SALO vs. Cannibal Holocaust

[Rob Bottin]

Which one do you prefer most?

For me it´s Deodato´s Masterpiece every day in the week, SALO is pure junk imo.

[The Mothman]

well, Cannibal Holocaust didnt earn itself a Criterion release, but i havnt seen SALO. I supsect its a better film though.

[Doc Faustus]

If they got into a fight, Salo would rape Cannibal Holocaust into submission before it could skin any nearby reptiles, but otherwise I don't know.

[zwoti]

well, Cannibal Holocaust didnt earn itself a Criterion release, but i havnt seen SALO. I supsect its a better film though.

do criterion have the rights to release CH?


don't think so :rolleyes:

[paws the great]

Cannibal Holocaust!

[choomaker]

Which one do you prefer most?

For me it´s Deodato´s Masterpiece every day in the week, SALO is pure junk imo.

Cannibal Holocaust Forever ! :cool:

I liked SALO , too because it's a good movie and Pasolini is exellent . But Cannibal Holocaust is ...Magic !

[swiss tony]

isn't salo about kiddy fiddling? i would find that shit too uncomfortable

[azathoth777]

Cannibal Holocaust! Salo was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. For a movie that has the reputation it does it was just plain bad. Cannibal Holocaust is not great work of genius, but it beats the pants off Salo.

[Vaughan]

Which do I prefer? Well, they're very different films. One is an exploitation film, much misunderstood by non-genre lovers. The other is a political art film - much misunderstood by genre lovers.

The trouble with Salo, imo, is that most of the people who seem to watch it are gore hounds looking for the nastiness. This robs the film of the very reason it was created.

I think both are important films. I hate to quote a cliche, but they're chalk and cheese....

[azathoth777]

I don't know about others, but I thought Salo was just bad, though I also though it was not as shocking as its made out to be. Nastiness, or the lack of, aside I didn't think it was a good movie. Honestly it just bored me. And it can't be just because I'm a gorehound because I like alot of arthouse movies and non-horror also.

[ManicOne]

One of the things about Salo though: To hate or seriously dislike it means it has worked - it's success rests on its ability to generate repugnance, loathing, hatred. It is a work of art, in that what it translates is horribly loathsome and visceral. As for Cannibal Holocaust, films with actual animal violence never do it for me.

[azathoth777]

But I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. I didn't dislike it because it was offensive or repugnant. I disliked it because it was just plain bad. Bad script, bad acting, bad camara work. Just bad all around. It didn't inspire offence, repugnance, or loathing. It inspired bored and a sincere desire to get back the time I wasted watching it. It was not shocking or even thought provoking, unless that thought is 'Dear god, why am I still watching this crap!' For a movie that I had alway heard was so extreme and hard to watch it was woefully lacking these qualities and many more that make even a good movie. It was not '...horribly loathsome and visceral', it was boring and a waste of time.
Cannibal Holocaust wasn't all it was cracked up to be either, but it was closer to the mark. And it is at least a watchable movie, it didn't bore me to tears.

[ManicOne]

I understand. For me it wasn't so much the content that was offensive (it is, but far from the worst), but rather the context, the degradation and torture of basically a bunch of kids. I can definitely see your point though, its not in any of my "favorite film" lists, but it definitely has merit.

[azathoth777]

The messege is good, but context alone does not made a good movie. Ijust think it's importance is overrated.
"....the degradation and torture of basically a bunch of kids" Isn't that about 75% of all horror movies?

[Hamburger]

Cannibal Holocaust for sure. its a better crafted movie through and though.


Salo was just annoying.