Truly, no discussion of the most notorious, disturbing films of all time could possibly be complete without the inclusion of Cannibal Holocaust. Even thirty-six years later, the film remains banned in a number of countries and was so controversial upon it’s initial release that director Ruggero Deodato was arrested shortly after the 1980 premier in Milan. However, the charges were eventually dropped once he was able to prove that this was not an actual snuff film and all the actors involved were in fact still alive. So, does the film that many have dubbed the most controversial of the 20^th Century live up to it’s reputation and still manage to be shocking decades later? Well, let’s discuss.

In addition to being notorious for it’s graphic content, Cannibal Holocaust is also credited as being an early pioneer in utilizing the “found footage” technique that has become such a prevalent part of modern horror, which is itself a very worthy contribution to the genre as a whole. The story centers around anthropology professor Harold Monroe (Robert Kerman) who goes deep into the Amazonian jungle in search of a missing documentary crew that was making a film about mysterious cannibal tribes in the rain forest. But instead of the documentarians, he is only able to recover their footage which he brings back to an American TV station that wants to broadcast it. Monroe however has serious reservations once he discovers the truth about what is actually contained on those reels.

As the other reviews on this site will indicate, I am certainly no stranger to disturbing cinema and in fact have made it my mission to track down and review all of the most twisted, fucked up films ever made. I couldn’t possibly be a more ardent defender of free speech and have thoroughly praised controversial movies like A Serbian Film, The Human Centipede and others for their bold, inflammatory filmmaking. However, there is a very important difference between Cannibal Holocaust and most other controversial films which is also at the center of the ongoing controversy surrounding it…the real, unsimulated killing of animals on film.

Now, one thing I do want to clarify is that this film was made in 1980 and in the decades preceding that the practice of really killing animals onscreen was surprisingly commonplace and did not carry with it the incredible stigma that it does today. Even mainstream movies like Thunderball, Patton, Apocalypse Now, Cool Hand Luke and many others featured scenes of animals actually killed onscreen in service of the storyline. Despite this, the abundance of animal deaths, as well as the incredibly graphic ways that they are killed, make Cannibal Holocaust stand out as exceptionally brutal and cruel. So much so that years later Deodato himself even expressed regret for his actions.

More than anything else I have reviewed, this film really provides an opportunity to discuss the question “Is there a such a thing as going too far when creating art?” For me, the answer really comes down to one simple word…..consent. Consent is everything when deciding what can and cannot be shown. Consent is the difference between sex and rape and the difference between a boxing match and an assault.

I am a very firm believer in the idea that anything people want to express in art can and must be allowed to be expressed but with the important stipulation that if it is violent or sexual, it occurs between consenting adults. If all parties do not (or cannot) consent to what is happening, than what is happening is not okay. This is why filming actual instances of rape, murder, child sexual abuse and animal cruelty is rightfully illegal but fictional depictions are not only acceptable but an important part of coping with the real life horrors we face in the world every day.

People often cite A Serbian Film as the most disturbing film of all time primarily because of the depictions of children being sexually abused. While this idea is in fact disturbing, as it was intended to be, it is also still simply an idea, a fictional depiction. This also goes for other disturbing imagery such as the graphic rape scene in I Spit on Your Grave or the violence depicted in pretty much every horror movie ever made. As horror fans, we enjoy the depictions of violence because we are able to know in the backs of our minds that what we are seeing is simply an illusion and no real harm is being done. On the other hand, anyone who revels in the genuine suffering of others has truly lost their humanity.

Featuring actual cruelty also undercuts any kind of statement you are trying to make with the art itself. The underlying messages of the cruelty of a “civilized society” that feels entitled to abuse indigenous people and nature itself in this film is completely deflated by the fact that the film itself is responsible for such abuse. Beyond this, I also find real violence to be a cheap tactic to illicit a visceral response. Any asshole can shock you by killing an animal and filming it but when a film is able to horrify you to your core simply by creating a realistic illusion that is something to be admired.

