussy about animal violence skip them but if not then read what Ryan said. You can trust Ryan, he loves these flicks. He even told me that he masturbated during Cannibal Holocaust one time.

You bastid! :lol:

Seriously though, I'm a big fan of both of these films. Get 'em both. :)

[evildeadfan123]

I have both films on DVD, and I love them both, but Holocaust is a little better.

[wago70]

I prefer the cheese-fest of Ferox. I love the campiness of it all (minus the animal cruelty). Holocaust is the better film by far. It's too effective - not fun (for me) to revisit as often as Ferox.

[de rossi]

Holocaust!

[maskull]

Holocaust, though the animal killing in it is worse, it's just a better film.

[Ash28M]

I just watched Ferox the other night and there was allot more animal killing scenes then I remembered. I'm going to have to watch Holocaust again because I don't remember it having as many scenes.

[Grim]

I've always liked Ferox better. I know the merits of Holocaust and all, but any message Deodato was trying get across about the media and violence was thrown out the window, in my opinion, when he used footage of real executions. So, for me, not only is Holocaust uncomfortable to watch, but it's message means nothing to me, so I have no real reason to see it again. Ferox is entertaining cheese that is gory, but so over the top that it doesn't come off as unsettling. Although the animal violence isn't too fun. Eh, check em both out, though, I'm not too keen on the whole Cannibal genre to begin with.

[allmessedup]

I've always thought the thing about HOLOCAUST is that it only pretends to condemn the things it shows.

The animal scenes are probably actually worse in FEROX in the sense that although the animal deaths in HOLOCAUST were horrible to watch, they did serve a purpose as far as the film was concerned, and although you can debate whether it was acceptable to do that, the scenes did play a role in the overall effect of the film. In FEROX, they just used it because it was a convention of the genre--the animal scenes didn't really do anything for the film. But to be fair, scenes of animal cruelty appeared in cannibal films that predated both CH and FEROX.

[Enutz666]

Being a fan of cannibal flicks I think both films are great for different reasons, Ferox has some of the best(funniest) dialog ever "hot pussied little whore", great gore & John Morghan. Holocaust is intense & so believable. The animal violence is crazy, films like these would have a hard ass time being made and/or released today. Both I think should be viewed even if just to watch in disbelief.

[DeathDealer]

What other cannbal films, other than the ones stated, have real animal kills?

[RyanPC]

What other cannbal films, other than the ones stated, have real animal kills?

Mountain of the Cannibal God does, and if you buy the AB DVD, you get to see some beastiality! :confused:

I believe Lenzi's Eaten Alive has some animal violence and other scenes stolen from Mountain of the Cannibal God as well.

[betterdan]

Mountain of the Cannibal God does, and if you buy the AB DVD, you get to see some beastiality! :confused:

Ok you just had to make me do it didn't you?

[DeathDealer]

RyanPC, I really don't understand that Dario Argento quote you have as your sig.

What excatly does he mean by that statement?

[betterdan]

I am guessing he meant that since it's become so successful it's gone more mainstream which is leading to it's downfall.

[allmessedup]

I think JUNGLE HOLOCAUST had some scenes of animal cruelty too. No, not Me Me Lay.

[Rockmjd]

Man From Deep River also has real animal killings.

[DeathDealer]

What do you guys think of Man From Deep River?

It's got the great Umberto Lenzi behind it. :)

[4Gotten1]

I dig this movie. Plus, it includes the great Me Me Lai and Ivan Rassimov. Not my favorite of the cannibals, but not my least favorite either. If your a hopeless fan of the exploitation / cannibal movie -- like myself -- then...this film is for you.

[maskull]

And as long as you really like animal killings.....

seems like every other scene was one of killing animals or animals fighting each other. But still a pretty decent little flick, if not overly exciting.

[dwatts]

They both suffer the same failings, while enjoying the same highs. Animal killings are the failings, and hokey exploitation fun are the highs. Taken outside of the animal material both Ferox and Holocaust have their moments - in fact, I think they're essential exploitation fun. We've debated the failings many times.....

