Customer Reviews:
You bunch of Sickos !!!!.......2008-02-24
Any one who enjoys this is sick!! When i was young and started my love for movies i was in to all genres and had a look a some of the video nasty range or grindhouse films. This one was one of the last i watched and belive me if it had been the fist i would not of continude. There is one scene in the movie where they get a large turtle and pull off its shell and beat and stab it. Make no mistake the creature is reall and any one who takes plesure in that kind of thing is sick!!!!!!. I would have give this ess than 1 satar if Amazon would have let me
Powerful and a well made film; classic of the genre.......2008-02-04
I will skip the synopis as all viewers will be aware of the story. I watched this film in 1981 at a friends, just before it was listed as a video nasty; could not really remember, so was hesitant in purchasing a copy. The copy I ordered was NOT the one I had choosen, NOT from Amazon, but another retailer; Amazon I shall stay.
Well,............. I watched it all through, UNCUT version. What I liked about this version, was when a scene was due, which was cut from most versions, you had a animated little skull, with spear through it, to inform viewers that the next scene would normally have been deleted; viewers have a choice to view, or look away.
I cant understand why some reviewists have slammed the quality and special effects; remember, there was NO CGI until the 90s !! This is a B-Movie, so acting is a little wobbly at times; this was NOT an oscar nominated film.
The camera work was very good, scenery beautiful and viewing the second film reel was almost believable, and this was before Blair Witch. Cannibal Holocaust is FAR superior than Blair Witch, remember both were on low budgets.
Yes, plenty of gore to keep the real horror genre fans clued to the screen, watching the first reel, yes, there are flaws with the special effects, but hey, this is a low budget film, but, viewing the second reel ? scarred the hell out of me, I did not know whether I was watching a snuff film, as the filming and ` special effects' looked so reel, and the actors when being killed off, seemed to reel at times.
The only thing I was unhappy about, is the real life animal killings, I liked to scarred and thrilled with movies, BUT NOT !! at the expense of animals/wildlife. The only thing I will ask about this, were the animals consumed by the actors ? as budget was low. If they were, then my condonment loosen's slighty, but if they WERE killed, just to shock views, then please please do NOT use animals for killing in any film, just leave it to your geographical documentries.
Thought provoking, challenging, powerful and at times, shocking, but a classic in it's own right.
Those with delicate tummies, and dont like much blood in films, stay WELL CLEAR and leave for the fanatics.
SHOCKING!!!!!!!!!.......2008-01-17
Watched this a couple of days ago and I can honestly say it was one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen. It's not amazingly gory but the real killing of the animals in the film is shocking and cruel as are the rape scenes(but remember the one of many points the director is trying to make: even the most "civilized" of people can be savage and hide the true extent of their savagery through the eye of the camera - errr....War on Iraq springs to mind here!). Not sure if I watched the complete uncut version but I can say it did show something between the legs of a woman in the first rape scene! This is not a movie I could watch over an over again as the rape and animal slaughter scenes are intense BUT I can assure you that you will get the message(s) first time unless you're a savage!
the most disturbing film i have ever seen.......2008-01-07
i am not going to analyse the film in the depth that some reviewers have done here... i will put it simply, if u have a strong stomach and like extreme horror films then this is really unmissable...if not then steer away! great cinematography and one of the best fitting pieces of music in horror films i hv ever heard... plus seeing the idea behind blair witch project in a film that is 20yrs older is a revelation itself .. forget all the zombie, evil spirits/gorefest, slasher type of hollywood films.. this is the real deal.. u ll never forget it
A CLASSIC.......2007-10-26
Following a high profile news group disappearance, anthropologist Prof. Harold Monroe, (Robert Kerman) is sent to the Amazon to find them, and along with trackers Chaco Losojos, (Salvatore Basile) and Felipe Ocanya, (Ricardo Fuentes) go into the jungle. While searching, they find a small tribe of warriors in the jungle, known as the Yanomamo, and are accepted into the tribe. He finds that the Yanomamo have canisters that the film group, consisting of director Alan Yates, (Carl Gabriel Yates) his girlfriend Faye Daniels, (Francesca Ciardi) and cameramen Mark Tomaso, (Luca Barbareschi) and Jack Anders, (Perry Pirkanen) had left behind. Taking the footage back to New York, he screens the footage and becomes appalled at seeing the cruelty and torture the group inflicts in the film. As they get more and more violent towards the tribesmen in the jungle, he senses that they will turn and seek revenge, all culminating in the foreboding last reel of footage to be screened.
