1 point, because 0 and under not available

I first watched this film in 1986 when I was 17 on a copied VHS tape. I went white thinking I'd stumbled across a "real" film which showed murder and rape. I also remember then not giving a 5hit about the animals being harmed/killed - and I still don't give a 5hit My only gripe would be if they didn't eat the pig after killing it. I'm the king of the fecking food chain and I'll kill and eat anything I fecking want you little pussy fag.

Thank you - you've just brought back some happy memories :)

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The genuine animal deaths presents a scenario in which real violence toward living things is introduced. Subsequently, it creates a condition in which violence against other living things (in this instance, humans) can be considered (a Pavlovian concept). As a result, it lent credibility to the "snuff film" aspect, which was integral to the film's original release.

They also contribute to the commentary the film presents; much of the film's argument regards sensationalism, in which graphic content merely for the sake of monetary gain is condemned. This is subsequently a comment on the human condition by examining the fact that sensationalism is a viable marketing strategy. In this way, it becomes meta-cinematic; not only does it condemn sensationalism, but through it's extreme graphic content (including the animal killings), it catches its audience in a trap, essentially questioning why we are watching this film filled with horrid material.

The intensity of the sequences, created through the knowledge/realization that these killings are genuine, also adds to the tension of the film overall. Since the killings indicate that the filmmakers are pulling no punches in terms of content, tension accumulates as the climax approaches. The audience's awareness of the graphic content, including the intensity of the animal killings, creates a question of the unknown: "If we were just presented all of this disturbing content before the most terrible parts of the found footage, what are we about to be subjected to now?" This, in turn, creates dread, an integral aspect of horror films.

For any of these reasons, the animal killings can be observed as artistic. Art isn't always pretty or aesthetically pleasing; it can be transgressive and disturbing. As long as the images exist beyond their basic presentation and can progress or initiate thought, or constructively alter the human perception of the work as a whole, they can be viewed as art.

Also, the consumption of these animals by the natives and crew lessens the viewpoint of these killings as "pointless."

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

Art is about creating emotional response and reflection. The film succeeded in both categories- and comments like yours are a living testament to that. The film isn't just shock violence, its a reflection on how we characterise, respond to and legitimize violence. After 20 minutes of rape you are no longer disgusted, you are just bored- the film asks what happens after several days of this-what happens to your sensibilities about violence and morality? The film tries to simulate the heart of darkness, not simply depict it. Sure, it's not the most well crafted film, and it certainly didn't present it's ideas as smoothly as it could, but it's still quite a remarkable piece of work. A lot of people don't get it, or, like you, can't see past the animal cruelty- cultural relativism is a difficult concept to westerners, i don't think less of you for not being able to grasp it right away.

"World needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Film making is supposed to be a form of art. Any deranged individual can stick a knife through a rodents throat, chop the head off a turtle, hack at a snake with a machete, chop a spider in two, and shoot a pig - and film the event. It's not art, it's perverted and had nothing to do with the "story". Anyone giving this piece of crap positive reviews ought to have their heads examined. Total garbage.

If that's all you can conclude from watching this film then the film is way beyond your comprehension or ability to transcend. If you did not enjoy the film or if you felt the film failed in its goals then that makes sense and is respectable. But you equate this movie on the level as if I just went out and hacked up some animals and put it on film. You have not provided any anecdotal evidence of the film's contents as applied to a true negative review. You fail. But in your defense you aren't obligated to do that. In this forum you have every right to just post a comment that says "it sucks" (although I do prefer some intellectualism in the discussions here and often do not see it, as evidenced by your original post). But don't expect to garner any respect for your opinion if you do that.

Many film critics since this movie was released have sung high praises for it as well as hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions?) of film lovers. So in your opinion they should all "have their heads examined"? Who are you to make that judgment? Are you a professional psychologist? Please provide your credentials. If you have none (as I suspect) then you are embarrassing yourself by casting such a diagnosis over people who appreciate this film. Talking about matters of which you know very little makes you look very dumb. It's best to remain silent and not remove anyone's doubt that you're a fool.

That being said the film's only flaw in my opinion was the actual killing of real animals, and for this reason: it made the director become the very same savage he sought out to exploit with the film's message. If he did not aim to send that message then it could have made sense (but in my opinion not been justified, as I don't believe animals should be hacked to death to make a movie no matter what). He could have used editing or props without killing animals. It took what would have been a perfect and timeless exploitation film and turned it inside out. Other than that this film is a true masterpiece of its genre. And with the animal killing it becomes an accidental masterpiece: the director was so consumed with his work that he became his work. And now he regrets it (he's on record for stating he wishes he never made the film). He was an overzealous child and created something that in my opinion has an important place in film history but should never be made again, EVER.

I've seen many brutal films, some I like, most I dislike, up to and including "A Serbian Film" but this one is the number one top brain wrenching rape of the senses and challenger of my view of humanity. I'm not sure if I desire to see it again or if I desire to forget I ever saw it in the first place. It's more of a fascinating piece of history than a movie.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Dude everything you just listed was tight as *beep*. Chopping up live animals for being drunk, riding turtles then killing them. An awesome review in those two sentences. Even if you could rate it a 0 no one *beep* would cuz you suck your grandmas dick at home. You bought this didn't you. Yes you had to have- this is weird *beep* Send me your copy and I'll hook you up.

FaceBook- [email protected]
Phone #- (714) 614-2153

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I agree with the OP. This movie is pure and utter tripe. It's just a filmmaker getting his rocks off trying to see how far he could take things on camera and playing out his depraved fantasies on camera. That's all. Same thing with Salo, another piece of garbage.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I agree with the original poster. I believe people who work in slaughterhouses are sick, and the people in this film are sick for the animal deaths - The actors and directors.

reply share

add reply

formatting help