[nukfut]

I remember watching Make Them Die Slowly as a kid and being pretty horrified by the animal killing scenes. I'd love to see it again but those kinds of scenes bother me too much to seek it out. I'm rarely disturbed by movies but that's something I can't deal with.

I guess I'm just a big pussy. [no comments, Dan!]

[maskull]

Oops! I was talking about Man From Deep River in my above comment. It's been a while since I've seen Holocaust or Ferox, but I swear there was a lot more animal killings in MFDR.

[dirkwu]

Okay, I just watched Ferox and Holocaust for the first time. Frankly I don't see what the big deal is but I will admit that this is definitely quite shocking cinema considering when it was made. I think peeps would get lynched by PETA if they tried to remake these movies.

There was one scene though in holocaust that got me and it isn't one that I've ever seen mentioned.

It was the scene after they chopped off the monkey face and some sick motherfucker runs off with it and eats out the back of the monkey face.

That was just sick and I would have shot that fucker if I was on location.

Oh yeah, was that Alfred Molina in the film editing room? Looked just like him...

[DVD-fanatic-9]

Apart from the meathook scene, MTDS / Ferox isn't shocking. Just sad and pathetic. In every single way.

With Holocaust, it probably doesn't matter. People will keep making excuses for that one till their dying day. It really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. The fans will keep pushing this movie onto lists beside respectable, quality horror product - every time.

[SaviniFan]

Apart from the meathook scene, MTDS / Ferox isn't shocking. Just sad and pathetic. In every single way.

With Holocaust, it probably doesn't matter. People will keep making excuses for that one till their dying day. It really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. The fans will keep pushing this movie onto lists beside respectable, quality horror product - every time.

Elitism or flamebait? You decide.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

Gee, I take it you're a fan of the movies. Or under the delusion that they're untouchable masterpieces.

Is that hot enough for ya?

[maybrick]

When people speak about horror in terms of "respectability" and "quality", I gotta tell ya, I really question their devotion to the genre. If you're looking for either of those things, go watch a flippin' Disney movie!

[DVD-fanatic-9]

Maybrick, that is a highly ignorant and dismissive reply. Am I to assume you are also a fan of these movies? Or, more appropriately - an Apologist for these two bullshit pieces of trash?

[maybrick]

:lol: Whatever, dude. If they really anger you that much, why don't you go email the moral majority, Tipper Gore, or your local state representative about it. And while you're at it, see if they can do something about that song "Cop Killer" by Bodycount! :lol:

[DVD-fanatic-9]

They don't anger me. I already said they're pathetic. It's people like you who think they're as good as movies that don't go for cheap animal-murdering "shock" and get pissy with me because I don't agree with you - that's what angers me.

If you don't like what I have to say, deal with it.

[maybrick]

People "like me"? :lol: Funny, funny: I don't recall ever voicing an opinion in this thread one way or the other regarding either Cannibal Holocaust or Ferox. Get over yourself. :D

[DVD-fanatic-9]

Get over yourself. :D
Same to you.

[gore]

They don't anger me. I already said they're pathetic. It's people like you who think they're as good as movies that don't go for cheap animal-murdering "shock" and get pissy with me because I don't agree with you - that's what angers me.

If you don't like what I have to say, deal with it.


I am kind of confused as to why you even open and start to read a thread about two movies you hate so much in the first place. Just to debate?


Anyway I have not seen a cannibal movie I did not enjoy is some way. Even with all the nature time filler shots, and yeah, the animal cruelty scenes make me cringe but guess what, all you have to do is close your eyes or turn your head and its over. :rolleyes:

[DVD-fanatic-9]

EDITED:

I am kind of confused as to why you even open and start to read a thread about two movies you hate so much in the first place. Just to debate?
I didn't start this thread or any thread about these movies. That would be Arkiliknam.

And I didn't come here to debate. I just wanted to say what I had to say and not have it labeled as "flamebait."

Sorry, Gore, I didn't read your reply very carefully

I just go on a message board and if I think of something to say about a movie, I'll go in a thread and say it. Or I'll read the last few replies in a thread and post a reply of what I think. I don't usually want to debate. If I ask a question, I always want it answered. But usually, I say what I think and don't expect anyone to agree with. But I also don't expect to be attacked for it either.