The News: This is one of the best horror films around and the cream of the crop of the cannibal sub-genre. Simply, what gives the film it's power and enjoyment is the fact that this is one of the strongest stories ever told. The first half of the film is a normal jungle adventure, replete with the viewing of the native rites, acceptance into the tribe, and other assorted jungle adventures. It isn't ground-breaking but it gets the job done, keeping the viewer focused on what's happening and setting up the trump card that is the final half. This is the main footage of the lost crew and is a whole different story. Consisting of raw, hand-held images shot from two cameras by a quartet of film-makers as they callously tromp through the jungle, committing sexual and violent acts against the "mud people" and even offing an animal or two in the process. This is also where the film's heart comes into play, where it makes the valiant charge that civilized man is no more savage than the people out in the jungle. The great trick that this pulls off is that the film is essentially a non-violent protest that attacks the civilized man and the media for their ability to spin any story to a sensationalized account. This can only be possible with a peaceful tribe being assaulted by a rowdy and extreme outsider force, the camera-crew, coming in and destroying their way of life purely for ratings. Conducting extreme amounts of carnage, including setting fire to a series of huts and forcing the occupants to stay inside, raping villagers in full view of others and then reminding themselves to become serious and poignant because they're being filmed. This even occurs during the abortion sequence, where they visibly force the natives around so that the camera filming can get a better shot. They also are the main ones who dish out the animal violence, as they slaughter several creatures and the natives merely do one in a really quick shot. Aside from the ending retribution, all of the violence in the film is caused by the crew towards nature or the tribe, and as they are nearly all done in the last segment, this really helps to sell the message of the savage man and the media. Away from the message it makes, this is one of the greatest horror films around. It assembles a series of images that are both violent and disturbing, but in the end, they are no more graphic nor more violent than any other gore-fest. Instead, it is the tone and nature of the violence. Some of it is rawly primitive and all of it is unflinching in detail. Even more, this approach makes the viewer a participant in the carnage. As much as the lost film crew, it is the audience's demand for more blood, darker thrills, that drives the acts on screen. The gore gets extreme, as legs get severed, multiple rapes, a castration, a chest-cracking scene, eye-gouging, a woman impaled to the point of the stick coming out of her mouth, organ eating and so much more in here that are simply brutal. This brings up the biggest and most controversial segment of the film, which is the actual animal slaughter present. The on screen killing of animals is completely indefensible, of course, and are nothing more than a nauseating nature snuff film, the verisimilitude of these sequences causes the viewer to then question the reality of everything else on screen. Indeed, many of the more memorable moments come with the unnecessary torment and torture of innocent creatures, but such blatant abuse is a necessity. It sets up the whole potential premise of the film. When we see a pig being shot or a sea-turtle gutted and chopped up, the reaction is instant. They have instant impact, before being identified for their fake-ness. Since they allow the viewer to put up barriers and prepare ourselves for the next instance, the result is that it really happened. However, the cruelty obliterates any chance of becoming a credible social commentary. In no way, shape or form is murdering helpless creatures suitable for entertainment. What's most sickening about these scenes, is the way the actors behave, appearing to enjoy these barbaric acts. It makes the whole affair much more unsettling. Even still, this is one of the best films in the genre.
The Final Verdict: This is one of the hardest films to get into, but it's well-worth it, not just for the extreme gore and story, but for being a smart film as well. While the animal carnage is hard to get through, those who can will find a film with a lot to love, but that is one big obstacle in itself.
Customer Reviews:
DECIEVED.......2007-09-04
I feel like someone took something of me... Why is it not mentioned that this is not the full version of the movie? The 25th Anniversary edition was suposed to be the full version, Why is it like this? The parts that made the cult around this movie are simply not there... Shame
Interesting Insight to Human Behaviour or Just Plain Sadistic Violence?.......2007-08-21
I was curious what all the fuss was about with this movie when I heard about it a few months ago which acted as a catalyst to track down a copy of this also being a fan of banned movies I wanted to view this to find the reasons for this movie and movies similar to this to be banned and deemed a so called video nastie; not wanting a uncut version as I wouldn't be able to give a in-depth review.
