First off, I've been holding out on reviewing this film for quite some time. As it stands now, I feel, as a reviewer I am knowledgeable enough about Italian exploitation and horror--even more so the "cannibal" sub-genre, that I can now give CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST a proper review. I don't plan on kissing any ass in this review, for I don't consider CH to be one of the greatest films put to celluloid (even it's director has stated numerous times that he regrets ever making the film), nor do I consider it to be worthless trash (it's one of the best exploitation films of all time).
Ruggero Deodato's CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST is a film that has as much acclaim from genre fans as it does disdain from mainstream movie fans. As a kid I remember hearing about the movie as if it was some kind of urban legend--no film that brutal could really exist--could it? For years I heard only stories about the film and I would not actually view the film until I was 29 years old. By this time, the movie couldn't possibly live up to the visions I had in my head. The first time I saw the film I was disappointed. Yeah it was brutal, but my jaded eyes weren't that impressed. Some of the most shocking images from the film, I'd already seen pictures of in books and magazines. I thought the animal killings were unnecessary for the film and in bad taste--and I'm not even a bleeding heart animal lover. I thought the acting sucked, aside from Salvatore Basile and Robert Kerman (who does a damn fine job considering he's was a porn star). After watching it the first time, I was ready to write it off completely.
 |
 |
|---|
Months later, the oddest thing sent me back to give the film another chance--the score, mainly the films beautiful theme song. I couldn't get the tune out of my head--in fact I'm humming it to this day! At first the somberness of the song struck me as odd and not fitting of the film's brutal nature. Of course, I would later discover the genius in the score (composed by the brilliant Riz Ortolani), which made a bunch of other things about the film click into place and my respect for film flourished. In giving the film another chance, I discovered other things such as how well directed it was, how beautiful the cinematography was and how great and moralistic the story was. Deodato not only managed to make a great exploitation flick that delivers all the ingredients that deviant film freex (like me) need--he also pulls off a moving and thought provoking film in the process.
For all of you not familiar with the plot, I'll break it down. A film crew goes to the jungles of the South America to make a documentary about cannibals and are never heard from again. A New York professor of anthropology (Robert Kerman) heads into the same jungle to find the film crew only to discover (and it's no easy task) that they were killed by the natives and all that is left are the reels of film they left behind. The Professor brings the film back only to be shocked by the footage--not by the cannibals, but by the evil deeds (they do whatever is necessary to get the footage they want, even kill) of the film crew themselves. Provoking the question of who exactly are the savages--the cannibals or modern man? It's a great story and it's "lost/found film footage" angle would inspire such films as THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, THE LAST BROADCAST and most recently CLOVERFIELD, among a few others.
The problem with the "lost/found film footage" angle, as it is with the other films I mentioned--at some point your gonna' think to yourself, "Why don't they put down the camera and RUN?!" It's a valid thought and something that takes away from the realness of the film. On the other hand, if the person did put down the camera and ran--there would be no movie. So you have to suspend your level of disbelief and just go with it. Towards the end of the film crew's footage, it's really hard to swallow that they would have kept the film rolling. Once the blond dude gets his schlong hacked off, that would have been enough for most folks, I believe. Allow me to possibly save that scene for you. Remember that the documentary's director, Alan Yates (Carl Gabriel Yorke) has almost a cult-leader-like dominance over the 3 other members of the crew and it's him shouting "Keep shooting!" at the end of the film, so maybe it's not that hard to believe that they would have kept shooting even as they were getting picked off one by one. There, I hope that helps. Personally I found the first half of the film, which dealt with the search for the crew to be stronger, performance wise, but the second half (mostly made up of the lost footage) pacts the punch (if features most of the gore).
 |
 |
|---|
The film is not perfect, but by exploitation movie standards, it's a fucking masterpiece. The score and the cinematography are top notch, not to mention the incredible special effects which led Deodato to be summoned to court because people thought the killings were so realistic--they had to be real (especially the infamous scene of the woman with a pike through her ass and out her mouth). Of course the charges were dropped, because some people are just stupid, but unfortunately the animal killings in the film are far too real--something that Deodato has expressed deep regret, along with the cast (I'm not sure how much I buy that). Three of the killings that I have a hard time with are of the coatimundi (referred to as a muskrat in the film), the turtle (fucking disgusting) and the pig. I don't dislike those scenes because they're cruel--have you ever seen a chicken or a cow slaughtered--it's not pretty, I dislike them because they're hard to watch. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm a meat eater, I know that things must be killed for me to eat them and most of the animals killed in the film were eaten (we're told)--that doesn't mean I want to hang out in a slaughterhouse either. Not that I'm trying to start some meat eater/vegetarian debate either (another reason I've avoided writing a review for this fucking movie for so long)--save it, I don't care what the fuck you do or don't eat. Luckily there's a animal-cruelty free version available on the latest DVD release to shut up that debate once and for all.
CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST is not a film that everyone can sink their teeth into (awful pun intended), nor is it designed to be. It's a film intended for a certain market--the sleazy exploitation fan market, of which hail the film for what it is and that's the way it should be. It's not without it's flaws and I don't even consider it Deodato's greatest film, I reserve that for HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK, but it is without a doubt one of the greatest exploitation films ever made. This is of course is why it's being remade and set for a 2009 opening. There is an incessant need to remake classic movies lately and it doesn't seem the trend is ending anytime soon. If there's anything positive about the remake it's that Deodato is set to direct, but I can almost guarantee it will blow donkey, but I'm sure it will fit in with the fans of movies like SAW and HOSTEL because it will be drenched in blood and gore--but have no redeeming value what so ever--I'm gonna stop before I get on a huge tangent...
Bottom line: CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST--great flick, see it, love it, see it again.
CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST trailer