[maybrick]

My point of view on the animal killings in Cannibal Holocaust based upon what I've been told: they spent weeks in the rainforest shooting the movie and they hunted for their food. In order to eat you need to kill, so just because they filmed the slaughter that somehow makes it immoral? That turtle would have been just as dead either way. Ultimately I don't see it as any more wrong than that footage aired on the news recently with Palin talking while turkeys are being slaughtered in the background.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

Maybrick - thank you for finally taking this discussion back to being serious.

Now, you're right about the animals being killed and eaten, etc. But the fact is, there are (at least) 2 things here to consider.

1: This has been marketed and accepted as a horror film. Not a documentary. If this is an honest attempt by the filmmakers to show the viewers something real, it's pretentious and manipulative (and those in my book are spineless, shameful filmmaking qualities) to fluff it up with fiction and call it a serious social statement. And it's just as ridiculous for horror fans to take it seriously and claim it deserves to be regarded as an important work in the genre.


2. The entire point of recording the animal slaughtering (and the woman being brutalized), putting them in the movie - was just to get a cheap reaction out of people. Like Eli Roth says- to show them "some sick shit." Not to teach them anything. Not for any serious reason. Not to mention that that's the effect it has on viewers, which is radically out of touch with the intention of the film - that is, the ambition all the Apologists of Cannibal Holocaust claim the film has. So, considering authenticity here - why would I accept the film as a serious sociological message when it's being delivered by a director with no respect for his audience?


People just make what they want of Cannibal Holocaust. They make excuses for it, to make watching that kind of thing which is so socially despised, more acceptable somehow.

Now I'm sorry if you don't agree. I really am. But it's got nothing to do with Tipper Gore or Ice-T or censorship or anything like that.

[maybrick]

Why are you sorry if I don't agree with you? I'm not. My only point about bringing up Tipper or Body Count is that like those two it's ancient history now and well tread territory on this forum. I don't see the point in you or anybody else getting hot under the collar over a film that's now older than probably more than half of the members on this board. Like it, or don't like it, but please don't disrespect those who do with name-calling.

[rhett]

1: This has been marketed and accepted as a horror film. Not a documentary. If this is an honest attempt by the filmmakers to show the viewers something real, it's pretentious and manipulative (and those in my book are spineless, shameful filmmaking qualities) to fluff it up with fiction and call it a serious social statement.
If filmmakers are unable to use the illusion of reality in order to make real life statements about humanity, then, well, the cinema wouldn't exist. In THE SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE, there is footage of the little girls watching FRANKENSTEIN for the first time. The reactions from the girls is totally genuine, and the actress even states the footage of her are her own honest reactions to seeing the film the first time herself. Yet it makes its way into a film of fiction and remains one of the most effective moments in the film. There is no fine line between documentary and drama, even the purest of documentaries, under the cinema verite movement, involve the manipulation of a sequence of events.

In fact, the notion of "documentary" is really an aesthetic rather than an actual "document of reality". The seal hunting deaths in the first ever documentary, NANOOK OF THE NORTH, were entirely staged for the camera, yet the film is praised as a documentary landmark. Should I write the estate of Robert Flaherty saying DVD-fanatic-9 questions his theorems on documentary principles? Should we ban THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT because it visually makes itself out as a documentary? Had THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (or, to a lesser extent, HOLOCAUST) adopted anything but a naturalistic, non-fiction style, it would not have worked at all. The very nature of these films is to precisely question our naive notions of reality.

And wait, are you also arguing that a filmmaker should be punished by the way a film was marketed? I guess it's Bob Clark's fault that US distributors changed the title of BLACK CHRISTMAS in the States to SILENT NIGHT, EVIL NIGHT because of fear of the film being confused for blaxploitation? These comments of yours are so problematic you have to be consciously trying to be this illogical. There's no other way.