Before I make a review on this movie I have to say that some of the previous reviews that bleat on about animal cruelty and the grotesque, body mutilation and sexual violence that is on show is rather graphic and nauseating but hey it's only a movie!! Do you honestly think that this movie which is about two tribes of cannibals (Yanomamo and Shamatari) living in the Amazon rainforest could not have animal and human cannibalism? The director has to make this type of movie as realistic as possible in order for the viewer to understand the barbaric primitive species out there beyond the realms of civilisation which then makes the viewer ask the question whom are the savages. Plotline here for those who don't want a realistic cannibal movie: Four Explorers travel into the Amazon jungle in search a cannibal tribe in order to direct and catalogue there primitive ways; they come across the cannibal tribe tucking into a large Caesar Salad?? WHAT!!!.
The real Cannibal Holocaust I thought was a very thought provoking, well directed (in difficult conditions), creating a contract for the actors who played the four unfortunate explorers to sign stating they would not appear in any type of media, motion pictures etc for one year after the films release as to prove that it was a realistic piece of work (that is ingenious) from Ruggero Deodato. The audio and sound quality very good as I was expecting it being low budget to be poor on these two important factors (the budget was $200,000 US Dollars), the acting was also good especially the Yanomamo and Shamatari tribes (Best Supporting Cast in a Motion Picture). I am not going to give you all the gory details of this movie you're just going to have to trust me and get your hands on a copy as its well worth the wait.
The only true shocker...cut........2007-08-04
To be honest, I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with this film. On the one hand, there's an astonishing level of animal cruelty involved that I find absolutely abhorrent and cannot condone. On the other...well, it's a brilliant film. Something of a cop out, I admit, but there you are.
I have not seen, nor have I any interest in seeing, the full version, which supposedly contains six minutes of mostly animal cruelty and a little extra rape. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm quite happy with this cut version, thanks. Why anyone would want the extra six minutes is beyond me.
So...on to the actual film. The plot starts with our hero (always a loose term, you understand) Dr Monroe's fruitless attempt to rescue a team of documentary filmakers who went missing during an attempt to film some tribes notorious for their cannibalism. Needless to say, he eventually arrives to find naught but their dead bodies, along with whatever video footage they managed to take. This is a moderately interesting section of the film, but it's during the next half that things really take off.
Arriving back to civilisation with the footage, he gets in touch with some TV executive types with the intended purpose of making a documentary about the film crew. So it is that he, and later the TV execs, and of course we the viewers, discover just how thoroughly the offending film-makers have earned their fates. The premise is handled with great skill, leaving us (and them) truly shocked by what we find. Admittedly, the last line of the film, a rhetorical question with far too obvious an answer, seems like one moral point too far and spoils the effect everso slightly, but that aside this is a really wonderful film.
This 25th anniversary edition also comes with the not-terribly-good The House On The Edge Of The Park...but you don't have to watch that.
Real Torture of Animals.......2007-07-09
A Monkey and a Turtle to name but 2 animals that meet a real life slow painfull death in this film.
I like violence in films but not in real life. I like movies. I like good acting. I would not watch a snuff movie. By the same tolken I would not like to see an animal slowly tortured and killed. This is what you see in this film. Animals are hurt and killed for real in this film. I eat meet and belive that animals should be used in testing if it means the possibility of finding a cure for a condition that is fatal to humans. Sadisticly killing animals as entertainment (monkey, turtel ect) is just plain sick. Hostel is a film that I enjoyed - but the actors didn't actualy get killed. They do not in this but the animals do. This is a cop out and any moral or satirical message is therefore lost as the film maker looses the moral high ground.
On the above grounds I wouldn't recomend anyone buy this filth.
Cut ! oh God no !, stop crying its still good !.......2007-05-03
Cannibal holocaust is undoubtedly the best of the cannibal horror genre it has all the gore, rape, gang rape, animal killing, foetus removing, real execution footage and more we have come to expect from the cannibal genre. But underneath it all, still has a pretty good story and moral to tell.
The film is split into two half's, the first of DR Munroe a professor from New York travelling to the Amazon rainforest to find out what happened to a young group of documenters on the expedition to discover the truth behind cannibals. Before the second half there is a brief film by the young documenters shown called the Last road out of Hell, which features real execution footage and death so you have been warned.
The second half of the film is much more violent than the first as it shows what happened to the documenters Faye, Jack, Mark and Alan which they inevitable brought upon themselves. I really liked the social commentary on the media and the news and how far humanity (or rather the lack of it) is willing to go for a story.
