Cannibal Holocaust - Grindhouse (US) Blu-ray

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by SendMoreParamedics

When Cabin Fever was released, I thought he might be the next John Carpenter or Wes Craven. Unfortunately, everything he's directed after that has been garbage (in my opinion). To go from an awesome original idea like Cabin Fever to a Saw rip-off like Hostel boggles my mind.

I beg to differ. Both are quintessential post-9/11 horror movies, in my opinion. But if I had to choose on above the other, my choice would be HOSTEL every time.

On one level, SAW is of course about 'making it count' - living your life and your potential to its fullest because you never know when it may end. Seen through a post-9/11 perspective, though, it is also very much about how far are you willing to go to preserve yourself and your way of life. What are you willing to do to others? How far does your moral bend? Are you willing to sacrifice the civil rights of others? In that respect, SAW thematizes the whole post-9/11 discussion on torture.

HOSTEL, on the other hand, can be seen as an indictment of rampant consumerism and a certain mindset. The classical educational journey to a foreign country has been reduced to bar hopping and tail chasing. The guys are shown as the epitome of shallowness. They have travelled thousand of miles but have not an inch of interest in other cultures and people. They live only to consume. They live for the next drink and the next piece of ass. They are completely self-absorbed, and in fact the only guy who suggest they take a bit of interest in the country they are visiting is laughed at.

HOSTEL takes this mindset to the logical conclusion and lets the young protagonists meet themselves in an adult and extreme version: people who have no empathy, are completely self-absorbed and don't engage other cultures as equals but with a feeling of superiority. Basically, the young protagonists treats the world as meat, as something to be consumed and discarded but not to be taken seriously, and in an ironic twists end up getting treated the same way by adult versions of themselves.

In my mind, HOSTEL is very close to a masterpiece, and is without a doubt one of the most interesting horror movies of the 00's.

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by Kriztoffer Swank

I suppose it's inevitable, but does every topic on the movie really have to go on and on about the animal violence and whether it's acceptable? When I first heard about the movie, I was like, "SHEEEEIT, I DUNNO IF I CAN WATCH THAT," but when I actually did it wasn't so bad. I've seen it probably three times and have shown it to as many people, and will watch it plenty more times (Cannibal Ferox as well, if it gets a nice Blu-ray). To me, the violence is a non-issue at this point, it just makes me kinda squeamish.

Now if I remember correctly, some of the animal violence in Ferox was more tasteless. I'm pretty sure that was the one where an animal was tied to a stake while a snake inched toward it. Poor little animal was really freaked. I found that to be a lot more cruel than anything in Cannibal Holocaust.

I agree. I like FEROX, but I find it much harder to defend to skeptics than HOLOCAUST. HOLOCAUST is, at least, just as much an art house movie as it's exploitation, with its narrative within a narrative and its use of ironic meta-devices, whereas FEROX really only qualifies as exploitation.

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by noddinoff

If you don't think "its that bad" its because you lack a thing that people with above average intelligence possess, its called empathy. How would you like it if you were just chillin in your backyard enjoying a nice day and a bunch of huge guys who you would have no chance against came upon you and said "lets hold his ass down and jam this huge hunting knife into his throat and watch him scream in agony and we'll get all the juicy horrific looks of terror on his face all on film for this snuff film were gonna make and sell for a profit." I bet the moment they start pushing it in your adams apple like they did to the coatamundi the thought "this isn't so bad" would be the furthest thing on your mind.

This is a bullshit argument. It's on the same level as people who say you have to be a psychopath to enjoy horror movies or a would-be rapist to watch a movie that features sexual violence. It's a complete misunderstanding about why and how movies work, how they engage the human mind, and what makes people watch violent entertainment in the first place.

[nekromantik]

So is the version of the flick here, same as the UK release? Apart from you cant view without animal cruelty on the US disc?

Agreed about double dip, this will never look that great so minor difference wont be worth it.

[AlexIlDottore]

The Grindhouse version offers a completely uncut version (minus the complete "last road to hell" sequence as that isn't in the negative) and a animal cruelty free version.

This WILL blow the Shameless release out of the water, I mean it's Grindhouse Releasing and don't forget the great extras that have been announced for this release.

[nekromantik]

Yes but apart from some animal cruelty missing from UK release it should be the same movie. If it had last road to hell intact then maybe I would consider later date for second hand copy.

[necros911]

hopefully The Barbarians will get Bluray treatment after CH.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

The Grindhouse version offers a completely uncut version (minus the complete "last road to hell" sequence as that isn't in the negative)

Is this missing from the other DVD and BD releases? I have seen the first half of this film but never the second half so I am unaware of it.

[Kriztoffer Swank]

Originally Posted by noddinoff

If you don't think "its that bad" its because you lack a thing that people with above average intelligence possess, its called empathy. How would you like it if you were just chillin in your backyard enjoying a nice day and a bunch of huge guys who you would have no chance against came upon you and said "lets hold his ass down and jam this huge hunting knife into his throat and watch him scream in agony and we'll get all the juicy horrific looks of terror on his face all on film for this snuff film were gonna make and sell for a profit." I bet the moment they start pushing it in your adams apple like they did to the coatamundi the thought "this isn't so bad" would be the furthest thing on your mind.

I'd like to think myself and all other humans have far more intrinsic worth than animals. I love a good dog or cat, but I also love eating meat and realize that death is everywhere in the animal kingdom.