2. The entire point of recording the animal slaughtering (and the woman being brutalized), putting them in the movie - was just to get a cheap reaction out of people.
Did Deodato confess this to you at a convention? You certainly wouldn't just make such a shallow, blanketing statement from a single viewing of the film, would you? There are certainly plenty other reasons for the inclusion of the animal footage - to hint at the fragility of life, to foreshadow the documentarians' own vicious deaths, to make the existential connection that human and animal are devoid of spiritual salvation (when you die, you are reduced to soulless entrails) or to illustrate the diverge between the cannibal's killing for purpose (food, ritual) and the civilized man's killing for power. If all you get out of the film are cheap thrills, then maybe you should be questioning your own beliefs, intelligence and tolerance.

Like Eli Roth says- to show them "some sick shit."
Right, because Eli Roth's frat boy blog musings are exactly the kind of appraisal the majority of educated film connoisseurs get out of such films. I wonder what Dennis Rodman thinks about fly fishing?

So, considering authenticity here - why would I accept the film as a serious sociological message when it's being delivered by a director with no respect for his audience?
What shows you he has no respect for the audience? Because animals die in the film? Because he makes a statement you are unable to comprehend? Either way, it's yet another of your vapid flamebaiting remarks. I bit with the intention that nobody else would have to do so again, although I know that's wishful thinking.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

Why are you sorry if I don't agree with you? I'm not. My only point about bringing up Tipper or Body Count is that like those two it's ancient history now and well tread territory on this forum. I don't see the point in you or anybody else getting hot under the collar over a film that's now older than probably more than half of the members on this board. Like it, or don't like it, but please don't disrespect those who do with name-calling.
I never expect anyone else to take it that seriously.

You're right that it's all probably been said before. Which is why I assumed the apologists of the movie would be well-used to ignoring such comments.

But for the record - this isn't about morality. It's about the filmmakers' posing being mistaken for guts and courage.

[rhett]

But for the record - this isn't about morality. It's about the filmmakers' posing being mistaken for guts and courage.
:lol: Courage? Courage? Was Deodato's marketing team guilty of selling this as a courageous film? How are guts and courage even related? How can you "mistake" guts for anything other than guts? :lol:

Can I adopt you?

[DVD-fanatic-9]

If filmmakers are unable to use the illusion of reality in order to make real life statements about humanity, then, well, the cinema wouldn't exist. In THE SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE, there is footage of the little girls watching FRANKENSTEIN for the first time. The reactions from the girls is totally genuine, and the actress even states the footage of her are her own honest reactions to seeing the film the first time herself. Yet it makes its way into a film of fiction and remains one of the most effective moments in the film. There is no fine line between documentary and drama, even the purest of documentaries, under the cinema verite movement, involve the manipulation of a sequence of events.

In fact, the notion of "documentary" is really an aesthetic rather than an actual "document of reality". The seal hunting deaths in the first ever documentary, NANOOK OF THE NORTH, were entirely staged for the camera, yet the film is praised as a documentary landmark. Should I write the estate of Robert Flaherty saying DVD-fanatic-9 questions his theorems on documentary principles? Should we ban THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT because it visually makes itself out as a documentary? Had THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (or, to a lesser extent, HOLOCAUST) adopted anything but a naturalistic, non-fiction style, it would not have worked at all. The very nature of these films is to precisely question our naive notions of reality.

And wait, are you also arguing that a filmmaker should be punished by the way a film was marketed? I guess it's Bob Clark's fault that US distributors changed the title of BLACK CHRISTMAS in the States to SILENT NIGHT, EVIL NIGHT because of fear of the film being confused for blaxploitation? These comments of yours are so problematic you have to be consciously trying to be this illogical. There's no other way.


Did Deodato confess this to you at a convention? You certainly wouldn't just make such a shallow, blanketing statement from a single viewing of the film, would you? There are certainly plenty other reasons for the inclusion of the animal footage - to hint at the fragility of life, to foreshadow the documentarians' own vicious deaths, to make the existential connection that human and animal are devoid of spiritual salvation (when you die, you are reduced to soulless entrails) or to illustrate the diverge between the cannibal's killing for purpose (food, ritual) and the civilized man's killing for power. If all you get out of the film are cheap thrills, then maybe you should be questioning your own beliefs, intelligence and tolerance.


