[pbradley]

This thread sucks.

Originally Posted by pbradley

This thread sucks.

Yes.

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

you are if you have seen it.
look, being a vegetarian hippy is fine, whatever makes you happy, but learn to contruct your arguements properly and don't be so bloody indignant & self-righteous, especially about a crappy film that was made 30 years ago. If you really insist on behaving this way at least pick something that is a current issue.

Why do most people think vegetarians are all hippies or have hippie attributes? I've been a vegetarian for over three years and I'm certainly not a hippie.

That was fairly pointless and didn't really add anything to the thread, but the topic is already all over the place so I'd figure I'd throw shit at the wall to get the old shit down.

~Jeremy~

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by max

Most probably none of you cares about this shit, but I wanted to voice it out loud.

This is the absolute worst side of human beings. Lowlife scum doing a "movie" to cash some easy bucks killing animals on screen, and exploiting the real indigenous peoples in Brazil whose names were used in the movie – the yanomamo and shamatari – who are not fierce enemies as portrayed in the movie, nor is either tribe truly cannibalistic.

Fuck this shit and anyone who appreciates it.
This is not horror, it's dementia.

Returning to the topic in hand, I appreciate what you're saying about CH and, as I said earlier in the thread, I'm not really a fan of it myself. The difference is that I've actually seen the film while you haven't. Sitting down and watching it probably won't change your opinion of CH but it'll at least give your criticisms of it a bit more credibility.

[max]

do I really have to go through the pain of seeing a turd which would make me wanna gouge my eyes off just in order to "properly criticize" what I conceive as garbage technically, theorically and philosophically?

I hardly think so. I simply don't want to be a part of this audience. It is what it is - a piece of shit. Do I really have to step on it to make sure?

[max]

Originally Posted by pbradley

This thread sucks.

well, I'm sure that all of your thousands of posts maintain a constant quality together with porkie's countless gems.

practice makes you perfect, aye?

[pbradley]

What a curious way to apologize.

[max]

what should I apologize for...? dude, I don't care. you're not interested = you don't read through these pages. simple as that.

[atsonicpark]

This has nothing to do with this thread, but something I've always found curious about Cannibal Holocaust and its controversy is that the film shows actual human deaths in the film at one point in a short clip... and I've never heard that being considered controversial in the least (compared to the huge animal death controversy -- and even the huge controversies surrounding the simulated rape, pole in the vagina, all that stuff). Obviously, the people weren't killed solely for the film itself but... they still were killed, taped, and shown in the film, for whatever reason. Interesting...

[max]

dude.............................................. ..................don't be clueless now.
from wiki:
Original Italian controversy

"The original controversy that surrounded the film's release was the belief that Cannibal Holocaust was an actual snuff film, or that the actors were murdered in order to film their deaths for the movie. The film was confiscated ten days after its premiere in Milan, and Deodato was arrested. The courts believed not only that the four actors portraying the missing film crew were killed for the camera, but that the actress in the impalement scene was actually skewered in such a manner. To make matters worse for Deodato, the actors had signed contracts with him and the producers ensuring that they would not appear in any type of media, motion pictures or commercials for one year after the film's release in order to promote the idea that the film was truly the recovered footage of missing documentarians. Thus, when Deodato claimed that he had not killed the group, questions arose as to why the actors were in no other media if they were alive.[1][8]



Eventually, Deodato was able to prove that the violence was staged. He contacted Luca Barbareschi and told him to gather the other three actors. After he voided the contracts in order to avoid life in prison, Deodato brought the foursome onto the set of an Italian television show, which satisfied the courts."

I really wish we got rid of barbareschi around that period. the thought of one less berlusconi supporter in italy is something to rejoice for...

[atsonicpark]

No, I'm talking about a short film in the movie itself called... trying to remember the name... ah, okay, I looked it up" "Last Road to Hell". It is presented as a "previous documentary" by the film crew, I think (it's been 6 years since I've watched this film so forgive me if my memory is a bit hazy), but it's confirmed to be real people really getting killed. Again, not for the sake of the movie... it's basically stock footage. But it's still disturbing.

[max]

mmm - what you're talking about then is probably this:

"Due to its graphic content, there are several different versions of Cannibal Holocaust in circulation which are edited to certain degrees. Many uncut releases also differ in content as there are multiple versions of the "Last Road to Hell" segment of the film, which includes footage of genuine political executions from Nigeria[8] and South East Asia. An extended version of "The Last Road to Hell" includes approximately ten seconds of footage not seen in an alternate, shorter version. This additional footage includes a wide-angle shot of firing-squad executions, a close-up of a dead victim, and extended footage of bodies being carried into the back of a truck. The longer version also includes different titles that correctly name the film team as they appear in the final film, while the shorter version gives the names of the film team that originally appear in the script."

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by max

do I really have to go through the pain of seeing a turd which would make me wanna gouge my eyes off just in order to "properly criticize" what I conceive as garbage technically, theorically and philosophically

To simply say you don't think you want to see it is fine, but your referring to it as 'garbage' on, say, technical grounds is a bit unfair considering you've not seen it. Isn't that like criticizing an album's production without ever listening to it?

[Tickerwelly]

I agree with you Mr. demonrail. I wouldn't say the thread is pointless because it's made me curious to seek this out. I want to analyze my own feelings on this and see whether I think it's social commentary or snuff. To call it out completely without seeing it first hand seems a little weird to me though.

[max]

social commentary??? LUCA BARBARESCHI! forget social commentary. forget it!!! these idiots were after some easy bucks.

demonrail - what can i say? that example is spot on, yet am i to listen an album just so i can say "it really does suck as i thought"? no, life's too short, i only try to do what makes me feel good.

seeing animals killed on screen for some easy bucks isn't going to make me feel good.

[Andrés]

the movie sucks but the music is sooo creeppy!

[max]

"dude! we're gonna die anyway! get that M16 and let's raom the streets on a rampage! EVERYBODY'S GONNA DIE ANYWAY! and don't forget the camera, we'll put it all ON YOUTUBE!!!"

[max]

for whatever reason you yrself watched the film....and for all the stuff youve said (which, you every right to say + i respect yr opinion)..they obviously succeeded in having some effect on you.

man, no dis / pun intended, but this is getting ridiculous 'cuz I've stated it several times during the thread and it's either you want to consciously ignore my point, or you just didn't read it:

I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS PIECE OF SHIT WASTE OF FILM!