SALO vs. Cannibal Holocaust
 

Which one do you prefer most?

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

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

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.

do criterion have the rights to release CH?


don't think so :rolleyes:

Cannibal Holocaust!

Cannibal Holocaust Forever ! :cool:

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

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

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.

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....

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.