The film is cut but all key sequences are still in tact just shortened. Although a few animal killings have been removed (monkey etc) still shows some animal killing (musk rat, turtle etc) that have been cut, but animal lovers you have been warned. Most of the rape scenes have been shortened, especially towards the end of the film. About 5 minutes altogether removed
I really enjoyed the story altogether above your average horror movie, although its not specifically horror, surprisingly has not dated to bad although dubbing is off. Lives up to the reputation unlike other so-called video nasties that come off mostly comical. Much better music than the others in the genre, which have that horrible 80s synthesised score. Don't bother with Ferox or any of the other cannibal movies other than as rentals. As they are all average and less inventive or professional as well as being horrendously cut (Ferox suffers the most)
This is where to start with disturbing, ultra violent horror (with structure and substance)
Buy or rent if you are easily offended and Enjoy !
P.s
Ichi the killer, dead or alive (2001), island of death, Henry portrait of a serial killer, Audition, Devil's Rejects, American Psycho, castle freak, the exorcist, evil dead are all good movies to check out = )
Customer Reviews:
Erotic Nights of the Living Dead.......2005-11-10
It takes 45 minutes of hardcore sex scenes and softcore zombie attacks before this film finally starts getting to the point, but once the action is relocated to a desert island, good things slowly start to happen. D'Amato is no Lucio Fulci, and the violence is pretty tame by Italian horror standards, but there are some nicely choreographed scenes of the undead gathering around our heroes, accompanied by decent (if inconsistent) photography and bleak electronic music. A bona fide oddity.
Customer Reviews:
You bunch of Sickos !!!!.......2008-02-24
Any one who enjoys this is sick!! When i was young and started my love for movies i was in to all genres and had a look a some of the video nasty range or grindhouse films. This one was one of the last i watched and belive me if it had been the fist i would not of continude. There is one scene in the movie where they get a large turtle and pull off its shell and beat and stab it. Make no mistake the creature is reall and any one who takes plesure in that kind of thing is sick!!!!!!. I would have give this ess than 1 satar if Amazon would have let me
Powerful and a well made film; classic of the genre.......2008-02-04
I will skip the synopis as all viewers will be aware of the story. I watched this film in 1981 at a friends, just before it was listed as a video nasty; could not really remember, so was hesitant in purchasing a copy. The copy I ordered was NOT the one I had choosen, NOT from Amazon, but another retailer; Amazon I shall stay.
Well,............. I watched it all through, UNCUT version. What I liked about this version, was when a scene was due, which was cut from most versions, you had a animated little skull, with spear through it, to inform viewers that the next scene would normally have been deleted; viewers have a choice to view, or look away.
I cant understand why some reviewists have slammed the quality and special effects; remember, there was NO CGI until the 90s !! This is a B-Movie, so acting is a little wobbly at times; this was NOT an oscar nominated film.
The camera work was very good, scenery beautiful and viewing the second film reel was almost believable, and this was before Blair Witch. Cannibal Holocaust is FAR superior than Blair Witch, remember both were on low budgets.
Yes, plenty of gore to keep the real horror genre fans clued to the screen, watching the first reel, yes, there are flaws with the special effects, but hey, this is a low budget film, but, viewing the second reel ? scarred the hell out of me, I did not know whether I was watching a snuff film, as the filming and ` special effects' looked so reel, and the actors when being killed off, seemed to reel at times.
The only thing I was unhappy about, is the real life animal killings, I liked to scarred and thrilled with movies, BUT NOT !! at the expense of animals/wildlife. The only thing I will ask about this, were the animals consumed by the actors ? as budget was low. If they were, then my condonment loosen's slighty, but if they WERE killed, just to shock views, then please please do NOT use animals for killing in any film, just leave it to your geographical documentries.
Thought provoking, challenging, powerful and at times, shocking, but a classic in it's own right.
Those with delicate tummies, and dont like much blood in films, stay WELL CLEAR and leave for the fanatics.
