Cannibal Holocaust (1980) User Reviews (656)

Once you've seen it, you'll never unsee it...

[peytong00 · 7/10 · 14 March 2019]

Cannibal Holocaust truly is one of the most disturbing and uncomfortable films I've ever seen. Released in 1980, the movie has gained a reputation over the years as being one of the most controversial films ever made, and I think it rightfully deserves that title. Now this is a hard film to recommend, especially considering all of the brutal onscreen violence, rape, dismemberment, genital mutilation, and of course the incredibly hard to watch real life animal killings. However, whether you love or hate the film you can't argue that it's very well crafted. As with most Italian movies the cinematography is great, the soundtrack beautiful and the locations exotic. The tropical scenery truly is stunning to watch and music even greater to listen to.

The film focuses on a group of young film makers who venture out into the Amazon Rainforest to make a documentary on the local tribes, and as to be expected they never return. A professor is destined to recover the lost footage to put the story to rest and hopefully find out what happened to the crew. What unravels next is an example of one of the earliest found footage horror films ever conceived, made nearly two decades before The Blair Witch Project, and similar to that film the director strived to convince the audience that what they were seeing was real, so much so that he had the actors sign contracts to disappear from the media for a year to let the realism of the film sink in which later lead to his arrest, as the courts were convinced that the deaths depicted in the movie were genuine. However once he was able to get in touch with the actors and have them appear in court all charges were dropped, other than a small fine for the animal killings.

From its shocking visuals to its gritty realism Cannibal Holocaust is a very effective film that, like many people have said, is very realistic and has a much deeper meaning to it than one might think. Director Ruggero Deodato's intention (or so I think) was to make a film that deglorified our civilized society, showing the viewer that we, the civilized people, are the true monsters, not the cannibals. The movies' pessimistic tone and negative outlook on society actually makes for an overall depressing and unpleasant experience, a film that truly makes you feel bad in the end.

The movie has quite a sporadic fan base, with famous directors like Oliver Stone, Quentin Tarantino and Sergio Leone all supposedly being confessed fans of it. So much in fact that Oliver Stone payed homage to the film by replicating one of the most famous scenes in his movie Platoon (1986) and Sergio Leone wrote a letter of gratitude to Deodato complimenting him on the realism and the ability to produce such an effective and encaptivating movie. If you're looking for a fun horror film to watch with friends this is definitely not it. The movie is very dark and unsettling, making the viewer feel horrible after watching. Approach with caution, this movie is not for the squeamish, faint of heart, or easily offended and I suggest that those younger than 17 should avoid completely, only recommended to the most hardcore of horror fans and exploitation enthusiasts. You have been warned.

Great movie spoiled by unnecessary (real) animal cruelty

[jerosystems · 7/10 · 9 September 2019]

This movie could have easily been a 9 or a 10 because it is truly a disturbing masterpiece and really makes you think about what we consider civilized. The reason I'm rating it so low is that it is ridiculous that the animal slaughters were done using live animals, (7 animals were killed in the making of this video, though only 6 are shown) which was completely unnecessary as they clearly had the skills to depict realistic murder/slaughter/rape/gore scenes as shown by all the gruesome events featuring humans. The only good thing to come out of this is that very few movies afterwards ever used real animals becausr of all the backlash this one received.

A disturbing and damning portrayal of civilised society.

[Snake-666 · 7/10 · 7 September 2003]

Professor Harold Monroe (Robert Kerman aka porn star Richard Bolla) travels into the jungles of South America to try and discover what happened to a group of three documentary film makers who have been missing now for some time. After locating a primitive tribe Monroe manages to strike a deal and salvage what is left of Alan (Gabriel Yorke), Faye (Francesca Ciardi) and Jack (Perry Pirkanen).

They say there is a fine line between genius and insanity and I think in ‘Cannibal Holocaust' director Ruggero Deodatto made that line as thin as possible. To call this movie depraved and sick would only give it half the credit it deserves because ‘Cannibal Holocaust' is meant to be sick as it shows how sickening our own society is but in the most morally corrupt way imaginable. Featuring numerous repulsive acts such as a real live turtle flaying, a foetus being ripped from a woman's body, rape, castration and impalement the film sets about to portray the `civilised' documentary filmmakers as no better than the primitive cannibals. Even though the actors are barely competent enough to do their job it becomes almost enjoyable (in a very sadistic way) to watch them suffer at the hands of those they have wronged. However, from a moralistic standpoint even watching this movie is wrong.

I don't think this is the type of movie you either love or hate on an entertainment basis but you either agree or disagree with how it presents its case. ‘Cannibal Holocaust' is certainly nothing short of an endurance test in viewing as the senses are raped by the foul imagery constantly portrayed within. Filmed on a shoe string budget with virtually no production values evident, ‘Cannibal Holocaust' has a disturbing realistic grittiness that is almost unparalleled by any other movie and a huge influence for ‘The Blair Witch Project' almost twenty years later. I feel that because the movie is so badly made and the very fact it was produced is more damning to society than the events portrayed within many people feel that it is nothing more than a senseless bloodbath with no redeeming features and a hypocritical storyline – and to an extent they are probably right! Whether the viewer appreciates or despises this movie is totally dependant on the viewer and it is unfair for anybody else to make judgements on that person based on their opinion of this movie.

‘Cannibal Holocaust' is not about a sharp storyline, great acting or superb special effects (though the unsimulated effects are generally good). Instead it is about humanity in general. If you believe you can cope with violent and repulsive imagery and scenes of unbelievable cruelty then go ahead and watch it but otherwise it is certainly one to avoid. Some people will probably find the moralising over such repulsive subject matter offensive and I can't say that I blame them. However, there is a message there and this movie makes an extremely bold statement. The question is though whether it was right to make the statement in this way? From an artistic standpoint it holds no real value but remains an interesting movie. My rating for ‘Cannibal Holocaust' – 6/10.

