Today on Blogcritics
Home » DVD Review: Cannibal Holocaust

DVD Review: Cannibal Holocaust

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone
No review of this nature would be complete without the accompanying story. I first heard about Cannibal Holocaust a few years ago. Usually, it was mentioned in threads about horror movies, controversial movies, and gory movies. The more I read about it, the more I was repulsed. Anyway, I read about the so-called definitive release from Grindhouse Releasing that had been much delayed, and was much anticipated by fans. The day came and I happened to find a copy of the notorious flick, so I bought it. That was last October.

Cannibal Holocaust has sat on my shelf ever since. I was working up to watching it. I had read about the actual animal violence it contained, which was possibly the biggest factor in keeping me away, even if the film boasts of allowing you the option to watch the film animal cruelty-free, if you should so choose. I also read about how it was the most notorious film ever made, how it was banned in upwards of 50 countries, and of how the director, Ruggero Deodato, and one of the producers were brought up on charges that they had actually killed people during the production. Lastly, I also read about how it was a big influence on The Blair Witch Project, in the way it was structured.

This past weekend, I finally slid the disk into the player and watched it. I think I should have waited longer. I feel dirty, nauseated, and completely disturbed. It was probably not a good idea to watch it right before going to sleep. Since that fateful night, I have not been able to get this thing out of my head. People I work with are annoyed because I keep talking about it. I've been trying to find someone, anyone, who has seen this. I found one person, and he wasn't even able to finish it.

The basic frame of the movie has anthropologist, Professor Harold Monroe, heading off to the Amazon in search of four documentary filmmakers who had disappeared months earlier. Once there, he, along with his guide, come into contact with one of the indigenous tribes, a tribe that, you guessed it, still practices cannibalism. Monroe's adventure concludes with him not finding the filmmakers, but instead recovering their spent film. Monroe brings the film back to New York, where a television network is looking to use the footage to garner high ratings. That is the first third of the movie. The final two thirds focus on the assembled footage. The footage has the foursome heading into the jungles. That is it, in the most basic sense.

I like the idea of the fake documentary, but I am not sure I can say I like this movie. This is more than your standard gut muncher. The weaving of real and faked violence create this aura of authenticity, despite the, at times, poor dialog and acting, it feels legitimate.

A big question with this film is whether it was made as pure exploitation, or if the "message" was the actual intent. It is possible the message was a byproduct of Deodato trying to somehow legitimize the picture. There doesn't seem to be any consensus in what I have read online; it seems that many have the same question I do. It also seems the director, himself, wavers when faced with the question.

One way of looking at the message is as an indictment of the sensationalizing nature of the media. The media is portrayed as willing to do anything for ratings, including using this gruesome footage to that end. At one point, a network exec says: "Today, people want sensationalism. The more you rape their senses, the happier they are." It almost seems like they were ahead of their time in this view of the media, and, by extension, reality television. It is surmised that civilized society is actually more savage and cruel than the primitive tribes encountered over the course of the film. It is an interesting look at the movie from a higher level, without bringing the shocking images into play.

Intended or not, that is definitely a plus to the film. The problem is actually getting to it, despite how heavy handed it may seem, the shocking exploitation is hard to get through. Before we get to that, and I am purposely putting it off, I want to take a look at the characters, specifically, just how unlikable the vast majority of them are. There is only one character that shows the hint of a heart.

Professor Monroe (played by former porn star Robert Kerman) is the one person to show any level of humanity. He views the footage in horror, and it is he who levels much of the blame at the sensationalizing media. He cannot stomach what he has witnessed, and neither should we. As for the four filmmakers, they are a despicable lot. They have these elitist attitudes, they stage scenes, they remind themselves to act shocked on camera, they engage in acts that you would hope no one would do. At the start, you think the filmmakers are going to be the victims, but in the end, you have to wonder if they didn't get just what they deserved.

Now, I would be remiss if I did not say something about the despicable content. The aspect that gets the most attention is the animal violence. Now, this isn't the only film to have animal violence. I am sure most of you are familiar with the end of Apocalypse Now that features the slaughter of a bull? This movie, however, is on a completely different level. Five animals are killed on camera, none are easy to watch, and none were necessary. They don't even wait all that long, as the first instance is a mere 20 minutes in. The one to get the most attention is the sea turtle. This was a terrible sight, watching as this creature, estimated to have been over 100 years old, is dragged out of the water and cut up while still alive. It is making me sick just thinking about it. Those involved try to cover themselves by the fact that most of the animals were eaten afterwards, but I find that to be a thin line, and one that needn't be crossed.

The shocking images don't end with the animal slaughter. Cannibal Holocaust also has its share of graphic rape scenes, and they don't take long getting to them. The first goes hand in hand with the first animal death, a gruesome ritualistic punishment for an adulteress. Later on, the ill-fated filmmakers get in on the act with one of the tribal girls they encounter. It probably goes without saying, but there is plenty of full frontal nudity of both the male and female variety, and none of it is pleasant. This film has no intention of being pleasant, it is here to shock, disturb, and sicken. There is also dismemberment, flesh eating, and plenty of gore. Lastly, there is the central defining image of this movie, and the one that had everyone convinced this was a snuff film, that is the impaling. You don't see it on camera, but the foursome come across this woman with a good sized tree trunk that goes completely through her body, from the bottom up and out of her mouth. I have no idea how they did this, or how they got her to sit so still, and perfectly balanced, at that. Deodato says she was on a bike seat with a piece of Balsa wood placed in her mouth. This image has been used on much of the advertising, including the inside cover of this DVD edition.