SHOCKING!!!!!!!!!.......2008-01-17
Watched this a couple of days ago and I can honestly say it was one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen. It's not amazingly gory but the real killing of the animals in the film is shocking and cruel as are the rape scenes(but remember the one of many points the director is trying to make: even the most "civilized" of people can be savage and hide the true extent of their savagery through the eye of the camera - errr....War on Iraq springs to mind here!). Not sure if I watched the complete uncut version but I can say it did show something between the legs of a woman in the first rape scene! This is not a movie I could watch over an over again as the rape and animal slaughter scenes are intense BUT I can assure you that you will get the message(s) first time unless you're a savage!
the most disturbing film i have ever seen.......2008-01-07
i am not going to analyse the film in the depth that some reviewers have done here... i will put it simply, if u have a strong stomach and like extreme horror films then this is really unmissable...if not then steer away! great cinematography and one of the best fitting pieces of music in horror films i hv ever heard... plus seeing the idea behind blair witch project in a film that is 20yrs older is a revelation itself .. forget all the zombie, evil spirits/gorefest, slasher type of hollywood films.. this is the real deal.. u ll never forget it
A CLASSIC.......2007-10-26
Following a high profile news group disappearance, anthropologist Prof. Harold Monroe, (Robert Kerman) is sent to the Amazon to find them, and along with trackers Chaco Losojos, (Salvatore Basile) and Felipe Ocanya, (Ricardo Fuentes) go into the jungle. While searching, they find a small tribe of warriors in the jungle, known as the Yanomamo, and are accepted into the tribe. He finds that the Yanomamo have canisters that the film group, consisting of director Alan Yates, (Carl Gabriel Yates) his girlfriend Faye Daniels, (Francesca Ciardi) and cameramen Mark Tomaso, (Luca Barbareschi) and Jack Anders, (Perry Pirkanen) had left behind. Taking the footage back to New York, he screens the footage and becomes appalled at seeing the cruelty and torture the group inflicts in the film. As they get more and more violent towards the tribesmen in the jungle, he senses that they will turn and seek revenge, all culminating in the foreboding last reel of footage to be screened.
The News: This is one of the best horror films around and the cream of the crop of the cannibal sub-genre. Simply, what gives the film it's power and enjoyment is the fact that this is one of the strongest stories ever told. The first half of the film is a normal jungle adventure, replete with the viewing of the native rites, acceptance into the tribe, and other assorted jungle adventures. It isn't ground-breaking but it gets the job done, keeping the viewer focused on what's happening and setting up the trump card that is the final half. This is the main footage of the lost crew and is a whole different story. Consisting of raw, hand-held images shot from two cameras by a quartet of film-makers as they callously tromp through the jungle, committing sexual and violent acts against the "mud people" and even offing an animal or two in the process. This is also where the film's heart comes into play, where it makes the valiant charge that civilized man is no more savage than the people out in the jungle. The great trick that this pulls off is that the film is essentially a non-violent protest that attacks the civilized man and the media for their ability to spin any story to a sensationalized account. This can only be possible with a peaceful tribe being assaulted by a rowdy and extreme outsider force, the camera-crew, coming in and destroying their way of life purely for ratings. Conducting extreme amounts of carnage, including setting fire to a series of huts and forcing the occupants to stay inside, raping villagers in full view of others and then reminding themselves to become serious and poignant because they're being filmed. This even occurs during the abortion sequence, where they visibly force the natives around so that the camera filming can get a better shot. They also are the main ones who dish out the animal violence, as they slaughter several creatures and the natives merely do one in a really quick shot. Aside from the ending retribution, all of the violence in the film is caused by the crew towards nature or the tribe, and as they are nearly all done in the last segment, this really helps to sell the message of the savage man and the media. Away from the message it makes, this is one of the greatest horror films around. It assembles a series of images that are both violent and disturbing, but in the end, they are no more graphic nor more violent than any other gore-fest. Instead, it is the tone and nature of the violence. Some of it is rawly primitive and all of it is unflinching in detail. Even more, this approach makes the viewer a participant in the carnage. As much as the lost film crew, it is the audience's demand for more blood, darker thrills, that drives the acts on screen. The gore gets extreme, as legs get severed, multiple rapes, a castration, a chest-cracking scene, eye-gouging, a woman impaled to the point of the stick coming out of her mouth, organ eating and so much more in here that are simply brutal. This brings up the biggest and most controversial segment of the film, which is the actual animal slaughter present. The on screen killing of animals is completely indefensible, of course, and are nothing more than a nauseating nature snuff film, the verisimilitude of these sequences causes the viewer to then question the reality of everything else on screen. Indeed, many of the more memorable moments come with the unnecessary torment and torture of innocent creatures, but such blatant abuse is a necessity. It sets up the whole potential premise of the film. When we see a pig being shot or a sea-turtle gutted and chopped up, the reaction is instant. They have instant impact, before being identified for their fake-ness. Since they allow the viewer to put up barriers and prepare ourselves for the next instance, the result is that it really happened. However, the cruelty obliterates any chance of becoming a credible social commentary. In no way, shape or form is murdering helpless creatures suitable for entertainment. What's most sickening about these scenes, is the way the actors behave, appearing to enjoy these barbaric acts. It makes the whole affair much more unsettling. Even still, this is one of the best films in the genre.