A clever,disturbing masterpiece of exploitation cinema

[DrLenera · 21 March 2005]

Cannibal Holocaust is nasty,sometimes VERY hard to watch,arguably sick,horrible,you name it. It's also a near masterpiece by it's director Ruggero Deodato {who never came near the quality of this film again}. It's a horror film in the most literal sense. It's not scary in the slightest,it doesn't attempt to make you jump. Despite it's scenes of horrendous violence,it's not even a simple 'gross out' a la Braindead. What Deadato attempted with this film is to disturb the viewer, provoke a reaction and make him or her THINK. The film has a powerful message about man's cruelty and violence,and Deodato just tackles it totally head on. This,and the fact that it is so well made{lets face it,some of the so-called 'video nasties' seem laughable now}are probably why the film has had so much censor trouble. Even if you hate it,it sticks with you,it's horrifying images staying in the mind for ages.

And they are indeed many. People being ripped open and eaten,including even a penis being partially torn off. A woman having a foetus torn out of her and it buried in mud. Another woman raped with a dildo and than having a mudball with nails on thrust between her legs too. A brief fake documentary showing disturbingly realistic executions. The list goes on. You would be forgiven for thinking that this is just exploitative nastiness. However, {and this is just one of the many things that separates this film from the many other films of the cannibal subgenre],we are being shown this stuff to get us to think,not just about mankind's violence to each other and his ignorance of other races but also about violence in the news {and oddly enough,the glut of 'reality'shows on TV today also make the film pertinent}. And it also toys with our sympathies in a devilishly clever way. Cannibalism seems horrible to most of us, but at the end aren't we almost pleased to see the protagonists eaten by the natives when they have spent the previous half hour mistreating and abusing them?

The film is oddly structured,with the second half being basically the 'film' which the characters in the first half of the film find. The second half has the most power,even if there are shots which couldn't actually have been taken by the filmmakers. Deodato actually shows great skill in many of the gory effects scenes by showing just enough of the effects to be effective but not dwelling on them so the fakery starts to show,and the climatic orgy of cannibalism is all the more shocking because much of it is only partially glimpsed,making more of an impression. Riz Ortolani's often bleakly beautiful score is superb and even the dubbing of the {good if not great}actors is not bad.

The one thing about the film that is hardest to defend is the animal cruelty {unless you see the UK DVD,which removes it}. In one particularly notable scene a large turtle is dragged out of the water and in what seems like real time is disembowelled. It probably is sickening that animals were killed for a film,yet this IS how the natives of many places survive,by killing animals and eating them,and is this really any more sickening than the way chickens are couped up in factories, stuffed with food and basically bred to die? Answers on a postcard please.

Cannibal Holocaust is quite simply essential viewing not just for fans of extreme cinema but for adult fans of cinema full stop,as long as of course they can stomach it!

In parts a fun film, but it can't escape its own hypocrisy.

[davidatkins · 6/10 · 28 February 2010]

I really loved aspects of Cannibal Holocaust. It was far gorier and shocking then any of other of the so called 'video nasties' i've watched so far, and it was put together with aplomb. Although this wasn't the first film to use fake documentary footage, it's incredibly realistic and undoubtedly bought the technique to a mainstream audience influencing, if not directly, The Last Broadcast, The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield. Much like The Blair Witch Project, it was deliberately implied during promotion of the film that the four documentary filmmakers were not actors and that the recovered footage shown in the film was real. Unlike The Blair Witch Project, this claim is slightly preposterous as half of the film is shot in a traditional cinematic way.

The gore in Cannibal Holocaust is at times incessant, but still manages to maintain its realism and shock factor. One infamous scene shows a woman impaled on a tall wooden stake, the spike protruding through her mouth. The effect was so realistic the filmmakers had to explain how it was achieved in court to avoid a murder charge. The marketing trick of blurring the line between fantasy and reality obviously worked on the Italian authorities.

Cannibal Holocaust is a damning criticism of the media's tendency to focus on horrific images when covering war and violent conflict. At the time various news agencies had been accused of faking such images to improve ratings. More broadly, the film questions who is more uncivilised, the cannibals with their unusual and primal rituals, or the civilised filmmakers who exploit them for ratings and cheap shocks?

Although often lacking in subtlety, Cannibal Holocaust's script makes its point well, especially during the last half of the movie when the viewer is shown the recovered reels of films. These scenes are narrated by the disapproving Professor, ensuring that even a ten year old can understand the underlying point of the film. The documentary makers not only exploit the tribes by filming their day to day rituals in a lurid manner, but they also interfere, terrorise, murder and rape the tribe's people to elicit responses for them to film. When the documentary makers discover the woman impaled on a spike the cameraman has to tell one of the men on film to stop smiling; he can't help showing his glee at finding something so horrific to capture on celluloid.

The original cut of the film lingers on a depressing amount of animal cruelty, presumably because it's a cheap way to make the viewer question what is real and what is fake. After all, these crazy uncivilised tribes will cut anything up for some wacky ritual or a quick bite, the film's just showing what happens in the real world, right?

And this alludes to my problem with Cannibal Holocaust. How can one point the finger at media for exploitation when the filmmakers themselves think it's acceptable to film an extended sequence of giant turtle being caught, decapitated and gutted, just for a cheap thrill? How can they justify cutting a live monkeys face off (twice, to get all the shots required) in the name of art or to make a political point? The filmmakers are either completely naive or, worse, making a film they know is exploitative and immoral, using the political message as a get-out clause, something to excuse the barbaric and stupid, stupid, stupid animal cruelty. It's heartening to read interviews with the directors and actors expressing remorse for using animal cruelty, but this doesn't excuse it.

Cannibal Holocaust is in parts a fun film, but it can't escape its own hypocrisy. It's a shame that the animal cruelty happened, because without it the film would be a sure fire classic.

Horror? No. Animal Torture? Yes.

