NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Leofwine_draca An overview of Italian cinema reveals a rich history packed with fantastic movies. First coming into prominence in the 1950s, with a series of epics, Biblical and otherwise, the 1960s saw the floodgates open with hundreds of sword and sandal and spaghetti western movies pouring into the world market. In the 1970s, the Italians made the thriller genre their own, splitting it into two sub-genres (the polizia and giallo film) and adding oodles of violence. Finally, the period 1980 to 1985 saw a final explosion of cheap-as-hell exploitation films to mark Italian cinema's dying days; the rip-off was the most popular type of film, with dozens of post-holocaust, horror, science fiction and fantasy movies released during these years. Sadly, post 1985, Italian genre cinema has been dull and derivative, lacking even a decent low budget; pretty much every film is a stinker.So here we have the backdrop for CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST II, a supposed sequel to the classic 1979 horror film by Ruggero Deodato, which reached new heights in violence and disturbed everyone who saw it. This sequel comments on the real-life animal cruelty of the original film, by having numerous sequences of our heroes rescuing animals, rather than slaughtering them! Otherwise, the two films are unconnected. CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST II is as lifeless and worthless a horror film as you could expect; in fact, there's no horror to be seen at all, and barely any violence or gore. What kind of film is it then? Well, it could best be classed as an adventure I suppose, charting as it does a massive journey undertaken by the main characters, but it doesn't really have any of the genre trappings.The film introduces all the jungle staples, including piranhas, crocodiles, monkeys etc. but doesn't do anything with them. There's one fun moment in which our heroes look like they're going to be tortured (by ants, amongst other things) but it cuts off at the last minute. Then there's the usual round of grub-munching and fish swimming into private places, but such scenes seem to be played for laughs rather than horror.The casting is really dire in this film – there's nobody you ever heard of, except Sal Borgese. Why is it that when lip-synching got better, the dubbing got worse? Still, the actors are as lifeless as their characters, and for those who think modern Hollywood blockbusters are dumbed down, you should see this film's script! So, finally, is there any reason to watch this film? I have to admit that there are some cool props – the heads in jars are just plain bizarre, whilst the skeleton in the burial mound is suitably icky. There's plenty of native nudity on hand as well, especially a young girl who parades around topless for most of the movie. There are about three or four action sequences, usually involving our heroes escaping from smugglers or other myriad bad guys, but they're poorly shot and not at all entertaining. The film's "big" ending is a battle between Indians and gun-toting bad guys, and is actually quite cool, with some hilarious jungle traps flying about in the air. Sadly, it all comes as too little, too late.Obviously, making this film was a major effort; the jungle locations are authentic, and there's no set-bound foliage on display here. So if director Climati (incidentally, the guy who wrote and directed SAVAGE MAN, SAVAGE BEAST in the '70s – what is it with this guy and his animal obsession?) bothered to get his cast all the way into the jungle, why didn't he make more of an effort to make a remotely plausible, plotted film? The answer will forever be a mystery.

metalrage666 Basically I can begin by simply stating that this movie was totally abysmal. It's a slap in the face to the albeit small cannibal sub-genre that lives among horror/exploitation movies.This movie is a total pox on what cannibal movies are supposed to be. How can this be called Cannibal Holocaust when there is not one ounce of cannibalism in it?The movie starts off relatively OK, and it's a stock standard affair in the premise of going to the jungle region in the first place, however after 30 minutes, tedium begins to mount and you start to realise that very little, if anything, is actually going to happen.The movie almost starts to redeem itself when the natives suddenly turn on the group of four and tie them up in various positions and set about their regimen of torture. One of the guys is pinned to the ground and they place an ants nest on him, so you prepare yourself for what you think is going to be a rather painful death, but they managed to talk their way out their predicament, he gets up, brushes off the ants and the movie continues as normal. The natives forget all about the group as they are now more interested in a tape recorder playing jungle sounds!! What the hell??Very little of this movie actually makes any sense, and it appears to be a culmination of several half-finished scripts all thrown together. I can live with the bad acting, as this was to be expected, I can even live with the poor filming and sound quality, but for a movie that was previously "banned" you expect it to be able live up to that kind of reputation. I gave this movie 2 stars based solely on actress Jessica Quintero who played the young native girl, Kuwala. Since I'm an Australian I thought they were calling her Koala, but in any case she was the only one who seemed to know what she was doing from the time she first showed up, and despite being naked for most of the time she was on-screen, She's really the only believable character in this drivel. Even the hammock loving villain who ordered the 3 guys to remove their pants to be threatened with castration via anaconda, seemed hardly able to maintain a straight face let-alone be capable as anything even remotely bad.The ending made about as much sense as the rest of this abomination. The woman of the group along the guy they were looking for suddenly take off in the seaplane without a word and head back to civilisation with a vague promise she'll return for the others. By way of an epilogue, you find out that she did come back after about 2 years! The movie just makes no sense and just plods along much like a high school play. Do yourselves a favour and avoid this movie. There are plenty of good cannibal movies out there, so get one of them instead.