The Final Verdict: This is one of the hardest films to get into, but it's well-worth it, not just for the extreme gore and story, but for being a smart film as well. While the animal carnage is hard to get through, those who can will find a film with a lot to love, but that is one big obstacle in itself.
Customer Reviews:
HAS ITS MOMENTS BUT...........2008-01-15
Zombie Flesh Eaters from 1979, is mediocre like much of Fulchi's work. There is certainly plenty of atmosphere and some terrific set pieces but these are small compensations. Like most similar Italian movies the film is rough around the edges, with poor acting and dubbing. There are also long moments of tedium. Watchable but this is no classic.
Violent, but its shock value has waned.
Leader in "living dead" genre.......2007-10-27
I enjoy watching zombie movies and I'd heard a lot about this one before I managed to get my hands on a copy. Some people had told me it was a classic of low budget filmmaking, others had warned me it was an absolute steaming pile of zombie pap. Now, having finally watched it, I don't think it's either of these things.
The acting is bland in general, with the exception of veteran British actor Richard Johnson (looking a bit out of place, but having a great time hamming it up as the slightly mad Dr. Menard) and smirky Roger Moore look-alike Ian McCulloch. Al Cliver isn't too bad as a tough-guy tourist caught up in the zombie infestation, Tisa Farrow (yes, that's Mia's little sis) drifts through much of the movie looking distant and dazed, and Auretta Gay (they must have given her a hard time at school) takes her top off a lot but spends the rest of the time either over- or under-acting.
The plot isn't much to speak of but it holds the attention, and considering the directors other horror movies, it's a miracle there actually is one. The ending annoyingly blunts any disturbing edge the film may have built up towards the end, and drags the movie fully into the realm of cheesiness. The lack of enough real tension and suspense among the pumping blood, punctured eyeballs and blazing gunfire is pretty disappointing too. That said, the action scenes are genuinely exciting (despite being kinda slow in coming) and the climatic sequence in Dr. Menard's hospital with the invading zombies vs. humans is quite enjoyable.
Overall, I found that all this was not quite as horrifying as reputation suggests, probably because of it's age, lack of tension, or my stamina to being scared/disgusted. The memorable parts a battle between a zombie and a shark, and a graphic tracheotomy, (to name just two) easily make it worth the rental, plus some good special effects really caught my interest. Just don't expect much intelligence here that you'd find in Romero's undead flicks. On the whole, it's not brilliant, but it fits respectfully in this genre.
The 'Alien' of Zombie movies.......2007-08-17
Most zombies movies have very little plot, extremely poor atmosphere and terrible looking zombies. Surprisingly this is not the case here.
Fulci, who even in his poor films at least manages atmosphere, directs possibly the best non-Romero zombie film. Starting with a short zombie attack in New York harbour the film then slows to set the scene...
One woman must sail to an island to find her father. The island is apparantly 'cursed' and we know what that means... Zombies. There is a slow long build up including a short Zombie vs Shark fight, until it all kicks off for the last 40 mins of Zombie infestation.
The zombies look great, the music is actually very good and it's extremely well shot. As always some acting is poor and the story is a little, well, thin. But if you're going to 'zombie flesh eaters' you should expect that.
This is an absolulte must have for any zombie fan.
Classic Zombies.......2007-08-14
The zombies in this film are probably my favourite type (for the way they move, the noises they make, the large number of worms crawling out of their putrefying skulls, the way they burst out of the ground, I could go on...). The storyline (there isn't one) doesn't matter - it's the gore that counts! This is a Zombie classic.
brilliant masterpiece!.......2007-07-10
if you are talking to someone who has never heard of lucio fulci ask them
to see "zombie 2" it is a horror masterpiece .i remember renting this in
the 80s & then it was banned ,consigned to the vaults as a video nasty.
now this 2 dvd set is not only the widscreen,remastered version ,there is a
2nd bonus disc about actors ,effects etc.i know its about £25.00 but i personally think that if you like horror movies you MUST have this! from the moment when the "ghost ship" drifts into new york harbour & the patrol
find maggots & rotting flesh on board the terror begins ! if you havent
seen this gem before now is the time !