[savagepum · 1/10 · 4 October 2006]

I'll keep it short. This is not one of the scariest movies ever. This movie isn't scary, period. You will not be scared by this movie.

What you may be, is disgusted. What passes for horror in this movie is shock, and instead of seeing anything even remotely resembling a scary story or scary scenes, you will see animals being dismembered, cut up, mutilated.

I'm not a member of PETA, I eat steak. But in this movie you will see a muskrat get split open, a giant turtle get cut apart piece by piece, a jaguar shot, and so on. These aren't special effects, there is no "there were no animals hurt during the making of..." notice, there isn't anything special about this movie...don't be fooled.

When taking a break from their porno/blair witch style "plot", you get some nonsensical ramblings about cannibalism, some HORRIBLE acting, some third grade style camera-work, and when you're about to be bored to death, they start to cut up an animal or too.

The people who like this movie? The same people who watch video of kittens getting microwaved or other animal torture.

Take my advice, and skip this movie.

The Blair Witch's grandfather

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 21 May 2014]

It's impossible to talk about Cannibal Holocaust without mentioning The Blair Witch Project. Blair Witch is (wrongly) labelled as 'inventing' the 'found footage' genre, when, in fact it simply 'rebooted' it. Cannibal Holocaust did it almost twenty years previous.

We hear at the beginning how four young film-makers travelled deep into the jungle, only to never be heard from again. A professor, curious as to their fate, retraces their path and finds their footage. What you have here is two stories in one. You have the more 'traditional' Hollywood story-telling of the professor talking to TV executives about showing the found footage on network television and the footage which was retrieved from the jungles (first person, ala Blair Witch).

I only got to see the edited UK version of this film, but the footage, both from the professor who follows them and the film-makers themselves remains as shocking today as it was at the time. Cannibal Holocaust was banned at the time of release and even had claims of being a 'stuff' film (i.e. one where real people are killed on camera). This maybe untrue, but viewers should be warned that, although the people who die are all just covered in fake blood and prosthetics, REAL animals were killed for the making of the film. Those with strong views on this may wish to steer clear.

However, the animal cruelty is only fleeting. What you have are pretty strong scenes of torture which make the Hostel franchise seem tame in comparison. The footage, being shot in the eighties and on 'non professional' cameras, gives the film a deliberately 'raw' feel about it which even the Blair Witch Project can't even match. Plus you have the music which is both creepy and tranquil at the same time.

As you have probably guessed, the film-makers (on film) meet a grisly end at the hands (and teeth, obviously) of the cannibals in the jungle. Although, where we probably felt sorry for those behind the camera in Blair Witch and other such films, here the film-makers were pretty horrible. Some may see that they got what they deserved.

It's hard to 'enjoy' this film in a traditional viewing sense. Yet it remains a deserved lynchpin in the horror genre's history.

Bottom line: for those with strong stomachs ONLY.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

Ruggero Deodato has truly achieved a milestone new level of depravity and meaningless violence

[Anonymous_Maxine · 1/10 · 10 November 2008]

What you have in Cannibal Holocaust is a story about a group of people from NYU that go to document a culture of cannibals and never come back. Not that the story matters. Having watched I think three cannibal movies now (this is three more than the average healthy adult's lifetime recommended dosage), it has become clear to me that they are nothing more than exhibitions of movie violence and sickness. And in that area, the movie succeeds brilliantly. It is so tasteless and so disgusting that it's amazing that things like this ever get made.

And not just for the animal mutilations or the feces flinging (yeah that really happens in this movie. It's not just a t-shirt for smartass teenagers) or the orgies of misogynistic violence, but of course there are tons of naked natives in the movie, many of them obviously underage. But I guess that is just not a concern in whatever country the movie was distributed from.

I am guessing we are meant to be impressed by the feeding scenes, since logic would lead you to believe that that is what a cannibal film centers on. If so, maybe that explains why all the natives must smear their food all over their faces before they eat it, although I am at a loss to explain why women are regularly mutilated, dismembered, fornicated with and THEN eaten.

It becomes clear early on that surely someone in the group of NYU people must snap, unable to take what they're seeing anymore, and of course it does happen.

One guy, since the natives 'distrust' them (maybe it was all that shooting?) decides to strip naked to "become like them." Evidently this man has never seen the whiteness of his naked self before, but the island girls don't seem to mind. As soon as this awkward white guy strips off his khakis a whole group of naked girls run up to him and start grab-assing for a little while. Hey, maybe cannibals aren't so bad after all…

Oh, but minutes later, the group are forced to eat human, as is to be expected. The natives gleefully shove entrails in their faces as they inexplicably turn into savages for the purpose of this bizarre plot. Why the instant and total descent into barbarism? I have no idea, the movie isn't intelligent enough to explain such a thing, all it knows how to do is show you something that you would be much better off never seeing.

A giant turtle is torn apart alive with bare hands while the cameraman zooms in for an extreme close-up so as not to miss a single revolting detail, a monkey gets its face cut off, a backwoods amputation is cauterized with a hot machete and, when the poor amputee immediately dies, the rest of the crew forget seconds later, laughing and joking in the subsequent footage.

This is, of course, all documentary footage that they're watching of a past film crew. It seems that these mental giants went into the village and started screaming and shooting their guns and burning the village, and then wondered why they were massacred. It is not exactly a massive intellectual surge when one of the new crew says "these people probably think WE'RE the savages!"

Yeah, what tipped you off? The burning of their village or the fornicating in the ashes?

Clearly this is meant to be the movie's thinly disguised message. White people are savages at least as much as the people that we think of as savages. Oh and in case you didn't happen to catch that message when it smacked you in the head numerous times like a ton of bricks, at one point the "civilized" people grab one of the native girls and rape her, trying to show her the errors of her ways. Clever.

These people are nothing like any manner of civilized people, they are absolute degenerates and should be imprisoned. They even shout for joy when they find a woman impaled on a pole. What the hell is this garbage?