To be fair though, there is a lot more in this film beyond the few scenes of animal cruelty and I wanted to see how effective it was as a whole. The special edition DVD actually offers a version where the animal deaths are removed so to compare it I watched both that and the uncut version. Without those scenes the film is still incredibly disturbing and more than most people could handle. Aside from numerous scenes of graphic rape there is also a lot of brutal carnage. The infamous scene of the impaled woman is a gorgeously realized effect as is the scene of the man’s cock being viciously cut off.

Despite my feelings for the unsimulated violence in this film, I do not advocate for it’s censorship and (like the apologetic warning before the film) view this as an historical document depicting a bygone era that hopefully won’t be repeated. This is the only time I would actually recommend watching a cut version of a film but if you do, you will see a movie that is surprisingly well acted, holds your interest and features a great film score. However, you are also sure to notice some shoddy ADR work, weak character development and a plot that is noticeably thin when not propped up with the shock-value of real death. Ultimately, without the use of the cheap shock effect of animal cruelty, the film would never have earned the level of controversy it did or it’s notorious place in film history. On the other hand, it would have still been a disturbing piece of art who’s message wouldn’t have been drowned out by it’s own hypocrisy.

What’s great about a title like Tokyo Gore Police is that it is very clear about the kind of movie you are going to experience. Still, there is no way to truly wrap your mind around this film without watching it for yourself and even then, the uninitiated will be left baffled at what they have witnessed. To those I say “Welcome to Japanese Splatter Cinema, motherfuckers!”

The film takes place in a world where some criminals, known as “Engineers”, have remodeled their bodies to turn into ferocious monstrosities. Any time an Engineer is found, it is the job of the police force’s most elite Engineer hunter Ruka (Eihi Shiina) to dispense her own brand of brutal justice on them. When a powerful Engineer known as Key Man (Itsuji Itao) starts brutally killing women around Tokyo, it’s up to Ruka to not only try and track him down but also uncover the mystery of her father’s murder that may or may not be connected.

While some might be incredibly repulsed by the extreme violence of films like this, I on the other hand find it’s astounding levels of bizarre and depraved brutality incredibly refreshing. In a world where you constantly hear about films having to be cut down by the fucking MPAA (and other such arbiters of subjective morality) to get an R rating, it’s great to see examples of films that are made with absolutely no concern for being “marketable” for a wide release.

It should be noted however that this is a very different experience from the mean-spirited gore of Torture Porn films like Grotesque. I’m not saying one style is better than the other, this is simply a different approach to extreme cinema that portrays the violence in an over-the-top, cartoonish fashion, typical of Japanese Splatter films. This actually allows the film to maintain a more lighthearted feeling while simultaneously bombarding you with insane levels of violence in a world where anything can happen. Blood geysers from severed limbs can propel people like rockets, disembodied hands that strangle are shot like bullets, alligator heads grow from severed torsos and so much more!

This all makes for an incredibly entertaining viewing experience, which is certainly not surprising. What may actually be surprising to some however is that such an over-the-top film can also handle the transition to scenes with more serious subject matter as well. Scenes of civilian genocide actually carry a legitimate emotional weight and the film as a whole is filled with sharp commentary on authoritarian control, consumer culture, and our own inherent desire for violence. In addition to this, the characters themselves are well crafted with complex motivations and storylines rather than a simplistic portrayal of good versus evil.

I was also impressed by the all too rare use of a legitimately strong female lead. Ruka is solemn, calculating, driven and exudes an authentic strength without ever falling into the hackneyed Hollywood portrayal of an in-your-face-tough-girl. She’s an all around badass that doesn’t fuck around and won’t hesitate to chop your hands off if you grab her ass on the subway. This is yet another stellar performance by Shiina who is also well known for her work on other brilliantly twisted Japanese films like Audition and Helldriver.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that there are times when the seams show a little on the production and the special effects don’t always stick the landing but really these couple of hiccups just add to the campy and surreal fun of the film. Those looking for an incredibly creative, utterly twisted, fast-paced mind-fuck of Asian insanity need look no further and if you still have yet to plunge into the world of Japanese Splatter Cinema this is a hell of a good place to start.