Right, because Eli Roth's frat boy blog musings are exactly the kind of appraisal the majority of educated film connoisseurs get out of such films. I wonder what Dennis Rodman thinks about fly fishing?


What shows you he has no respect for the audience? Because animals die in the film? Because he makes a statement you are unable to comprehend? Either way, it's yet another of your vapid flamebaiting remarks. I bit with the intention that nobody else would have to do so again, although I know that's wishful thinking.
Rhett - do you honestly believe most educated film connoisseurs think Cannibal Holocaust is a serious piece of filmmaking or a cheap piece of shit?

And I understood exactly what Deodato was doing. But it's more interesting for you to believe in all the bullshit. That doesn't change the fact that it is in fact, bullshit. You've turned this into an intellectual thing - when this is still a product given to audiences to get a non-intellectual reaction out of them.

So, yeah. I'm a "flamebaiter" and you're so much smarter than I am.

[Enutz666]

25-30 years ago the times were different. Film makers hell people were not as sensitive to certain issues that they are now. Even Hollywood once did things they wouldn't think of doing today. I'm sure Ruggerio himself wouldn't think of making that film today. Just like Disney wouldn't think of making Song of the South, they probably wouldn't even make Snow White & the 7 Dwarfs. Saying that, both films do what they were intended to do, shock but today more people are shocked by the animal violence then the cannibalism. I "enjoy" both films but Holocaust I believe is better.

[rhett]

Rhett - do you honestly believe most educated film connoisseurs think Cannibal Holocaust is a serious piece of filmmaking or a cheap piece of shit?
Well, I can guarantee you any serious critic, regardless of their stance on the film, would never be so shallow to simply dismiss the film (or any film, for that matter) as having only a single purpose. The very nature of art is its ability to contain and convey a multitude of meanings different to every viewer. Go on the Slant boards and tell everyone that Pasolini only sought out with SALO to make a film about shit eating. See how far it gets you.

You've turned this into an intellectual thing - when this is still a product given to audiences to get a non-intellectual reaction out of them.
You cannot blame filmmakers for the idiocy of viewers. In Ebert's review of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE he makes the cardinal sin in film criticism by reviewing the audience rather than the film itself. It's ideas like that that lead to censorship, banning something from everyone because a certain demographic is unable to understand it the way filmmakers intended. Would you want THE CRUSH to be edited down to PG for fear of teenage girls the world over trying to impregnate themselves on disposed condoms? Could you imagine the fan outcry?

So, yeah. I'm a "flamebaiter" and you're so much smarter than I am.
This is the first honest statement you've made in this thread.

[Buddusky]

Holocaust wins it for me easily but I like Ferox also. ˄ LMFAO

[DVD-fanatic-9]

Well, I can guarantee you any serious critic, regardless of their stance on the film, would never be so shallow to simply dismiss the film (or any film, for that matter) as having only a single purpose. The very nature of art is its ability to contain and convey a multitude of meanings different to every viewer. Go on the Slant boards and tell everyone that Pasolini only sought out with SALO to make a film about shit eating. See how far it gets you.
Slant Magazine? Funny you should mention them - I was just about to refer you to their review of the film. You definitely need to check that out, if you haven't already. Here it is (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=1848). I especially love the reference to Deodato as: "Italian director-cum-asshole." I may one day want that in my signature!

A single purpose? Expect this to sound as judgmental, uneducated, whatever, as everything else I've said here, but I suppose he wanted to make a cheap, shitty exploitation film. Then when a bunch of fools took it seriously, he changed his tune and goes along with "serious sociological statement" as long as that's the fashionable opinion among the Cult. Who, so long as they're the ones impressed, are considered the people who's opinions on this film matter.

You know - I still don't give a fuck who thinks what about this movie. I am still not trying to say who can enjoy what. But it strikes me as really frickin' phony of fans to go the extra mile in defending this film, when it's perhaps the only film that TRULY lives up to "Love it or Hate it." That it really is no more complex than wanting to see those images which probably shouldn't be in most horror films anyway. Look at what all the other directors were able to accomplish with suggestion alone.