But in watching a movie like this, it seems to me that it is the people that would make and distribute something like this that are the savages.

At least horror movies are FUN, even bad ones. And this is not a bad horror movie. It's not a horror movie at all, I don't know what you would call it, but it is truly horrible.

A mother gives birth to an infant in the movie, for example. The baby is taken away from it's mother, drenched in blood and then buried in the mud while the mother is beaten to death with rocks.

There is a point in the movie where the utterly talentless writer, evidently unaware of how breathtakingly obvious his story is, has one of his characters spoon-feed you the real meaning of the movie:

"Today people want sensationalism. The more you rape their senses, the happier they are."

This sentence betrays a staggering lack of understanding of film-going audiences, but at least it is a flawless description of the thought behind the movie. Too bad you have to watch it to learn that you should never have watched it

Everything you've heard is true

[Leofwine_draca · 8/10 · 21 December 2015]

Ruggero Deodato's repulsive masterpiece in horror is probably the most controversial horror film in existence. I've heard and read about it for about five years before finally sitting down and watching the uncut version; the delay was through my own fear of not having a strong enough stomach to be able to sit through the endless scenes of barbarity and sadism. The film strongly divides audiences and I too am divided in my opinion of it; as a piece of "entertainment" it doesn't work at all, because the downbeat nature of the narrative and the graphic gore can hardly be enjoyed. But then the film must work as a "horror" film, a true "horror" film that can evoke feelings of anger, disgust, even sickness and fear. Undoubtedly the novel filming methods (after the deliberately slow pacing of the initial set-up, the latter half of the movie becomes a mock documentary as in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, and just as horrifying) make it the best of its bunch and the most effective of them all. It's the only cannibal film that comes close to resembling a mondo movie, and the final events involving the student film-makers are truly and horribly believable. The only way to watch this film is to live the lie, and the result is a challenging and disturbing but somehow rewarding viewing experience.

The movie is professionally made in that the filming seems unprofessional, lacking gloss and shine, and therefore more realistic; the various expeditions into the jungle simply convey the humid atmosphere, the constant danger from deadly wildlife and hidden tribes. The first half of the film is slowly paced and gradually builds up to the horror, with glimpses at a maggoty skeleton (the camera zooms into the grub-infested eye sockets of the rotting skull) and a tribal rape which is effectively powerful stuff. However, in comparison to the last half an hour, this is child's play. The supposedly real video footage shot by the students is harrowing and disturbing, but doesn't engage the senses as much as one might think - mainly because the students themselves are far worse than the cannibal tribes they seek! Their actions are a catalogue of torture, rape and even worse, as they impale an innocent girl on a spike (a painfully realistic - but simple - special effect) and burn down a whole native village for the hell of it, actions which of course act as a catalyst for the ugly conclusion.

Every five minutes something pops up which is likely to offend or shock a viewer somewhere, whether it be graphic moments of sexual violence (possibly the hardest parts of the film to sit through, or at least the most uncomfortable) or cheap but realistic gore effects of people having their legs sliced off and the like. The cannibal antics of the finale are the most powerful part of the film, as the film-makers keep on shooting for the love of their documentary. This is as horrible as the film gets and will have most viewers breaking out in a cold sweat. Blurring the border between fantasy and reality, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST includes a segment of real news footage showing Africans getting burnt and shot which is very hard to watch.

Harder still to stomach are the scenes of animal cruelty (the bane of this particular genre). Nobody can enjoy watching such scenes but they do add considerably to the film's false reputation of being a "snuff" movie and their inclusion adds to the powerful impact that the film has on viewers.

Production-wise, the quality is top-notch. Director Ruggero Deodato proves himself at the pinnacle of his career and directs the film he will be remembered for forever. The camera-work is authentic and the acting works, especially in the case of the student film-makers who fill out their roles very well indeed. Much-needed light relief comes from Robert Kerman (EATEN ALIVE) as the pipe-smoking Professor Monroe, who acts as the audience in viewing the discovered footage, and who gets to utter the immortal line "I wonder who the REAL cannibals are?" at the film's conclusion. The most effective aspect of the film is undoubtedly Riz Ortolani's emotive score, which really adds to the overall impact that the film has. It's frankly brilliant. Like it or hate it, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST is a film with a lasting reputation and I personally think it's an original and deeply disturbing slice of (almost) real-life horror. It's a wonderful exploration of the media's obsession with violence and the lengths to which they'll go to exploit it and in this sense it's like the '80s version of the controversial thriller NATURAL BORN KILLERS.

pre-Blair Witch cruelty

[PaulyC · 6/10 · 2 September 2008]

Yes, this film was banned and heavily censored in a few places for being disturbing. It does have some really well done gruesome scenes but the real censorship came from the cruelty to animals. Let's just say this film doesn't have "no animals were harmed during production" scrolling the end credits. The animal killings include a pig being shot in the head from close range, a muskrat being slit open for no reason, a giant turtle being split open in an overly long scene and a monkey getting his brains bashed in which required two takes so two monkeys were killed during production. These were real killings and not faked. A lot of the actors on the set protested this but the show went on. In fact, one of the lead actors feared for his life thinking this might be a "snuff" film and might meet the same fate. As much as this bothered people, is it really that different then buying meat in a supermarket? At least it made me think. The movie centers around "found footage" of a group of documentary filmmakers. The filmmakers are in South America searching for a tribe of flesh-eaters, hoping that this documentary will win them fame and fortune. The movie was marketed in a way that made viewers believe all the documentary footage shown in the movie was actual footage of a group that really went to South America to do a documentary. Some questionable acting gives it away. And you thought "The Blair Witch Project" was an original idea didn't you!?

Violence to animals

[drichfld · 1/10 · 10 December 2005]

Although no people were hurt in the making of this film, a number of animals were unnecessarily tortured.