Customer Reviews:
Brilliant.......2007-09-10
A team are sent to try and find colleagues who they've lost contact with. Unfortunately their plane is damaged when they land and the base camp is found destroyed and all persons dead. By the time the plane is fixed its become too dark to take off so they settle for the night. Various mishaps occur during the night and next day and we're left only with Robert (Massimo Foschi) and Rolf (Ivan Rassimov) who become lost in the jungle. When they too become separated the story then follows Robert who after eating some mushrooms passes out only to awaken to the sight of the locals and is taken prisoner.
Firstly, I have to say that there are some people out there who accuse this film of being racist. To them I say SHUT THE HELL UP YOU IDIOTS! So what if the natives turn out to be cruel, sadistic cannibals, it's only a film. What do you want? The locals to help fix the plane then exchange pleasantries with each other before all going off into the sunset. It would be boring that way. Anyway, back to the film, Ruggero Deodato's first cannibal entry is outstanding in almost every way. There's a good story, decent score and it's thoroughly entertaining. Deodato's camera is rarely still as it glides and zooms through the jungle and the film gets going right from the start. What I do object to though is the animal cruelty on show. As all fans of the genre know most cannibal films contain such scenes but I find them completely unnecessary and they ruin the films. This film is almost as good as the classic "Cannibal "Holocaust" though in "Jungle" you find yourselves rooting for the characters, you really want Robert and best buddy Rolf to make it and get back home.
This excellent film is highly recommended to all.
jungle holocaust.......2006-04-29
Directed by Ruggero Deodato(CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST) this is one of the best cannibal movies. The story is about an oil prospector who lands in the malaysian jungle only to get captured by a tribe of cannibals.
The film is prsented in a letterboxed widescreen ratio (2.35:1) and the picture quality and sound is good.
The extrass include:
Trailer,
Ruggero Deodato biography and filmography,
Image gallery,
Reviews and Prodution Notes
The film has been cut by the BBFC.Who removed two scenes(a crocodile geting killed and a rape scene) but surprisingly left in most of the animal cruelty(a snake swallowing a lizard and then a bat and a snake getting its head smashed by a cannibal)
This is one of the better, gorier cannibal movies and is definitely worth seeing!
Customer Reviews:
Aristide Massaccesi, that lovely man.......2006-05-27
A film by Joe d'Amato, who mostly made horror and porn films, but who recklessly spoke the truth. One can either have nothing to do with the commercial world, and attack and reject it, or, like d'Amato, swim so low in the commercial sink, with so little to play for, that one gains a strange sort of freedom. A freedom, like a child, to see his dreams through to their logical conclusions, without diversions or dishonesty.
This film is about a man in love with his dead wife, who like a lot of men prefers her to be dead. The film is seen through the eyes of that woman, and asks what it means to be desired by a man. Buio Omega has been criticised for lacking poetry, for being cheaply shot, for smothering everything with vulgar blood and entrails, and it is a very vulgar film. But that is a function of its peasant honesty and its materialism - no gauze and dry ice in a d'Amato film to mask what lies underneath desires and dreams: we're made of flesh and bone, not poetry.
There is a lovely satirical scene at the engagement lunch - d'Amato is very fond of his grotesques. Is it well-acted or not? Is it well-paced and structured? It doesn't matter. Joe d'Amato is too honest to care much about such things, and besides he has a child-like love of the forbidden - like shooting a scene with the sun in front of the camera, he never tires of that. His films are not well-made or well-furnished; they are better than that. His Buio Omega and Emanuelle in America together say everything Eyes Wide Shut could not, for all Kubrick's formal ingenuity. The only subject that film has left is its own remoteness and the emptiness of its fantasies.
But as d'Amato knew, there are always suffering, material people beneath the surface sheen. But as a maker of Z-grade films, he speaks from a truly abject artistic position - even most horror fans are a cut above watching a d'Amato pic. His films should have died in the year they were made, but they still persist, and in spite of themselves people still find a reckless, humiliating truth in them which no other films quite provide.
Customer Reviews:
Erotic Nights of the Living Dead.......2005-11-10
It takes 45 minutes of hardcore sex scenes and softcore zombie attacks before this film finally starts getting to the point, but once the action is relocated to a desert island, good things slowly start to happen. D'Amato is no Lucio Fulci, and the violence is pretty tame by Italian horror standards, but there are some nicely choreographed scenes of the undead gathering around our heroes, accompanied by decent (if inconsistent) photography and bleak electronic music. A bona fide oddity.
