Cannibal Holocaust

Ce n'est pas facile d'évaluer ce film. Est-ce que ça mérite quelques bonnes étoiles seulement parce qu'il m'a donné une érection ? Est-ce que je devrais considérer comme un point positif du film qu'il a manipulé perfidement mes désirs les plus intérieurs et intimes et que je me suis senti dégoûtant et coupable en le regardant ? (coupable pour avoir volontairement et voyeuristement regardé les pires atrocités sous le soleil) Le dernier plan du film évoque une sensation comme si le réalisateur avait vraiment atteint son objectif et avait gagné. Si c'est le cas, alors Cannibal Holocaust mérite non pas 3, mais 5 étoiles. Mais c'est TRÈS discutable et je préférerais ne pas évaluer ce film. Parce que si ce n'est pas le cas, ils devraient le brûler jusqu'à la dernière copie. (17/07/2002)

This ninety minute showcase of brutality outwardly tries to give the viewer the impression that it carries a message. In fact, this pious message – to highlight the dark side of man and the shameful commercialisation of violence – is just a mere excuse for Deodato to show us the harshest snuff ever committed against animals in a feature film (turtle lovers, don't watch this) and to portray in an extremely authentic way the filth (there's no other way to put it) that man can commit against man. The level of authenticity is so great that while watching it, I wondered if it was really just staged (but not with the animals, they're really live murders). Overall summary: a very artfully made disgusting film that pretends to be profound, but I don't buy it. (25/09/2003)

A (non)movie that is the embodiment of the term “controversial". Cannibal Holocaust is a hard movie to rate. It has no story, no actors either and the only thing that Cannibal Holocaust stands on is its “behind the scenes legend" about how (un)realistic the scenes are. It achieves its aim - to disgust - indisputably excellently, but at the same time it is a boring hundred minutes of tasteless masturbation about nothing. But still you learn something from it. Perhaps that nobody has the right to kill live animals for any kind of movie. But what if that wasn’t the point after all? You don’t know? Well nor do I. Perhaps you will uncover that proclaimed supposed philosophical side of it. Or perhaps not. (26/07/2007)

Well, what can I say… Unrealistic as a documentary, weak as horror, above average as a film, very successful as a controversial piece. Now it all depends on what you expect from Cannibal Holocaust. I wanted controversial horror and hence my rating: I was very surprised, but little scared → three stars. (11/06/2008)

I wonder who the real cannibals are... A combination of cinema verité and film à thèse. Heart of Darkness transferred into (post) modernity, a film that, with its limited possibilities, constantly tries to reflect on itself (the documentary is actually a transfer of the principle of film itself into the fictional world) and raises the question of instinct / violence / civilization mechanisms that supposedly keep us away from our primitive nature, but in fact they are constantly subject to it (often in the name of nobility). It's not deeply academic - rather clearly schematic - and in places it is not filmed very deftly, but it just makes sense and it has a message - if we can abstract from the outrage that someone has the audacity to kill a pig or a turtle in the name of the film, we will soon find out that film consciously deals with this "just outrage". More precisely, what hides behind it. (04/04/2013)