This film should therefore be banned. We cannot permit people to make entertainment from the pain of our fellow-creatures.

A rat was skinned on camera, squealing in pain.

A turtle was decapitated, dismembered and eaten.

A monkey was trapped and had its face cut off with a machete.

Although I have no problem with the depiction of violence in films, and I do not believe that free speech should be subject to censorship, this film indeed "goes to far". Free speech does not include torture.

Not the campfest I expected

[Superunknovvn · 8/10 · 22 July 2004]

"Cannibal Holocaust" is not the campy little horror flick I expected. It's a "serious" and well-made movie and it's an experience you'll hardly ever forget. According to IMDb's trivia section the movie can "only be seen completely uncut in the EC-UltraBit DVD", which means that I've seen a tamed down version and that, my friends, is insane! "Cannibal Holocaust" is easily one of the most graphic movies I've ever come across. The violence is incredibly realistic. It's no wonder that director Ruggero Deodato was taken to court to prove that he hasn't slain real people for his motion picture. (I still think the real animal slaughtering in the movie was unnecessary. Screw you for that, Deodato!) It's hard to tell if there really is a message or if the "moral" is just an excuse for all the gore. In a strange way the violent scenes somehow speak for themselves and do deliver some kind of message, but that's open for discussion.

If ever a movie deserved the label "disturbing", it's "Cannibal Holocaust". It's controversial, but totally worth watching, if you can take some seriously sick images.

Abuse - morals gone

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 10 September 2020]

Now if you are an animal lover - why are you here? Believe me you don't want to see this! You won't even mind for why animals were abused in this. Mostly the animals killed here (yes they actually did that!), were for food. So while especially the scene with the shelled "friend" seems like torture, it is not something that is not happening to other animals most of us eat daily.

I'm just trying to give you a perspective so you won't feel like a hypocrite after you say certain things. Not to excuse what is being depicted in this. And while that may sound like a weird warning to a cannibal movie (and no human was harmed in the making of this - at least not in a deadly way), but it is important to note such things, so you are fully informed when it comes to deciding if you want to watch this or not.

The other thing is the movie became infamous and Ruggero knew what he was doing. Nowadays this is almost unthinkable. Apart from Blair Witch Project, where the filmmaker apparently never had seen this, otherwise he wouldn't have made his movie which changed the landscape ... but this one changed a lot of things too. While the movie pretended that its actors were dead (told them not to involve themselves in other projects after this was finished), the filmmaker got into legal trouble, because people believed this was completely real. The real animal torture killing and the overall realistic looking effects did the rest ... especially one impaling scene! Ruggero has since explained how he did (quite "easy" faked), but still many are awed by how it looks.

So to summarize, this is depraved, this is dirty, this is appaling and this will make many sick to their stomach ... mission accomplished

Bottom-of-the-barrel stuff

[adamonIMDb · 1/10 · 29 August 2017]

I reluctantly decided to watch the infamous 'Cannibal Holocaust' and found it to be every bit as shocking as people make out. It was by far the most uncomfortable experience I've ever had watching a film. From the sickening violence and killings to the torturing of animals and graphic rape scenes, this film is as morally low as they come.

'Cannibal Holocaust' is not art - it's not even entertainment. How can anybody enjoy watching a coati being repeatedly stabbed as it screams in pain? Or a turtle being decapitated and then pulled to pieces? It's unnecessary, horrible to watch, and no right-minded human being should be getting pleasure out of it.

This film is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff and makes for an extremely unpleasant and uncomfortable viewing experience. Unfortunately, it's also an unforgettable one.

Sympathy for the devil

[lmtbl · 2 January 2004]

Cannibal Holocaust was, first and foremost, a disgusting movie with more violence than I have ever seen. Despite this, it is also one of my favorite movies. It gives a feeling of Blair Witch done right, even though there are some very obviously contrived scenes in which nobody is holding the camera, but despite some small cosmetic problems this is the best horror movie I have ever seen.

Unlike most "shock" films, such as the Guinea Pig movies, Cannibal Holocaust has a very well written plot and a definite progression. The focus is still on making the audience ill, but we don't even see any violence until fairly late in the movie, so the emphasis on plot is much stronger. The story told is a deep one, showing the lengths at which people will go for some goal, the example given being fame and fortune. The theme is reflected in parallel story lines through the second half of the movie, as Alan and his crew go to more and more desperate lengths for fame, and the professor struggles against a big media company to suppress the release of their footage. Even in a "meta" sense, we see the theme appear once again in the lengths the director of Cannibal Holocaust itself went, going so far as to kill and butcher four animals on camera.

Possibily the most unpleasant 90 minutes of your life

[David_Frames · 1/10 · 28 February 2006]