After a seventeen year hiatus from the series, cult director Shin’ya Tsukamoto returns for a third installment of metal-morphing insanity with Tetsuo: The Bullet Man. Given that it was made nearly two decades after Tetsuo 2: Body Hammer, Tsukamoto certainly had enough time to plan a brilliant return to the series that would not only honor the originals but also reinvigorate the concept for a new generation. With significantly more experience as a director, as well as the enormous advances that have been made in filmmaking technology, it should be a foregone conclusion that Tsukamoto knocked it out of the park with this one, right? Well, let’s discuss.

Just as he did with Body Hammer, Tsukamoto once again reinvents the Tetsuo story from scratch rather than continuing the storyline from a previous film. This time the story follows Anthony (Eric Bossick) an ordinary businessman who’s son is killed in a seemingly deliberate hit-and-run. Soon after, his life begins to unravel further as he (you guessed it) starts to transform into a metal-melded monster with protruding chest guns. Now he must track down his son’s killer, as well as uncover the mystery of who (or rather what) he has become.

Since each Tetsuo installment is a reimagining of the story rather than a continuation of it, drawing a comparison to the original film (Tetsuo: The Iron Man) is inevitable. In that regard, The Bullet Man is, without a doubt, the sleekest looking of the series, although in the case of these films that’s not necessarily a positive thing. A big part of what made the original ’89 version so brilliant was the rough, grainy quality of it which added to the nightmarish feeling of the film. Now, on it’s own, the idea of having the third film be sleeker and more modern looking is conceptually fine, but in this case it is also representative of a larger problem……watering down the aspects that made the first film great in favor of reaching a wider audience.

We saw shades of this in Body Hammer, the choice to film in color, a more conventional story, and a transformation that turns the character into more of a weapon than a monster. This time, however, it’s even more apparent that Tsukamoto is trying to not only appeal to a wider audience but specifically a Western audience. The most obvious example of this is of course his choice to have a half white, half Asian protagonist that speaks English and has an American name. But it shows up in more subtle ways as well such as the excessive exposition and the fact that the transformation turns Anthony into more of a societal outcast with super powers than a metal-plagued monster. It also has by far the most conventional storyline of the series which plays out much more like a standard unwilling-hero-attains-powers-battles-villain-and-seeks-revenge kind of story rather than the brilliant abstract insanity of The Iron Man.

There are certainly nods to the style of the earlier films like the frenetic action, the insane laughing face, and of course the grotesque transformations that meld flesh with metal. However, these feel a bit more like obligatory tie-ins to the series rather than concepts that emerged from the story organically. Furthermore, the idea of the protagonist’s son being killed by the villains to provoke his rage-fueled transformation as well as the fact that he has guns melded into his body are both plot points taken straight from Body Hammer. This significantly adds to the feeling of this entry being more of a re-hash than an original storyline that reinvents the series.

Now, despite all the negative complaints I’ve leveled against the film, I do have to say that as far as the viewing experience goes, the film is actually quite watchable. Sure, the English (the primary language spoken in this film) may sound inexplicably dubbed (!) and sometimes the shaky hand-held action scenes go past the point of frenetic to downright nauseating but the overall film is still weird and interesting enough to hold your attention to the end. When compared to the earlier, superior entries in the series, it pales by comparison but I’d still take it any day over the soulless fucking trash that people like Michael Bay and Adam Sandler produce these days.