Seriously - why would people want to see realistic violence for entertainment purposes? Whether it's this or Faces of Death, or hell- even killing animals or people in real life and recording it and putting it online somewhere?

The violence makes its' own statement apart from the Prepared-Statement I keep hearing from everyone who takes this thing seriously.



You cannot blame filmmakers for the idiocy of viewers.
Technically, I don't consider Deodato to be very smart. So... And I don't consider viewers idiots for not wanting to see animals and people slaughtered viciously. Under ANY circumstances or cinematic approach whatsoever. If that's not what you meant, than I think maybe your thinking is a little flawed. And before you get funny again, remember that I think the movie is shit. So anything I say is going to confirm my position on this movie - if you're saying the audience is stupid for not finding the same "Civilized People are the real Savages" message in the film as you did... Maybe you're forgetting that in a way - these people are the majority. The majority kind of makes up what is true in a way. Maybe they're conditioned to see something in one way, but aren't you conditioned to try to make excuses for extreme images?? Because seriously, as a piece of "Entertainment" - what is even entertaining about the film? And why are you choosing to defend it? Because you enjoyed it, right... Why did you enjoy it? Because of its' extremeness. I personally feel there is a limit. When too much is actually too much. That I think you can tell by reading what I've said about I Spit on Your Grave.



In Ebert's review of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE he makes the cardinal sin in film criticism by reviewing the audience rather than the film itself. It's ideas like that that lead to censorship, banning something from everyone because a certain demographic is unable to understand it the way filmmakers intended. Would you want THE CRUSH to be edited down to PG for fear of teenage girls the world over trying to impregnate themselves on disposed condoms? Could you imagine the fan outcry?
That image is from THE BABYSITTER, you Schmuck!! :D (God, I just wasted a sarcastic smiley on you)

Censorship has nothing to do with this - you assume that I'm alluding to it. I am not. How could that possibly be made more plain to you? And I don't know if Ebert said it, so I will - if the director actually thinks even HALF of any audience will understand the point you say he's trying to make- he's either out of his fucking mind or he's as stupid as his film is. However, it's a safe bet that the audiences will be shocked and sickened and PISSED OFF! Now, suddenly, audiences being stupid is more relevant here than the director being completely naive?? Which begets which here? Deodato and Meir Zarchi should be willing to take responsibility for the reaction most of the audience will have if they're so moronic, they couldn't figure it out for themselves. And - don't try to subvert this point in favor of going, "What would YOU do if (this other movie) did (this other thing)..." Because it's garbage.



This is the first honest statement you've made in this thread.
It wasn't a statement. You should have been able to see that.

[X-human]

I think this discussion itself proves that the film provoked thought. "How far is too far?" That is the question asked of the film makers within the movie. It's also the question the audience is left asking. How far can documentaries or news crew go? How far can fiction go? These are pretty existential questions. It's a question asked in Network and A Face in the Crowd. Both highly regarded films.

In a way isn't filming a turtle that would have been eaten anyways jusitifying the killing more than just the need of food itself? If they shut the camera off a frame before its death, is that suddenly acceptable? More justified? How much of a hunt can be watched? What about bass fishing shows? Are those the bain of human existance because they show the real world capture and demise of life forms? You can watch Bizarre Foods on the Travel Channel and see Andrew Zimmerman cut up a live frog and eat its still beating heart on camera. As a cameraman I've done live broadcast of culinary teaching where they gutted a live lobster for class.

I find "To Catch a Predator" far more distrubing to me personally than Cannibal Holocaust. It's making pure entertainment out of real pedophila. This is broadcast on nation wide public television channel NBC.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

I think this discussion itself proves that the film provoked thought. "How far is too far?" That is the question asked of the film makers within the movie. It's also the question the audience is left asking. How far can documentaries or news crew go? How far can fiction go? These are pretty existential questions. It's a question asked in Network and A Face in the Crowd. Both highly regarded films.