Customer Reviews:
HAS ITS MOMENTS BUT...........2008-01-15
Zombie Flesh Eaters from 1979, is mediocre like much of Fulchi's work. There is certainly plenty of atmosphere and some terrific set pieces but these are small compensations. Like most similar Italian movies the film is rough around the edges, with poor acting and dubbing. There are also long moments of tedium. Watchable but this is no classic.
Violent, but its shock value has waned.
Leader in "living dead" genre.......2007-10-27
I enjoy watching zombie movies and I'd heard a lot about this one before I managed to get my hands on a copy. Some people had told me it was a classic of low budget filmmaking, others had warned me it was an absolute steaming pile of zombie pap. Now, having finally watched it, I don't think it's either of these things.
The acting is bland in general, with the exception of veteran British actor Richard Johnson (looking a bit out of place, but having a great time hamming it up as the slightly mad Dr. Menard) and smirky Roger Moore look-alike Ian McCulloch. Al Cliver isn't too bad as a tough-guy tourist caught up in the zombie infestation, Tisa Farrow (yes, that's Mia's little sis) drifts through much of the movie looking distant and dazed, and Auretta Gay (they must have given her a hard time at school) takes her top off a lot but spends the rest of the time either over- or under-acting.
The plot isn't much to speak of but it holds the attention, and considering the directors other horror movies, it's a miracle there actually is one. The ending annoyingly blunts any disturbing edge the film may have built up towards the end, and drags the movie fully into the realm of cheesiness. The lack of enough real tension and suspense among the pumping blood, punctured eyeballs and blazing gunfire is pretty disappointing too. That said, the action scenes are genuinely exciting (despite being kinda slow in coming) and the climatic sequence in Dr. Menard's hospital with the invading zombies vs. humans is quite enjoyable.
Overall, I found that all this was not quite as horrifying as reputation suggests, probably because of it's age, lack of tension, or my stamina to being scared/disgusted. The memorable parts a battle between a zombie and a shark, and a graphic tracheotomy, (to name just two) easily make it worth the rental, plus some good special effects really caught my interest. Just don't expect much intelligence here that you'd find in Romero's undead flicks. On the whole, it's not brilliant, but it fits respectfully in this genre.
The 'Alien' of Zombie movies.......2007-08-17
Most zombies movies have very little plot, extremely poor atmosphere and terrible looking zombies. Surprisingly this is not the case here.
Fulci, who even in his poor films at least manages atmosphere, directs possibly the best non-Romero zombie film. Starting with a short zombie attack in New York harbour the film then slows to set the scene...
One woman must sail to an island to find her father. The island is apparantly 'cursed' and we know what that means... Zombies. There is a slow long build up including a short Zombie vs Shark fight, until it all kicks off for the last 40 mins of Zombie infestation.
The zombies look great, the music is actually very good and it's extremely well shot. As always some acting is poor and the story is a little, well, thin. But if you're going to 'zombie flesh eaters' you should expect that.
This is an absolulte must have for any zombie fan.
Classic Zombies.......2007-08-14
The zombies in this film are probably my favourite type (for the way they move, the noises they make, the large number of worms crawling out of their putrefying skulls, the way they burst out of the ground, I could go on...). The storyline (there isn't one) doesn't matter - it's the gore that counts! This is a Zombie classic.
brilliant masterpiece!.......2007-07-10
if you are talking to someone who has never heard of lucio fulci ask them
to see "zombie 2" it is a horror masterpiece .i remember renting this in
the 80s & then it was banned ,consigned to the vaults as a video nasty.
now this 2 dvd set is not only the widscreen,remastered version ,there is a
2nd bonus disc about actors ,effects etc.i know its about £25.00 but i personally think that if you like horror movies you MUST have this! from the moment when the "ghost ship" drifts into new york harbour & the patrol
find maggots & rotting flesh on board the terror begins ! if you havent
seen this gem before now is the time !
DVD Review:
- Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things! [1972]
- Colour Me Blood Red
- Cursed [2005] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
- Dark Breed [1995]
- Darkest Knight [2002] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
- Dark Universe [1993] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
- Dead and Deader [2006] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
- Demons 3 - The Ogre [1988]
- ECW - Guilty As Charged 2000
- Eight Legged Freaks [2002] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
DVD Review List
DVD Review