Let's also remember that the movie has footage of people being executed. Nobody ever gets up in arms over that. Granted, it wasn't shot specifically for the movie, but was nevertheless used—and part of the reason for that is to contextually give a sense of real-world violence to the staged violence depicted in the film, to give the viewer a sense on uneasiness and a belief that what they're seeing could be real. That's a big part of the effectiveness to this movie.

Is the animal violence a bit disturbing? Surely. I get grossed out watching a deer being gutted before being stripped of its meat. Do I find it morally reprehensible? No. Nothing in Cannibal Holocaust can seriously be called cruel torture. If it is, then my cat can be called a sadist for the way he plays around with and crunches heads of mice and shrews before eating them.

But man, why am I even responding to this? It's a ridiculous post on your part, and I'm just perpetuating the discussion of animal violence every time this movie gets brought up. None of the film's merits ever seem to be discussed, and my original point was that the violence isn't as bad as people have made it out to be. I put off seeing the movie for years because I thought there was no way I could sit through that, but it's all pretty quick and humane. That's also part of the effectiveness of the film, that even today people are freaked out about seeing it for the first time.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Phantasia

I found this on IMDb explaining the situation.

Thanks. Sounds like the available footage is in very poor condition. Interestingly, I understand there was a film made up almost entirely of similar content released at Cannes last year. Disturbing stuff to watch for 90 minutes.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by #Darren

Is this missing from the other DVD and BD releases? I have seen the first half of this film but never the second half so I am unaware of it.

The complete scene is in Shameless' cut BD and DVD, it's also on the uncut EC Ultrabit edition and a couple of other dvd releases :

http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=1709

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by #Darren

Thanks. Sounds like the available footage is in very poor condition. Interestingly, I understand there was a film made up almost entirely of similar content released at Cannes last year. Disturbing stuff to watch for 90 minutes.

No, the quality is very far from being in poor condition.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

The complete scene is in Shameless' cut BD and DVD, it's also on the uncut EC Ultrabit edition and a couple of other releases :

http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=1709

General note:
*On many editions, there are about 10 seconds of footage missing from "The Last Road to Hell" sequence, located at ~40/45min into the movie, apparently because of print damage. "The Last Road to Hell" is comprised of footage from a "previous documentary" from the filmmakers, that are lost in the jungle. The footage is brief and consists of some mondo footage, people being executed etc.
There are 3 cuts, about 10 seconds in total:
- A scene showing an execution is missing,
- A scene showing an executed, hooded prisoner is missing,
- A scene showing executed prisoners being loaded on a truck is shortened, missing a few seconds in the end.
However, it seems that these bits did not appear in the original negatives.

I wonder what the bolded part signifies? That it was not in the original cut?

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

No, the quality is very far from being in poor condition.

I wonder what Grindhouse logic was to leave it out then? Surely they could obtain a useable source for that sequence.. Perhaps they feel it is not the original cut? Maybe those extra bits were added in later by some distributor..

[AlexIlDottore]

I'm not certain, but if the complete scene isn't in the original negative, I'd say it's an alternative cut.

[noddinoff]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

This is a bullshit argument. It's on the same level as people who say you have to be a psychopath to enjoy horror movies or a would-be rapist to watch a movie that features sexual violence. It's a complete misunderstanding about why and how movies work, how they engage the human mind, and what makes people watch violent entertainment in the first place.
nd we'll get all the juicy horrific looks of terror on his face all on film for this snuff film were gonna make and sell for a profit." I bet the moment they start pushing it in your adams apple like they did to the coatamundi the thought "this isn't so bad" would be the furthest thing on your mind.

I guess you don't know the difference between real and make believe? Your argument would only hold water if the animal killings like all the killings in the types of movies you are mentioning were done with fake special effects. I love I spit on your grave, I love the gory slashings in the burning and other slasher movies, I love gore for gores sake and heaping amounts of it but thats because its all fake and its an art form to create. These idiots who made this movie were talentless hacks except for the guy who composed the score and they were probably broke too and had not much to work with and it costs nothing to just go pillage a bunch of innocent animals from their environment and brutally torture them. I'm not gonna argue this point anymore its a broken record but your response to my post was rather ridiculous.

[iamnoone]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

I'm not certain, but if the complete scene isn't in the original negative, I'd say it's an alternative cut.

Yes, it's an alternate cut of the segment with different titles as well. So since the negative uses the shorter variation, that's most likely the most legit cut of the film. And Grindhouse included the alternate longer segment as an extra on the DVD and it will be on the Blu as well, so really that's as much as we could ask for. They probably made a longer more graphic variant of that sequence for prints in certain markets that really wanted 'extreme' at the time, such as Japan, but I'm just speculating. I wonder if anyone has ever questioned Deodato about the sequence having two variants, or if he'd even remember.

[AlexIlDottore]

Noddinoff, If you don't like the film due to it's animal violence, please visit other threads, so that we can discuss the film, the release(s) and it's merits. Thank you

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by iamnoone

Yes, it's an alternate cut of the segment with different titles as well. So since the negative uses the shorter variation, that's most likely the most legit cut of the film. And Grindhouse included the alternate longer segment as an extra on the DVD and it will be on the Blu as well, so really that's as much as we could ask for. They probably made a longer more graphic variant of that sequence for prints in certain markets that really wanted 'extreme' at the time, such as Japan, but I'm just speculating. I wonder if anyone has ever questioned Deodato about the sequence having two variants, or if he'd even remember.

This is why I don't get why some people want a complete uncut version with a complete "road to hell" sequence. It isn't on the negative, so ....

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by noddinoff

animals are innocent and their only motives for the killing they commit on each other are for survival unlike the scum that is the human race that I shamefully belong to.

You should do more research about animals if you really believe that.