...and I'm including Krakatowa Powers and the Geyserettes (1997) in there. Cannibal Holocaust has always enjoyed that special sort of notoriety that comes from been banned in various "territories" but whereas some movies get the cull for reasons of self-censorship or cultural sensitivity (A Clockwork Orange for example), Holocaust is a thick soup of voyeuristic, demented violence and gore - censored despite the fact that the sort of people who'd want to see it more than once are precisely the type of malforms that will get a copy anyway whereas most others would either chose not to watch it or start to and realise that it's a load of old crap. Indeed its got internal organs galore but curiously no brains. Banning it serves no purpose other than to give it an aura it doesn't deserve. It is, when all the hype is cut away, say like the guts of a giant turtle, a supremely soul-destroying, pointless experience. Artistically worthless. The only reason to watch it at all is to see how much worse it's going to get and I'm not spoiling anything for you by saying that your looking at quite a scale and the journey is long and tough. The story or hook if you like, is that, some movie makers go into the jungle, encounter a tribe of base savages who eat their fellow man and get horribly brutalised, murdered and consumed but luckily for us the whole thing is captured on film. This is pre-Blair Witch stuff with a great deal more calories, conceived by Deodato, the would-be snuff peddler when those directors were chest-lunching. To say that 'ol Holocaust is hard going is just ever so understating the case. Many movies claim to be a difficult watch but in this case the real holocaust might have been a preferable experience. Men and women have equal reason to fear its many stomach churning sequences. For the boys it'll be the scene in which some poor sod has his penis excised from his genital space and eaten while the baying mob disembowel him alive. Girls, sit back and look forward to the woman mounted vaginally on a spear scene and lets not forget the animal snuff. Pigs, monkeys, turtles - you name it they get it. If you've always thought that Babe was missing the scene in which he gets the bullet or that Finding Nemo might have worked better with a display of turtle guts then this is the flick you've been waiting your whole life to see. Scalped monkeys are the perfect antidote to all those cutesy born free type movies we've had to suffer over the years but the directors a brave man because if the A.L.F ever see this he'll need to be checking the underside of his car with a mirror for life. There was a lot of nonsense when this was made about it being snuff and those sensitive Italians didn't like the animal slaughter (this is the nation that invented fascism!) but the authorities may have wondered why you'd release a film that portrayed you murdering your cast (its damning evidence after all) - why not just murder them? In the end the only people who really get slayed are the audience but not in a funny way - if its this or 'While you Were Sleeping' it's still the Bullock movie...but only just of course.

A worryingly well-made cannibal horror movie. Unlovely and tough to watch... but very powerful.

[barnabyrudge · 6/10 · 13 September 2011]

I'd toyed with the idea of watching Cannibal Holocaust for a long time before actually taking the plunge. I suppose I was wary of the film's reputation as a piece of extreme cinema, and subconsciously kept putting off seeing it. Having finally viewed it – and, what's more, in its uncut version containing all the animal killings, the longest available "Road To Hell" footage, and all the other gory moments – I must say I'm rather surprised. Surprised that I admire the film when I expected to hate it; surprised that in parts the film is remarkably well made; and surprised that an Italian cannibal film of all things manages to be so prescient in its depiction of media sensationalism.

A group of four young film-makers vanish in the Amazon while making a documentary. A few months later, anthropologist Harold Monroe (Robert Kerman) sets off to find out what happened to them. After various adventures Monroe and his guides eventually find a group of natives, the Yacumo tribe, who have had contact with the film-makers. They push on further into the jungle, to the unexplored regions peopled by much more dangerous and isolated tribes like the Yanomamo and the Shamatari, where Monroe eventually locates the barely recognisable remains of the film crew. Amazingly, the movie reels they have shot are still intact and Monroe manages to persuade the tribesmen to let him have them in exchange for a tape recorder. The "recovered footage" shows director Alan Yates (Carl Gabriel Yorke), script writer Faye Daniels (Francesca Ciardi) and cameramen Mark Tomaso (Luca Barbareschi) and Jack Anders (Perry Pirkanen), journeying into the depths of the jungle where they use increasingly unethical and violent methods to get the footage they want. Eventually, the Yanomamo tribe turn on the film-makers and brutally slay them, their horrible deaths captured on film as the documentary crew desperately try to escape.

For its first half, Cannibal Holocaust is not particularly good. This part is a standard jungle expedition adventure with typically bad acting, wooden dialogue and bursts of gruesome violence. Where the film suddenly and unexpectedly makes you sit up and take note is in its second half, referred to in the film as the "Green Inferno" segment. Using an effective cinéma vérité style, director Ruggero Deodato shows the exploits of the film crew in the jungle. He uses scenes of real animal cruelty to shock the audience and knock them off balance, then moves onto realistically simulated "human" horrors such as rape, impalement, beheading, cannibalism and more. These simulated scenes have added believability because our senses have already experienced the onslaught of real cruelty and death. Deodato relentlessly shows how unscrupulous and corrupt the film-makers are, and how they will commit the most horrific acts against animals and natives just as long as they get their film made. The problem is that Cannibal Holocaust becomes the very thing it tries to condemn - a piece of sensationalism. It's hard to accept this fierce assault on the immorality of the media when the film itself resorts to the same offensive immorality. Nonetheless, this is an effective and disturbing horror film which should be seen at least once, if only to experience the raw cinéma vérité sequences (which surely inspired later "lost footage" movies, most notably The Blair Witch Project). There isn't a single moment here that will make you jump, but there are many appallingly cruel moments that will play on your mind for a long time afterwards. Tough viewing.

It is shocking, the things people say about this movie

[trinity_heroes · 1/10 · 3 November 2008]

It's pretty sad people call this art. This was just disgusting. I'm not a person who dislikes gore, I can stand it, and I like it. I'm not some animal rights pusher (I support it, but if it were me or the dog, the dog would die.) Now this was just truly disgusting and cruel. They did things to these animals that is so (I want to cry) horrible. I just think "What was the unimaginable pain of that muskrat, or the turtle, or the monkey." And f***ing a v*gin* with a wooden stake, WTF! Who sits down and comes up with this, and if you do, you don't film it. I love artistic movies like The Tracey Fragments and The Blair Witch Project, but this was by no means "art". This was a journey through a disgusting slaughterhouse. What saddens me is that you people act as if it weren't real. Well honey, those animals died for you entertainment. Now that's what i call "art"

Remarkable. What a film!!!

[blayzer_trayl · 10/10 · 2 December 2004]

I cant believe some people have scathed this great film. It deserves a lot higher rating.

I got this movie out thinking it was going to be a brainless splatter fest. But after watching it in completion I was bowled over ..I wasn't expecting to be challenged by its visuals as well as with the sociological lessons and questions it raised.

The film is real, genuine and honest to the subject topic: 'Barbarity' can be innate in all humans.

It can be argued that humans coming into the homo-sapiens stage of evolution survived and expanded because of what is now considered barbarous savage ways. Savagery was a survival tool. We came from barbarity...and to an extent we still are savages.

