Cannibal Holocaust truly is one of the most disturbing and uncomfortable films I've ever had to sit through. Released in 1980, Cannibal Holocaust has gained a reputation over the years as being one of the most controversial films ever made, and rightfully so. It's hard to recommend a film like this, especially considering all of the brutal onscreen violence, rape, dismemberment, genital mutilation, and real animal killings. However, whether you're a fan of it or not, you have to admit it is a very well made film. From it's shocking visuals to its griddy realism Cannibal Holocaust is a very effective film that successfully gets its point across. It shows us a very ugly, dark side of humanity which most people would like to believe doesn't exist. The movie also has quite a sporadic fan base, with famous directors like Oliver Stone, Quentin Tarantino and Sergio Leone all supposedly being confessed fans of it. If you're looking for a fun horror film to watch with friends this is definitely not one of them. It's very unsettling and makes you feel horrible after viewing it. This movie is not for the squeamish, faint of heart, or easily offended, only recommended to the most hardcore of horror fans. You have been warned.

Cannibal Holocaust is very deserving of it's controversy, but it is definitely not tacky and for pure shock value, something I half expected (I discovered this movie while reading about the August Underground movies and was way more intrigued by a controversial movie with meaning and plot). It's in your face, it at least seems real (and is real in some parts). Never have I ever seen such convincing special effects in a movie and this was a low-budget 70s movie, CGI will never recreate it. But beyond the special effects there is a message and meaning and very engaging story.

I'll break down the review into sections.

Plot/story (9/10): Think of The Blair Witch Project, except not trying to put itself off as real. A group of 4 documenters go into the amazon jungle to film the "savages" and cannibals that live there. They do not return and it is up to an anthropologist to find them or at least what was left of them. Throughout the movie we learn of the documentary crew's tendency to push and bribe people into committing extreme acts of violence through actual footage from people being killed by soldiers in Nigeria. The movie portrays it as if it was a documentary shot by the crew in which they payed the soldiers off to kill innocent people execution style. As the story progresses the viewer is forced to try and comprehend who exactly are the real savages. Not to mention the social overtones of how modern society ties into all of this. It loses a point, though, because the dialog sometimes is very iffy, even though you can tell they were trying to be realistic, but this hinders the actors, especially with their lack of experience.

Acting (7/10): This is where the movie suffers. It gets better as the movie progresses and things get more intense (this may be do to the actual moralities of the actors and how they felt about the movie showing through in their characters). But when it starts out, I'm almost reminded of campy b-movies. The cinematic presentation and pure intrigue is what kept me going. Again, though, the script writing obviously provided some challenges for the actors.

Cinematography (10/10): Speaking of cinematic presentation, this movie does it beautifully, even from the opening shot from a helicopter flying over the rain-forest. The studio and movie-style aspects of the film are very convincing and very well-done. Hollywood couldn't do better with a 10 million dollar budget. The creativity and use of close-ups really pulls you in, and you begin to question the reality of even the part of the movie that is presented as fictional. And that doesn't even cover the great mockumentary work. The director's understanding of how documentaries are made and how they work is extremely convincing. the use of normal scenes of the crew kind of doddling around really help to present a feeling of reality. And the aspects of limited film and the amateurish/spontaneous filming style are almost convincing enough to make the viewer think they used real footage to build a fictional movie around.

Audio (10/10) Again, I'm reminded of Apocalypse Now. The music is melodic and somewhat peaceful, adding a real eerie tone to the serious and macabre theme of the movie. It is very 70s though, and I would not expect to here the same soundtrack in a new movie, although some of the musical flavors are indeed timeless. And there are some more intense scores in the film, but they are not over-intense like most Hollywood today. Then we get into sound design, which is very convincing, the tearing and the screaming all sound real, or as I would expect them to sound. The new mixing with stereo is well and really helps immerse the viewer.

On the animal violence: This is something that I thought would disturb me. The animal scenes in Amorres Perros disturbed me even though they were not real, but this was real and I wasn't that perturbed by them. People have said that the killing of the animals is useless and doesn't help the plot of the movie, but I feel otherwise. It brings into light that you do have to kill to survive. The documenters kill 6 animals (one is a spider, which some may not count, I do) on screen and 1 is killed off screen. And it obviously irks the actors a little bit (note: when you see vomit, it is indeed real). But the animals are eaten. And all of this adds to the reality of the documentary. It would have been hard fake some most of that. Plus, think of the meat industry today. Hundreds of thousands of cows and pigs slaughtered and millions of chickens and turkeys slaughtered every day in gruesome ways, just so we can eat them. "Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen". Our society frowns upon killing animals, but that burger doesn't magically appear. Blood had to be spilled for our dining pleasure.

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!?