In a way isn't filming a turtle that would have been eaten anyways jusitifying the killing more than just the need of food itself? If they shut the camera off a frame before its death, is that suddenly acceptable? More justified? How much of a hunt can be watched? What about bass fishing shows? Are those the bain of human existance because they show the real world capture and demise of life forms? You can watch Bizarre Foods on the Travel Channel and see Andrew Zimmerman cut up a live frog and eat its still beating heart on camera. As a cameraman I've done live broadcast of culinary teaching where they gutted a live lobster for class.

I find "To Catch a Predator" far more distrubing to me personally than Cannibal Holocaust. It's making pure entertainment out of real pedophila. This is broadcast on nation wide public television channel NBC.
I certainly think Television today is providing more fodder than ever for a horror movie. And not even chiefly the news-related items. But no directors are looking to try and capture that / capitolize on it.

[The Chaostar]

Which reminds me THIS thread...

http://www.horrordvds.com/vb3forum/showthread.php?t=7344

[Rockmjd]

CH is my favorite horror film.

[maybrick]

In a way isn't filming a turtle that would have been eaten anyways jusitifying the killing more than just the need of food itself? If they shut the camera off a frame before its death, is that suddenly acceptable? More justified? How much of a hunt can be watched? What about bass fishing shows? Are those the bain of human existance because they show the real world capture and demise of life forms? You can watch Bizarre Foods on the Travel Channel and see Andrew Zimmerman cut up a live frog and eat its still beating heart on camera. As a cameraman I've done live broadcast of culinary teaching where they gutted a live lobster for class.


Exactly. People today are apparently too far removed from the reality of the food chain. It's one thing if you see a turtle on film that's seemingly tortured and mutilated for fun, but if you find yourself continuing to be that disturbed into anger once you know said turtle is destined for the dinner plate, well then, might I suggest becoming a vegetarian? Because in many cultures (including our own, it's part of the reason we're supposed to say Grace) it's actually disrespectful to the animal you're ingesting/sacrificing if you're afraid to give it a second's thought as to where the meat comes from.

[gore]

To me it seems like there cannot be a Cannibal movie thread without this on going animal cruelty / death scenes being debated. It starts off as a great source of info for fans of these movies to share and recommend others, and quickly turns into page after page of this, which is interesting to read mind you, but possible more so in the "official animal cruelty in italian cannibal movies thread" perhaps. :D I understand if someone is new to the genre maybe they should be aware of the content, but maybe a simple "by the way there is real animal killings in this, view at your own risk"

[maybrick]

To me it seems like there cannot be a Cannibal movie thread without this on going animal cruelty / death scenes being debated. It starts off as a great source of info for fans of these movies to share and recommend others, and quickly turns into page after page of this, which is interesting to read mind you, but possible more so in the "official animal cruelty in italian cannibal movies thread" perhaps. :D I understand if someone is new to the genre maybe they should be aware of the content, but maybe a simple "by the way there is real animal killings in this, view at your own risk"

I agree. As much as I'm for Freedom of Speech, I think it'd be great if there could be a single cannibal thread with heavy moderation, one where any post that mentions animal cruelty automatically gets deleted. Same with Victor Salva and molestation. Because I'm sick of it, you know? Because there can never be an intelligent discussion about either subject without it being run off the tracks with the same old, tired diatribes.

[X-human]

I understand if someone is new to the genre maybe they should be aware of the content, but maybe a simple "by the way there is real animal killings in this, view at your own risk"

True. One of my friends watched it unaware and when the scene came up he ejected the disc and broke it in half. He's a film maker that uses the most gore you could imagine with really bad tasteless humor too.

And just as an anecdote; when I shot footage of the live lobster being gutted I had no idea at the time that was going to happen. I got an inclining as the guy placed the lobster on the table and started pointing at it with a knife though. When I came back after the taping and gave the footage to the producer I said, "By the way, they cut up a live lobster today." He kinda laughed embarrassingly and said, "Oh, guess we can't put this on on the air." At the time I was one of three camera men at the station; the other two were vegetarian. The producer dodge a real bullet on that one.

So yeah... A heads up can be nice sometimes.

[Ash28M]

I certainly think Television today is providing more fodder than ever for a horror movie. And not even chiefly the news-related items. But no directors are looking to try and capture that / capitolize on it.