Though the acting is poor in most places ...the film director portrays cannabilism and barbarism ...and portrays it rather intelligently.

Obvious connotations can be made to Blair Witch Project. I'm sure the crew that made BWP was inspired by this movie.

The film follows a Professor investigating the disappearance of an American film team (3 guys and girl) that went into the jungle of South America to film a documentary about the native cannibals.

The Professor with a couple of jungle assistants venture into the jungle to trace the lost Americans footsteps. He manages to get on the trail and slowly uncovers the grizzly ways of the jungle tribes! By carefully befriending these natives he captures the lost film reels and returns back to his skyscraper clad conurbation.

In amongst the film there is the media business cogs turning. The dilemma of TV executives battling with the Professor to air the once lost footage on TV for the viewing public. The professor is reluctant.

The professor seems the only person possessed with moral understanding and compassion throughout the film ..everyone else it seems is after ratings, fame, money or blood.

The film commences its ending by playing back the raw footage of what the expedition team filmed...and it is shocking. Questions arise: Who is committing the real 'evil' savagery here?

As for the animal cruelty scenes: Yes they are real and shocking. But should it be anymore shocking than the beef burger that is served up in McDonalds. Cows are slaughtered everyday. Perhaps one needs to watch a bovine neck getting slit before they take it for granted they are eating a nice juicy steak on their plate. The film portrays the reality of human meat consumption...and yes all kinds of animals are killed for the human appetite, especially in the wild - someone will do it! For those who dispute this film on these grounds 'Can you handle life?' This stuff still goes on regardless of whether u see it happen or not.

This film is absolutely brilliant. A cult classic. I can see it making a revival...but don't know when...perhaps in some years time.

Better than NATURAL BORN KILLERS, could do without the animal slaughter

[squeezebox · 6/10 · 30 July 2005]

Political correctness is not something I usually expect to see in an Italian cannibal gut-muncher flick, and there's none to be found in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. But the filmmakers would like you to think there's some in there, and that, in a way, actually hinders what could have been a really powerful movie.

Not that CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST isn't outrageously violent and extremely disturbing at times, but like so many other "serious" exploitation movies (e.g. SALO, MEN BEHIND THE SUN), the filmmakers go so far over the top depicting the spilling of blood and guts that whatever points they purport to want to make are drowned in their own gruesome sensationalism.

This is especially counter-productive in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST because it is the very thing that director Ruggero Deodatto claims to be satirizing. The movie lacks the sophistication of George Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD or Stanley Kubrick's CLOCKWORK ORANGE, two similar movies which tackle their social commentary with wit and style.

It's similar to (and better than) Oliver Stone's NATURAL BORN KILLERS, in that it claims to be a satire of the media's passion for presenting violence and depravity to audiences who eat it up, while it's really just an exploitation of it. Deodatto, like Stone, smacks you over the head with a bludgeon, making his points so obviously and self-righteously that they go right out the window, and the movie winds up being little more than a freakshow of eye-popping special effects and nauseating live animal slaughter.

The animal slaughter in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST is especially offensive, more so than any other of this odd subgenre, because most of it is perpetrated by the explorers and not the (supposedly real) native cannibal tribe. In CANNIBAL FEROX and JUNGLE HOLOCAUST, one can make an attempt to condone the violence against animals only because it appears to be committed by jungle dwelling people as part of their natural routine. One cannot make the same excuse for CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST.

But if you're looking for outlandish sleaze and carnage, look no further than CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. It's definitely a must-see for any self-respecting cannibal movie fan. Everyone else should steer way, way clear.

It was obviously an inspiration for both THE LAST BROADCAST and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.

This is not a movie... this is an undeniable trash.

[Chaves7777 · 1/10 · 4 August 2007]

I hate to talk about the films that i hate, but a person who loves movies don't have any alternative, for that reason, as i enjoy talk about the movies that i love, i think that sometimes i can talk about the films that i hate, but this time, is the hated film until this moment (I don't think that anyway suppers this piece of garbage).

"Cannibal Holcaust" is about 4 filmmakers who do documentaries (3 Men and a Woman) who go to the deep jungle in south American to film about the different hide cannibal groups that i think that now are extinct. The supposed "filmmakers" don't appear. Time later, a doctor go in their search only for found that they are eaten by the cannibals, but they found too a tape. Then, back in the city, the doctor try to convince then to others that the film not must be showed. And we going to see why...

For much, this film is one of the best ever made (???), for me and for much others, this is just a exploitation film that go to the extreme. Disguised as a social film, if you see the real intentions of Ruggero Deodato, it was only to make a Cannibal film, but not as a social commentary, if only as a horror film. I can say that this film is not even bad. Of course that its wonderful that movies treat social topics, about different cultures, about media abuse and domination (For that you can see "Shock Treatment" or "Network"), "Cannibal Holocaust" seems to bring that message, but really don't. Its only another gore film, that don't have any intent more than give repulsive moments; the film don't have any intelligent horror. This film don't going to scare you, it goes to make revolve your stomach.

"Cannibal Holocaust" for me is trash, is not cinema and is not art. Not even a regular soundtrack by Riz Ortolani can save it. And much time i get surprised seeing all the people who defends a movie like this. Of course, is likes, and i respect them. And believe me, i always try to don't say bad commentaries of films so quickly, but i don't see any reason to save it.

At all, if you want to see an horrible film, totally inhuman, with real animals which suffer until death (It is worth to clarify that all the polemic of real human deaths was just rumors and is not truth), this is the film for you. If you want real art, a real social commentary, a real horror film, or just a good film... don't even think about it... don't watch it.

Soldier warned, don't die at war.

*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any.

There's a Reason This Film is Considered Notorious

[gavin6942 · 8/10 · 29 March 2009]

A group of documentarians go into the Amazon to film warring cannibal tribes. Unfortunately for them, they don't make it back. An anthropologist is sent in to find them, and is horrified when he sees the grisly images they captured on film.

