Opiniones de usuarios

"The Savage Is Loose" is an exceptionally well made film, hence my score of 5. The acting is very good, the direction very nice and the story is interesting. However, it's also about incest...which isn't a topic that's bound to interest most viewers! Because of this, it's not at all surprising that the movie bombed at the box office....and imagine the surprise of those who watched it and didn't know that the film would be so Oedipal!

When the story begins, a family has been shipwrecked on some island. There's enough for them to eat but the chances of rescue seem very dim...and as the story goes, this seems even more unlikely. So, the father (George C. Scott) teaches the boy about survival...and over time, the kid grows into a sort of Tarzan wannabe. But as he ages, there is a HUGE problem...the only available sexual outlet is his mother...and you can rest assured the father isn't about to just hand her over to the frisky young man!

The film is realistic and surely Oedipal impulses would be a serious problem in such a situation. But it's also nasty...and something we really don't want to see in a movie...at least not the average person! Not a film I particularly enjoyed, though it's very well made.

This was a personal project of George C Scott. The early 1970s did see a lot of these personal projects because it was before the era of Jaws and Star Wars . They were eagerly bankrolled because the Industry was still under the spell of Easy Rider. Scott was infuriated that his film got an R rating . Still even one F bomb can do that in an otherwise clean film. The Savage is Loose is basically mediocre and it's exploration of a taboo subject is competent but not profound . The directing and cinematography is good . Scott , his wife Trish Van Devere and Lee Harcourt Montgomery do their roles very well . Still the film doesn't have that intangible X factor special something that would propel it into Classic or even Cult Classic status .

A shipwreck in 1905 leaves a university scientist, his wife and infant son shipwrecked on an island. Seven years later, the child is now a growing boy learning about nature and island wildlife from his father while his mother plays disciplinarian (she also seems to be cracking up, feeling hopeless and accusing her husband of enjoying their isolated predicament). Early on, Mom screams for the men to light the signal fire even though there's not a trace of ship smoke on the horizon; her husband gets caught up in the excitement, later shaking his head sadly as the fire dies out. Does he question her about it, or do they discuss her emotional and mental stability? No, they exchange silent looks at dinner time (and one gets the feeling this movie is going to last a long time). A colossal flop for producer-director-star George C. Scott, who gives a pushy performance. Working from a screenplay fashioned by Max Ehrlich and Frank De Felitta--two very strong writers--Scott inevitably (though almost unbelievably) goes in for the Oedipus storyline; but why did this particular subject intrigue him...and why did he think it would intrigue us? Although Trish Van Devere (Scott's real-life wife) is an attractive, talented actress, I didn't buy her character for a second; that her son should mature and want her sexually isn't totally preposterous, though it is ludicrous the way Scott stages the action. I assume we're supposed to ask: if there's not another woman around, are incestuous feelings between a boy and his mother natural? It's heady subject matter, to be certain, but no one involved quite knows how to present it in this dramatic context. On the plus side, Gil Mellé has composed a nice score, and Alex Phillips Jr.'s cinematography is skillful. *1/2 from ****

when it came out. I was 20 years old (I am now 51 years old). I've never forgotten this movie in all these years. Now looking back, this was a subject matter that took a lot of guts to touch on way back then. Heck, incest would be a touchy subject matter even now! I saw it with my 2 sisters and I remember walking out of the movie 31 years ago just dumbstruck. Wow, what a story! I've never seen it in video stores and have never heard anything about it nor have I ever met anyone else that saw it back then when I did. (What did we do before the Internet?) If you ever get the chance to see it, do. I wouldn't watch it with any children under the age of 18. It's pretty graphic from what I can remember. And the ending, well, you just have to see it.

I watched this film when I was very young -- maybe 12; it was either a TV or cable movie then. Taped it, and had it for years. I sympathize with the other reviewer who said he showed it to his Taiwanese date -- my wife is Taiwanese, and somehow, I don't think she would like it either, though not due to prudishness. She's just not into savages, Tarzan-like figures, or Christianity. I did like this film when I was a kid -- and well into my 20s, but have not seen it since then (now in my later 40s). Yet, I still remember most of it vividly. Kudos to George C. Scott -- and I am very sorry for him that the film did not do better, but also I am in no way surprised. Many out-on-a-limb worthy efforts fail to win over the majority of viewers. (I recall my grandmother saying she walked out of A Clockwork Orange when she somehow went to see it in the theater in the early '70s -- and I loved that film too; still do.) I wonder how Savage would do now, if it were released on DVD in good quality. I would advise seeing it, especially to younger people with imagination, curiosity, and a capacity for deep thought. (I could not watch Scott in Day of the Dolphin, however -- not due to any acting problem, but because that film struck me as terribly heartrending -- I felt badly for the dolphins.) This one didn't trouble me a bit, except I wondered what would come next at the end.

This is one of the worst movies I've ever endured & 90% of the blame goes to the arrogance of the director & star, George C Scott. The remainder of the blame goes to the scriptwriter's unbelievably bad screen writing. As the 2 hours drag on for what seems an eternity, nothing happens except a sex showdown between the father's & the son's sex urges for wife & mother! The son could've just masturbated. The entire production is seedy, ridiculous & unbearable. Giving it 1 star is the best that can ge said for it. Avoid @ all cost unless you are a masochist who's into incest.

I really liked this movie when I saw it YEARS ago. Like others I have never forgot it. I have searched for "savage" (I forgot the title)for a long time. Not for children for sure. Rather erotic esp for the times. I would buy the VHS if I could find it. I was not a prude when I first saw the movie but I remember being slightly shocked by the content. I enjoyed the survival aspect of the movie. Georgia Scott would have to work hard to make a bad movie in my opinion. Looking for a copy of "The Saveage is Loose". I can not remember the mother/wife in the movie but I do remember that she was rather hot. There were several "surprise" moments in the movie including the ending that I would not want to give away. If you haven't seen it and are rather open minded, do your self a favor and find it, and if you do please tell me where you found it.

Upon taking a final cursory glance at the dusty back shelves of a semi-local video store going out of business, already with an armful of moldy oldies such as "House on the Edge of the Park" and "Slime City" (at five bucks a piece), I caught sight of this long out of print study in Oedipal politics set on a jungle island where a young boy, taught to obey the rules of the wild, discovers that his only sexual partner is his sexy mother. So it's a battle of wills between he and his father to decide who, as Lou Reed said, can "bag their beloved Big Bird."

It's not anywhere near as kinky as it sounds; Mostly this takes the high dramatic road, and pulls it off reasonably well, although much of it's intentions are dampened by George C. Scott's inert direction.

On a final note, I would like to point out that I put down an original video copy of Larry Cohen's "It's Alive" to buy this one. Think I made the right choice?

Yeah I thought so.

This movie provides a family the basis for discussions regarding eternal human behavior usually impossible to begin with teenagers, male and female. While not a "remake" of Oedipus, teenagers will better understand the essence of their tensions from this experience.

You are warned to view this movie first as parents without the siblings. Then, if you are prepared to begin the transition of establishing an open relationship with your teenagers at an adult, not parental, level, view it together.