reutersfriend Unfortunately, there are no "Cannibal", no "Holocaust" and actually no "II" in this movie. The story is something like BBC documentary supplied with poor and, in fact, unnecessary acting. It can't be compared to Deodato's "Cannibal Holocaust", the title of the subject is just the exploitation of Deodato's movie success. Even some rather natural and, frankly speaking, amazing scenes, for example, with strange fish crawling in aborigine's fundament or the reanimation of a monkey with the help of rubber tube can't save the movie from total failure, at least in my eyes.And I am sure that it will be completely useless and pretty disappointing for all Italian (cannibal) horror movies fans and for all that violence-lovers. And, for certain, it is not a must see movie for true cinemaddicts.

Moshing Hoods Antonio Climati is a man who will be remembered for one thing and one thing only: spectacularly contentious mondo films. During the 70s and early 80s, Climati produced a handful of some of the most unpleasant movies ever committed to celluloid, all in the name of "documentary". It was his 1976 film THIS VIOLENT WORLD that directly inspired some of the scenes in Deodato's exploitation classic CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, a film which dealt a critical blow to the mondo genre. With the similarities between mondo and the violent jungle travelogue approach of the classic cannibal movie, it seems only fitting that Climati would finally try his hand at it too. Ironically, his film has clearly been strongly influenced by CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, right down to the title...Cannibal movie fans will immediately recognise the plot devices used in THE GREEN INFERNO from Deodato and Lenzi's past frolics in the jungle. However, it had one main difference- it was made ten years after the "golden era" of the genre. This is greatly reflected in the violence of the movie, which is enormously toned down. Whilst the "westerners captured by natives" plot remains perfectly in line with the most generic cannibal movie, there is no actual cannibalism in the picture and gore is kept to an absolute minimum. Similar to Deodato's CUT AND RUN, THE GREEN INFERNO treads the boards of a cannibal pictures whilst carefully avoiding cannibalism. This isn't the only cannibal convention that has been sacrificed here. One of the most controversial aspects of the genre is the depiction of cruelty against and the killing of animals. Amazingly in THE GREEN INFERNO, these are replaced with scenes of COMPASSION towards animals! In one scene, a monkey is revived by the exploring party... and in total shades of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, at another point, a turtle is pulled out of a water tank, only to be replaced unharmed.One has to wonder what Climati's intentions were. The awkward "anti-animal cruelty" stance that the movie seems to adopt would be easier to appreciate if one hadn't seen Climati's previous work. Movies such as SAVAGE MAN... SAVAGE BEAST positively reveled in horrifically drawn-out scenes of animal killing, so what could have changed in the meantime? In honesty, many of the animal scenes are still clearly cruel and putting the subjects under distress. This makes Climati's stance quite transparent. I honestly believe he was attempting to criticise the cannibal genre just as Deodato had damningly and directly criticised him in the past. This was also coupled with the chronological fact that audiences were simply less willing to watch animals being butchered with machetes by the time this flick was made.As a movie, THE GREEN INFERNO is competently made yet somewhat forgettable. It has the same atmosphere as the earlier genre entries, but comes across as being rather watered down. The sound-track, photography and dialogue are all utterly perfunctory, and besides the animal issues mentioned already, a genre veteran can quite easily predict the entire plot after a few short minutes. However, in a way it is a fittingly odd end to an extremely strange genre of exploitation cinema- anaemic, bitter, and self-referentially critical.