Let me make a confession. Despite being a serious horror fan and having met Ruggero Deodato twice, engaging in some interesting conversation with him, I had never seen "Cannibal Holocaust" before. I had a fairly good idea of what to expect from it, as I was familiar with Umberto Lenzi's "Cannibal Ferox", which I suspected was quite similar (something I suspected correctly). But I think it's safe to say Deodato went further than Lenzi's imitation did.

Starring Robert Kerman (perhaps better known for his many pornographic films), it's not surprising that this film pushes the boundaries on nudity and cruelty. Men and women naked, some of them sexually brutalized... animals killed, including a monkey who gets his face cut off and the infamous "turtle scene". I was actually somewhat disturbed by this film -- at the very least, rather uncomfortable. One scene where an adulteress is punished was particularly disturbing for me.

I don't think those of you who are squeamish will want to see this one... or those who don't like seeing animals killed (yes, Virginia, the animals killed on screen)... but if you want to see a horror film with some sense of reality in it, this is it. There's also a strong social commentary in it about what makes man civilized or not, but I won't get into that... you'll see it.

Ahead of Its Time (And a Product of It, Too)

[baileycrawly · 7/10 · 3 July 2020]

There are many things that are preferable to watching this film again, for it's not a pleasant film to watch. It's very beautifully shot and, with a main theme that exists to provide direct juxtaposition to the images that transpire on-screen, it's deceptively appealing at first glance. In fact, for the uninitiated, it's particularly easy to be deceived into thinking they've come across the wrong film, or that the shocking ride is nothing more than hype. But how wrong they would be.

Cannibal Holocaust is one of the classic found footage films about a documentary film crew that attempt to record a cannibal tribe's activities and wind up falling victim to the cannibals. The film heavily features a crew of individuals who have been sent in to try it find the filmmakers and the horrors they encounter, showing the found-footage film with varying degrees of censorship depending on your region. It's a plot that's been done a hundred times over, but this was one of the earlier ones. It's one of a number of Italian cannibal films to come out in the eighties, and has gone on to be Ruggero Deodato's most well-known film despite the previous film in his cannibal trilogy, Jungle Holocaust, being both better in quality and easier for viewers sensitive to the issues of Cannibal Holocaust.

This film ultimately asks the question of who is the true cannibalistic monster as you see a number of horrible activities transpiring by the crew looking for the filmmakers. It's at this point that the film cannot be taken lightly: there is real animal cruelty depicted relentlessly on the screen, scenes of bloody rape (which, we must assume, are fake) and anything in between that Deodato could find to tell his story whilst making it appear to be a snuff film.

Despite its faults, it was ahead of its time by offering a legitimate message - something to think about - behind the horror. After all, there's a reason why this film continues to endear and stand out in a genre that's got more films than we could possibly count. It's a product of its time, with the horrible depiction of treatment toward women and animals, but it's also ahead of its time for making the audience truly think. It's an ugly film and something no sane person would want to regularly return to for repeat viewing, but it's an important film that has earned its place in history and should be seen by everyone at least one time in their lives.

Sensationalist trash

[Rectangular_businessman · 1/10 · 6 January 2007]

Why everyone say so good things of a worthless garbage as this? It is just pure sadomasochism, and shows that some sick people should never be able to direct movies.

The gore fans hail this movie, and keep saying that it had a "deep story" (We should add hypocrisy to the bad things of this movie,because if the message of this movie is against sensationalism, then why this movie just feed it with morbid publicity) The big deal of this movie was the fake rumors that the people in this movie were really killed. That wasn't true, and "only" the animals were killed. That cruelty doesn't not make this movie to be more realistic, it only made it more disgusting.

The acting is mediocre, just as the story (I guess that's because most of the cast only worked in porn movies before.) The script was incredibly pretentious and vain.

Cannibal Holocaust, is in my opinion, nothing more than overrated garbage, directed by one talentless hack, Ruggero Deodato, a filmmaker who never made a single good film.

I just don't understand why some people could say that this disgusting trash was something "beautiful "? yeah,sure, if you consider rape or see how a idiot open a turtle and show his organs in a full frontal scene as something nice to watch.

This is one of the worst movies ever made.

Terminal cinema

[matt-201 · 9 April 1999]

The second word in the title is important. Ruggero Deodato's 1979 meta-snuff movie, far more than a chichi trinket like THE NIGHT PORTER, is the real Holocaust porn. Here the trigger is not frights, or even shocks, or even splatter. Atrocity is the name of Deodato's game--and the genius of this monsterpiece is that Deodato horrifyingly delivers the goods at the same time he coruscates his audience and himself.

This is a hard movie to recommend to any but those who would find it anyway; but it must be said that Deodato here created the most rigorous, critical, almost philosophical movie in the Italian horror canon. The audience's lust for Third World exoticism and envelope-pushing violence are gratified and held up to the painful light of day--and not necessarily in that order. The overwhelming feeling of this picture is of a pornographer pleading, "Stop me before I shoot again."

The conceit of the movie--an academic's journey into the Amazon to find the remains of a Western film crew devoured by cannibals--permits Deodato more Pirandellian boxes within boxes than a double bill of BLOWUP and THE PLAYER. But the atmosphere of the movie, despite scenes of cruelty so extreme you sometimes want to put out your eyeballs, is relentlessly elegiac--capped by Riz Ortolani's theme music. (It can be said with certainty that no romantic ballad was ever used underneath what Deodato stages here.)

CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST is the farthest edge of Extreme Cinema--as in Extreme Sports. It feels stuntlike, yet the combination of amplified bloodlust and world-weary regret is unique. Like Lucio Fulci's even more personal CAT IN THE BRAIN, it's an affecting enactment of an exploitation artist's conscience tearing apart.

It might make good viewing for Y2K Eve: it puts together the century's two salient words--holocaust and entertainment--as no other film did before or since.