I'm not sure what your watching but Horror films today definitely reflect what is going on in the world. Haven't you noticed a darker more sadistic turn that has happened to the genre since 9/11? Even Torture films that everyone loves to hate. Which I now love out of spite:) Is a direct reflection of the sadistic acts and xenophobia we saw and still see on both sides.

As for the Animal killing in CH. If you knew how Hollywood and even nature shows treated animal back even 20 years ago. You would never watch another film pre 1990.

As for people finding enjoyment in disturbing films? I don't understand how you don't understand that. The enjoyment if you want to call it that, is in being disturbed. In cringing and getting emotional about what your seeing and then trying to make sense of it all. When I say I like disturbing films Animal cruelty is not a part of that either is hurting anyone. I wish no film ever abused an animal for entertainment but it was a different world then. I would never condone that today. Me not looking at the animal deaths in CH isn't going to bring Mr.Turtle come back to life or save any future turtles.

[Grim]

I prefer Ferox. I understand Holocaust's impact and legacy, but Ferox is just so much more watchable for me. Campy, great fun. I've popped it in at gatherings before more people than I've expected have dug it.

[dirkwu]

Apart from the meathook scene, MTDS / Ferox isn't shocking. Just sad and pathetic. In every single way.

With Holocaust, it probably doesn't matter. People will keep making excuses for that one till their dying day. It really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. The fans will keep pushing this movie onto lists beside respectable, quality horror product - every time.

I'm with you on this one. Pathetic filmmaking is the only way to describe this tripe. And it definitely cheapens any "top movie" list by being among the ranks.

Sparking debate, considered a brave "classic" for "going there", my only question is:

Couldn't they've "gone there" and make a good movie too?

Take out the "shock" and what you have left is a story so insipid that it wouldn't even pass SciFi Channel's development standards.

[SaviniFan]

The reason I called out DVD-fanatic-9 was because he/she (sorry, don't know what gender you are) made a post and pretty much laid it out as if it was an irreputible fact. It's one thing to say a film is shit because that is how you feel, but it is another thing to call out the "fans" of the film like they are some kind of idiots.

I could care less if you hate the film, in fact I'd support you in your opinion on it, but don't barge in this thread stating so called facts and making those who like the film feel like they are any less of a person here. That's EXACTLY how your post came off.

[Cardiac Tom]

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...

[old-boo-radley]

To me it seems like there cannot be a Cannibal movie thread without this on going animal cruelty / death scenes being debated. It starts off as a great source of info for fans of these movies to share and recommend others, and quickly turns into page after page of this, which is interesting to read mind you, but possible more so in the "official animal cruelty in italian cannibal movies thread" perhaps. :D I understand if someone is new to the genre maybe they should be aware of the content, but maybe a simple "by the way there is real animal killings in this, view at your own risk"

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.

[Matt89]

I'm with you on this one. Pathetic filmmaking is the only way to describe this tripe. And it definitely cheapens any "top movie" list by being among the ranks.

Sparking debate, considered a brave "classic" for "going there", my only question is:

Couldn't they've "gone there" and make a good movie too?

Take out the "shock" and what you have left is a story so insipid that it wouldn't even pass SciFi Channel's development standards.

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

[X-human]

Take out the "shock" and what you have left is a story so insipid that it wouldn't even pass SciFi Channel's development standards.

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?

As much as I'm for Freedom of Speech, I think it'd be great if there could be a single cannibal thread with heavy moderation, one where any post that mentions animal cruelty automatically gets deleted. Same with Victor Salva and molestation. Because I'm sick of it, you know? Because there can never be an intelligent discussion about either subject without it being run off the tracks with the same old, tired diatribes.

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.

[Matt89]

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.

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

[dirkwu]

...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?... It ain't an A picture but it's got solid photography and sound design, especially considering the context.

Take out the animal killings and would you really care that much that people like the film?... It's interesting the amount of emotional attachment for a turtle that died thirty years ago.


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.

[Grim]

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.

[maybrick]

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.

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.

[dave13]

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.

[Enutz666]

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

[gore]

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).

[sethsez]

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.
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.

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 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.

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?
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.