The Duke called it a masterpiece

Strange that in a film full of brutal and graphic violence to humans it is the turtle scene that continues to haunt me.

I agree that the "message" felt overhanded. It reminded me a little of Natural Born Killers where the film is trying to blast the media for glorifying violence while serving up a steaming plate of the same.

Yeah Mat, I too am more nauseated by the turtle dissection than any of the human-based unpleasantness. I assume it's due to the nature of realism attached to it - we know the human violence isn't real.

I would recommend people do watch this film, as you can see it's sparked much contemplation and debate, and there's a certain sinister beauty about it on top of that.

And good job Chris at mentioning the music, it's a brilliantly haunting accompaniment to the at-times-repulsive visuals.

My god man, this is one of those films that push the horror envelope beyond acceptable limits. I want a story with my horror, not spliced together scenes of depravity and ultra-violence that strive to revolt and sicken me. I can get that watching CNN. There is no art to this type of production.

Coincidentally, I finally mustered up the wherewithal to watch this the other day. I think what makes it even more repulsive is that it can't be dismissed offhand - Deodato is, however clumsily, attempting to express his anger towards media exploitation and the 'mondo' phenomenon. The problem is that he chooses to criticize the genre by inhabiting it.

I'd agree with ya there, Sir Fleming on both counts. The turtle is more nauseating because we know that it is real (and extrmely explicit) versus the fake (and extremely explicit) horrors to humans. It's also the context of the film. I don't know that I'd be as disgusted had I seen the same turtle killing on say a nature show.

I also think the film is worth watching, if you have the stomach. Though I think Deodato ultimately fails with his "message" much for the reasons that have already been mentioned, the attempt at going beyond the gore is enough to be of interest.

Cannibal Ferox does basically the same thing, but it is completely inferior on all levels.

you wrestled it well Chris - very nice job coming to terms - thanks!

Some of your finest writing / reviewing up there, Chris. i've seen this particular opus four or five times, and every time i feel like i'm watching a different cut, there's so much goin' on. as Sir Brewster says, i consider this a genuine masterpiece, a provokative, intelligent howl of rage and frustration and disgust and fairly throbbing with humanity, even in its bleakest moments. it's one of the very finest films, horror or exploitation or otherwise, e'er crafted by anyone. by no means an easy watch, but a hella lot more than your run-of-the-mill gut-munch exploitation fest. not that there's anything at all wrong with that sorta feature, but Cannibal Holocaust is a far cry from anything of the like. Sergio Leone himself thought it was astounding. he was altogether correct on the matter.

i'm goin out my head with a desire to own this particular edition, but UK customs have treated this particular flick with great disdain over the years, and i don't feel like flinging thirty quid in the direction of a DVD might never show up. maybe i'll feel brave one day and try it...

I thought I had purged myself after writing this, but it lingers on. I wonder if this is a testament to this actually being an effective film? It certainly is devisive in its effect on people. For as much as I find it distasteful, it lingers on like no other poorly rated film I've ever written about.

This is a twisted little thing, gem or crap, seems to be a roll of the dice at times.

I suspect I will revisit this at least once, I want to listen to the Deodato/Kerman commentary.

Thanks all for the kind words.

I can understand why the vast majority of viewers found it nauseating and do not recommend it to others, but its obviously clear that the Director, Ruggero Deodato was excellent in conveying his messages and ideas to more modern audience. I believe that the film is based on the concept of media exploitation (which has already been extensively addressed) and also addresses the most fundamental issue; which humans in the film were the most inhumane? The tribes practicing ritualistic cannibalism as part of their culture, or the invading, exploiting, ego-inflated white men (and woman) who claim that they want to "get famous!" by staging a grotesque, deep look at natural instinct in the jungle.
Ruggero Deodato cleverly presents this issue at the end of the film, where Professor Harold Monroe asks himself "I wonder who the REAL cannibals were?"
The media is vividly inhabited within the film. At the beginning of the film , we are introduced to a reporter addressing the issue of space exploration as a comparative subject to the undiscovered jungles of the Stone Age. Perhaps this level of media prompted the reason for exploring and exploiting those underdeveloped civilizations and meeting their demise. Also, the third part of the film (in first-person) is through the eyes of the cameraman. Even as the girl is being repeatedly raped and subsequently devoured alive, the camera stands by, idly filming. In presenting this, I believe Ruggero Deodato poses a serious question on audiences; is media and knowledge more valuable that human life?
Also, why is the turtle scene more morally upsetting than the slaughter of humans? It's because we have more sympathy and empathy towards animals that are not as threatening or harmful and not as intellectually aware or capable than we do for foreign humans and humans who act in despicable natures.
I sat through this film twice already. I did not find it upsetting, or morally outrageous, but rather, fascinated. This is because it is a film, and just a film. It gives you an insight into the nature within ourselves. We learn from it. Rape is part of natural human impulses. I do not condone rape. I find it the most horrible crime that man could ever commit. However, as I said, rape is part of natural human impulses. In the jungle, a dominion of male rule, rape on women is inevitable. It's a power and gender struggle.
The animal killings were unnecessary as they could have been faked. The turtle scene was most overwhelmed with emotion.
The implementation of music is not up for criticism. Like any other filmmaker, Ruggero Deodato was simply making a film. Like any film, music is deemed appropriate for effect.
I did not feel any remorse for those filmmakers eaten alive at the end by cannibals, mainly because it was justified (the filmmakers raped an innocent girl and slaughtered defenseless animals) and also because it was part of the natural process; eat or be eaten.
The film compares two jungles; a concrete jungle of Columbia and a cannibal inhibited jungle. Which society is more inhuman?

I think this is definately worth watching. The music is well combined with the snuff aspect of the film. Its disturbing, but you can't stop watching. The turtle scene was pretty bad seing as it was real, but the worst was when they cut off the guide's leg... It seemed too real, in the sense that you know it would probably happen if this wasnt just a movie.
You will not enjoy it and it will probably disturb you, but watch it.