If you are seeking out the most notorious, disturbing and controversial films of all time, Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom is a title that’s sure to come up over and over again. The film is legendary for its levels of depravity and for being a kind of an endurance test that weeds out all but the most hardened viewers. It’s something that has been on my radar for years and I decided it was finally time to see what all the fuss was about. I wanted to judge for myself if this this forty-one year old film could in fact still live up to it’s reputation and hold a candle to modern-day examples of extreme horror like A Serbian Film, Human Centipede 2, Martyrs, etc.

The film itself is an adaptation of the Marquis de Sade’s notorious novel The 120 Days of Sodom which he wrote while imprisoned in the Bastille in 1785. The film follows the same basic plot structure as the book although the setting is transposed to Italy during the waning days of Mussolini’s reign. The story centers around four rich, powerful men who imprison a group of seventeen teenagers in a mansion and proceed to severely sexually, physically and mentally abuse them over the next four months. The men are aided by a small group of soldiers, who appear to be around the same age as the teens, as well as four experienced prostitutes. The prostitutes fondly regale the men with depraved tales of their own experiences which include molestation, coprophagia (shit eating to you and me) and violence, while the men use the teens to act out their most perverse and grotesque fantasies.

Because of the incredibly debaucherous and disturbing nature of the film, it may be surprising to some viewers that a meticulously remastered edition was released by Criterion Collection, given their propensity for specializing in Art House classics. However, once you actually experience Salo for yourself it is clear that it bares a far greater likeness to the films of European auteurs rather than the Grindhouse cinema of 42^nd street. From the gorgeously composed shots to the utterly brilliant, high-caliber acting, it is clear that is an undeniably well-made film that deserves serious consideration.

Content-wise, the film doesn’t quite deliver the kind of visceral gut-punch of, say, A Serbian Film but is nonetheless incredibly disturbing. The fact that the acting is so flawlessly executed makes the actions of the ruthlessly sadistic bourgeoisie villains far more upsetting. Rape, forced coprophagia, torture and numerous other acts, both debauched and bizarre, are inflicted upon the teens for the deviant pleasure of the four men. What’s perhaps even more unsettling is the fact that it is the well-dressed, urbane psychopaths that are the protagonists of the film, rather than the doomed teens. Much like Human Centipede 2, this puts the viewer in the distressing position of following along with these twisted characters rather than seeing them presented as forces of antagonism.

Now, clearly the film adaptation must follow the source material but regardless, it is undeniably light on story and does not adhere to the traditional character arc structure you find in most films. Despite this, the film is very compelling to watch and holds your attention throughout as it builds in intensity. It is also bold in a way that few films are as it presents an experience that is not only incredibly disturbing, and at times disquietingly surreal, but also made with no concern for the film’s commercial appeal. Regardless of how you may view the content, any piece of art that is skillfully crafted, provokes spirited debate, and is genuinely uninhibited is certainly art that is worthy of discussion and analysis.

The film is also rife with subtext and social commentary. This isn’t surprising given that director Pier Paolo Pasolini was, much like the Marquis de Sade himself, an outspoken critic of authoritarian figures and society in general. The fact that the four men who are responsible for the deplorable acts all hold positions of power and authority (such as President, Bishop, etc) is one of the clearest examples of this.

It is also noteworthy that the well-dressed men are exceedingly polite when talking with each other and the veteran prostitutes that work for them but are immediately harsh and cruel when dealing with the captives who they deem to be of lesser value. The scene in which the men take turns enacting horrendous violence on the teens and watching from a throne-like chair with opera glasses is also a clear commentary on both the culpability and voyeuristic apathy of the powerful and the victims of the world they created.

In the hands of a lesser director, a film adaptation of one of the most depraved, grotesque books of all time could have easily been reduced to two hours of cheap shock-value gags but under Pasolini’s skilled direction the film transcends these potential limitations to become a work of uncompromising art. Those seeking a unique and harrowing viewing experience would do well to add Salo to the must-watch list of highly-disturbing alternative cinema.