This is not the goriest or bloodiest movie I have seen, but it is all presented in such a way that you believe it all. I still cannot believe that I actually watched the entire thing. This is a stomach turner in every sense.

After all of this, I cannot recommend this movie, to anyone. It is such a disturbing piece of work, the graphic realism, which in some cases actually is real, is just too much. I am sure you can say it is worth it for the scathing indictment of the media, but I am not so sure that was done purposely. I think it was a byproduct of Deodato trying to throw in something to help get a distribution deal.

I think the intention of this was just to make a shocking exploitation film to outdo all that had come before it. In that sense, Ruggero Deodato has succeeded. Something else that adds to the viewing is the music, a mixture of old synth and this other kind of light and fluffy guitar based theme that repeats itself; they combine to add this strange dichotomy with the gruesome goings on.

It may sound that I am positive in some of my analysis, but do not misunderstand me. This is the most twisted, depraved, disturbing, nauseating film I have ever seen; one I am not sure I could ever bring myself to watch again. It is the kind of film that, if you make it all the way through, you can probably watch anything.

Watching this is not the same as watching other realistic depictions of violence and tragedy. By comparison, Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are vastly different experiences. Those two films can be difficult to watch at times, but there is a focus on recreating points of our past. Basically, there is a real point to what is presented. In the case of Cannibal Holocaust, there is no point to it; the "message" could have been presented in a better fashion. That is why I think the message was an afterthought. The blood, animal violence, rapes, impaling, and more that I haven't mentioned, are there with the express intent of disturbing the viewer.

I recommend that you don't watch it. I am a fan of horror films, and I like the sick and twisted as much as the next guy. I like the splatter of blood and guts on the screen, but this takes it to a level I don't think we should go in the name of entertainment. And as strange as this may sound, I am glad to have survived my single viewing, even if I need to write this as a way to help cleanse the soul.

Video. This is not a new film, it was originally released back in 1979, and it had a very low budget. Plus, the impression is given that much of it was shot with even lower quality equipment. That said, it looks pretty good. It definitely shows its age. There are some marks, many probably intentional. I daresay, in anamorphic widescreen, this is probably the best presentation the film has had.

Audio. There are two flavors: a stereo mix, and the original mono. I listened using the stero mix. It sounds pretty good. Again, it was a low budget affair, so it is not the best you will hear, but is probably the best the movie has ever sounded.

Extras. There are plenty of extras on this two disk set.

  • Commentary with Ruggero Deodato and Robert Kerman. I have not listened to this yet, but I am sure it will be an interesting track, at least, I hope.
  • Trailers. There is a collection of trailers, including the original Italian, International, German, and U.S. cuts.
  • "The Road to Hell" Alternate Cut. There appear to have been two versions of this sequence, which incorporates actual firing squads from the Cambodian genocides. There isn't much different that I detected.
  • Documentary. On disk two is a documentary about the making of the film. I watched a little bit of this, and it offers some insights into the film. I will need to revisit this.
  • Interviews. There is a 40 minute interview with Robert Kerman, where he expounds on topics such as his absolute distaste for Deodato, the animal deaths, and more. He is an odd fellow and an interesting interview subject. Running even longer is one with Gabriel Yorke, who played Alan Yates. This is another interesting listen, as Yorke had no idea what he was getting into when he joined the cast. There are also interviews with Deodato and composer Riz Ortolani.
  • Photo Gallery. This includes film stills and behind the scenes photos.
  • Music video. Metal band Necrophagia made a video incorporating movie footage.
  • Easter Eggs. There is some hidden material, including a panel that reunited Deodato and Kerman. Here Kerman seems right at ease with the director, and with signing autographs, much different than his aura in the long interview.
Bottomline. What an experience, not one I am likely to repeat, and not one I can recommend. The animal violence is terrible, uncalled for, and stomach turning. The rapes and related activities, equally offensive. I cannot think of anything redeeming in this movie. This is well deserving of its label as the most notorious of films.
Thank for joining me on this journey. Perhaps now, I can get some real sleep.
NOT Recommended.
Powered by

About Draven99

  • http://midnightcafe.wordpress.com Mat Brewster

    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.

  • http://www.genericmugwump.com/ Aaron Fleming

    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.

  • http://zomboscloset.blogspot.com Iloz Zoc

    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.

  • http://www.moviesteve.blogspot.com Steve C.

    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.

  • http://midnightcafe.wordpress.com/ Mat Brewster

    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.

  • Eric Olsen

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

  • http://www.mondoirlando.com Duke De Mondo

    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…

  • http://draven99.blogspot.com Chris Beaumont

    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.

  • Ned Wilson

    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?

  • Phil

    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.