Anthropophagous 2000

this really shouldn't work. it's shot on video which is always a bad thing, the acting is bad - especially when the actors try speaking English. the sex scenes are laughable - the type where characters bonk away without removing their underwear apparently.

the gore is badly done too - it makes blood feast look professional! people having their insides pulled out by the villain just seem to be standing there and allowing him to do it!

despite this, it's good fun - the gore (despite it's low quality) is yucky and even funny and there's lots to see in the film - it's made with enthusiasm.

worth a watch with pre knowledge of how bad it all is.

I will never understand why anyone would like to do a remake of MAN EATER, but this direct to video does fine in recreating the non-stop gore-approach of the original.

It's from a gorehound for gorehounds (only).

From a technical point of view the movie is okay. Storywise it is stupid as hell. But who cares if you got all that lovely killings? Me. - That's why I only vote a 5/10.

This is a remake of the classic Joe D'amato, George Eastman film "Anthropophagus". The movie is about a man, wife and child who are shipwrecked out at sea. After days without any food the man goes crazy and eats his family. Upon return to his home town (the little boat they were on somehow brought him back) he murders and eats everyone in the town. Sometime later a group of tourists come to the town only to discover the horror of what has happened.

This was a good remake in many ways and a bad in only a few. First I should start with the gore. The original film was gory for the time but pales in comparison to a movie like "The Beyond" or "Zombi 2". The remake, however, is one of the goriest films ever. Schnaas takes the role of the beast in the movie and kills people in many innovative ways. For instance, he bashes someones face in (literally) with a rock and then disembowels him. Then a later scene he gains the power to remove a womens head with his own hands making it look pretty easy. And of course two of the most controversial scenes are in the movie taken right from the original.

Second, the acting was actually not bad for a movie filmed with what looks like a camcorder. The main stars of the movie play their roles appropriately even if the script is a bit dry.

Now my only complaint with this film was it was missing the utter dread that made the original movie so good. This movie is not creepy at all. Although, I will say it's always dreadful to see someone being chopped to pieces with an ax but I am mainly talking about the atmosphere. It was very bland but the movie more than makes up for it with the gore scenes which lets's face it, make this movie.

I would have to say I love this film and recommend it to anyone that is a shock/gore fanatic. 8/10 stars

In this retelling of Joe D'Amato's cult classic 'Antropophagus' from the 80's, a marooned lunatic preys upon hapless teenagers.

Joe D'Amato was, in all honesty, not the best director. Carving his name in a niche market of extremely gory and often hardcore pornographic films, his status diminished more and more, until he died of a heart attack in 1999. Mostly, he is remembered for his morally and stylistically repugnant films like the 'Ator' and 'Emanuelle' series, in particular 'Emanuelle in America', but also for his bizarre horror efforts, such as 'Buio Omega' or the aforementioned 'Antropophagus'.

So already you have a sort of love him or hate him situation. Andreas Schnaas evidently despised him, because where 'Antropophagus' was offensive, 'Anthropophagous 2000' is inept and borderline unwatchable.

It all becomes very clear when you sit through a love scene between a long-haired weirdo and his girlfriend who looks like Chong Li from 'Bloodsport'. The, dare I say, dialogue is laughably bad and sometimes totally inaudible. After the scummy sex scene, they are both murdered by our main antagonist, Nikos Karamanlis. The sex is ugly, the gore is over the top and the acting is ludicrous, but you knew that already.

The question is, is it worth it?

No. D'Amato's films were pretty terrible, but like many other video nasties and exploitation films from that time, they have a certain twisted charm, especially some of the soundtracks.

'Anthropophagous 2000' has virtually no redeeming qualities. You will probably laugh a few times, but I doubt that was Schnaas intention. The exposition delivered by the titular cannibal in particular is just unbelievably bad.

Not uncommon for Schnaas. Part of a burgeoning scene scene in the 80's, his previous efforts such as 'Violent Sh*t' or 'Zombie 90' are funnier than this, but technically even worse. Other well known members of this movement were Jörg Buttgereit and Olaf Ittenbach. Both have made vastly superior films to anything Schnaas has ever done.

Now it probably sounds like I'm knocking him pretty hard, but the truth is, you can absolutely watch 'Anthropophagous 2000'. My advice would be to get highly intoxicated first.

Not Schnaas' best work ( which is Violent Shit 2) but all in all ok. As always the "actors" are crap, but that's not the essential thing in his movies. The effects are the most important thing in Schnass' production, and they are really great in this one. There's actually not that much gore in it, but the scenes that made it are super and the baby-eating scene is no less than brilliantly sick and twisted... just as we like it!!! I wonder what Schnaas could do with a Pearl Harbor budget!?