Cannibal Ferox

"Cannibal Ferox" is the story of a junior anthropologist, whom brings her brother and a friend into the amazonian jungle in an effort to disprove cannibalism. Along the way they meet Mike and Joe, two dealers on the run from the mob, whom have also angered the natives of the jungle. In classic cannibal sub genre style, the home team takes bloody revenge on the entire lot.

Given the other reviews, I was expecting a warmed over copy of "Cannibal Holocaust". Though there are obvious parallels between the two (the theme of the so called "civilized" being the bringers of barbariety, the direction style used in the jungle scenes, gratuitous animal cruelty and small roles for both Richard Bolla and Perry Pirkanen), there's a vast difference in tone between the two films.

While "Cannibal Holocaust" was relentlessly sadistic, "Cannibal Ferox" plays a variation on the theme with it's underlying bits of horror camp.

The main characters' descent into jungle murder and madness is marked by classic horror bad decision making (How does not finding cannibals in one isolated village somehow disprove the entire phenomenon's existence? Why stay and camp in a village that has a decaying corpse hanging in town square? What's sexy about a mud covered coke fiend? The world may never know.), and their gruesome fates are sealed fairly early on, for sheer bold stupidity if nothing else.

Giovanni Radice rips through his role with almost gleeful bug eyed abandon, Zora Kerova is the obligatory slutty blonde whom meets a nasty end, with Lorraine DeSalle playing straight woman to the other leads hamming it up.

"Ferox" has buckets of blood for the gorehounds, but other than the animal scenes, it's not nearly as real looking as "Holocaust". This is not a detraction to the film, but fits into the low rent quirky tone very nicely, further complimented by the incogruous 70's wah wah music used throughout.

Overall, a fine example of grindhouse horror, worth repeated viewing and seven stars. 1 star detracted by the obvious filler New York sub plot (only bright spot is another delightfully trashy performance by Mr. Bolla), 1 star for being a bit slowly paced, 1 star for a bit too much of the heart of "Cannibal Holocaust" being cannibalized by this otherwise enjoyable film for fans of the more extreme horror romps.

You can't take it seriously. It's really silly, poorly acted and really cheesey in parts. But it does have a hefty bucket load of blood to keep gorehounds like my good self happy. Make sure to see it uncut, because to be honest, there isn't much else going for it(!) I just wish they left the animals alone in these films. But keep your eyes out for the highlights; the unfortunate John Morghen, who has his manhood sliced clean off and eaten by one of the Cannibals. This film is not as bad as it is supposed to be, though.

Otherwise a good Cannibal flick, better than the rest of them, but naturally nowhere near as good as Deodato's masterpiece - Cannibal Holocaust, which sits safely on it's throne.

The film begins with the murder of a drug addict in an unknown apartment by some gangsters looking for a man named Mike Logan. As the police begin their investigation into the shooting, the action relocates to the Paraguayan jungle, where two students, Gloria (Lorraine De Selle) and Rudy (Danilo Mattei), and one tag-along Pat (Zora Kerova) are making their way into the heart of the jungle looking for native tribes who have been accused of cannibalism. Gloria is out to disprove the claims of cannibalism for her dissertation, and after they come across two mangled bodies of tribesmen, they also come across Mike Logan carrying his injured partner Joe (Walter Lucchini), who both claim to have been attacked by savage cannibals.

Between 1977 and 1981 there was a huge boom in cannibal films. They boasted exotic locations, horrific gore, real animal killings, and the threat of the unknown in the primitive tribes. It was Ferox's director Umberto Lenzi who kick-started the sub-genre with Deep River Savages in 1972, but they only really hit their stride in 1977, when the Grindhouse theatres were at their most popular. The cannibal genre died out pretty quickly, thankfully, as they represent everything that is ugly about the horror genre, and Cannibal Ferox, possibly the second most notorious after Cannibal Holocaust, is no exception.

The gore and violence is by no means convincing, or even disturbing, but it is clear from the off that the film's sole purpose is to be more repulsive than anything else before it. Multiple cocks are hacked off (and one is eaten - yummy), a woman is lifted into the air with fish- hooks through the breasts, there is an eye-gouging, and of course, no cannibal film would be complete without a bit of the ol' brain eating. This is all well and good and what can be expected from an Italian exploitation film at the height of the nasties era, but the animal killings are simply needless.

I always found myself defending Cannibal Holocaust for the animal cruelty, as that is a genuinely good film, and the horrific animal scenes really do add to the horrible and deeply unsettling atmosphere. But after seeing Ferox, I realised there is really no excuse for it. Regardless of the film's quality, there is no place for the pointless killing of animals. Radice refused to wield the knife during the pig- killing scene, and in the DVD commentary, director Lenzi said 'Robert De Niro would have done it!', to which Radice replied 'Robert De Niro would have told you to f**k off!'

Anyway, the film really is pretty damn awful. Why the action keeps shifting back to New York is anyone's guess. Mike is a wanted drug pusher that legged it off to Paraguay in search of cocaine and a fortune in gemstones, but surely knowing this is enough? There is a rescue attempt near the end that looks like joining the two stems together, but nothing comes of it. It seems to be there only to add a few more minutes onto the running time, allowing the film to render itself a feature. As you would expect, the acting/script/story is guff, but the strange thing is the moral message it seems to be putting out. When it revealed that Mike was lying and it was in fact him that attacked the tribe (shock horror), it seems to be a 'don't judge a book by it's cover' type message. But when the tribe acts out their revenge, they revel in the torturing.

Well anyway, the real torture victim was me, who had to sit through this. There's a few more cannibal films to get through for the nasties project (maybe I'll leave them to Marc), and although I'll welcome (if that's the right word) another viewing of Cannibal Holocaust, I have to say that I would be happy not to have to sit through another cannibal film. And there's always the Mondo sub-genre I suppose!

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

I just finished watching this movie, and it actually wasn't bad. The acting was a little cheesy and the plot was at first corny but it eventually picked up and became what it was supposed to be, a gory hard to watch cannibal movie. I didn't enjoy or was not happy with the animal deaths, but the movie was supposed to be shocking and hard to watch, and that is definitely what those scenes were. It had very good gore effects for 1981. The brain eating, the stomach eating, the hooked girl, and the other scenes of cannibalism were gross and pretty hard to watch. I guess I'm a gorehound, but most movies never really deliver on gore in my opinion. This one did, and that was all ready enough for it to be good. I also like the idea that the cannibals are not the real bad guys, and that we are. If you are a fan of horror movies, especially low budget exploitation horror, then this movie is for you. If you have a weak stomach then do not see this. Still haven't seen cannibal holocaust or any other Italian cannibal film sadly, so I don't have anything to compare this to.

This is one of the better cannibal boom films out there. Umberto Lenzi does a great job with the directing of this movie.

Bong it up and burn it down.