O Antropófago

I first saw this in the mid 80s on a vhs. Revisited it recently on YouTube. The picture quality is good n its the uncut version.

The movie starts with a brutal meat cleaver scene then becomes very slow n downright tedious. After that for almost one hour nothing happens.

The rubber mask head n the intestines r unintentionally funny.

The last twenty mins contains the two nasty scenes coz of which this film earned the video nasty label. The cinematography is good. The island location is able to capture an eerie atmosphere. The abandoned town, the alleys n the cemetery added to it's creepiness but the end product is boring.

The killer's tilted bald head is actually laughable. Eastman in a non dialogue role is a big lol.

In one scene while the killer is munching on the fetus, one character is shown injured but what happens to that character is never explained. In another scene the killer spares the blind girl. Wtf man. In the well scene, a hand suddenly pops up n pulls a girl inside. The well is more than half empty n i cant understand how the killer is able to come up n pull the girl into the well and in the next scene he is in the water which is much further down.

Well, I FINALLY got to see this infamous shocker after hearing about it for years. 'Antropophagus' a.k.a. 'The Grim Reaper' is one of the most despised and loathed of all the so-called "video nasties", and director Joe D'Amato seems to be regarded as little more than a figure of fun for many. The people who hate this movie usually call it "boring", "dull", "too slow", and so on for the most part, and then complain about the bad taste of the two infamous gore scenes towards the end. One involving a pregnant woman, the other the killer. I won't go into any detail regarding either scene so as to not lessen their shock value. Now, the strange thing is I inadvertently watched the DVD of 'The Grim Reaper' which cut both of these scenes out, and while I was sorely disappointed not seeing them, I didn't find the rest of the movie dull at all. In fact I thought the movie managed to create quite an effective feeling of dread and suspense throughout. While I don't think the movie is as strong as Fulci's 'Zombie' (which also starred Tisa Farrow), I enjoyed it a lot more than say, 'Zombie Holocaust', which is generally rated higher by many hard core horror fans. So make of that what you will. My advice though is try and see the original uncut 'Antropophagus' for maximum effect.

A lot has been said about Anthrophagus' excellent special effects and for good reason. The film comes to life when it's showcasing decapitated heads in buckets or scalps being ripped off. When it's just following around our cardboard characters, it suffers and can't muster any suspense or even decent character drama to keep us invested until the next inevitably gruesome death sequence.

The silly music score doesn't help much in conjuring a mood or sense of dread and, in fact, the U.S. version (under the title The Grim Reaper) has a much more effective score that uses various library cues. I'd recommend on the U.S. cut if it weren't for a lot of the special effects being trimmed (including the infamous fetus eating scene).

If you're only here for the guts, Anthrophagus is worth your time, but if you want a little more substance, look elsewhere.

I originally watched this on SKY a few years back and I enjoyed it then as I did this time around.

That's right I said I enjoyed it and judging by low scores on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, I think I'm in the minority.

The worst thing about this film is the soundtrack. To say it's dreadful would be doing an injustice to the term understatement. There are a couple of scenes where the music sets the mood perfectly... but it is only a couple. The rest of the time the audience is assailed with a manic Wurlitzer pianist - I actually had a vision of an old time theatre (back in the silent movie days) and a man, half-crossed between The Phantom Of The Opera and The Joker, going insane of the ebony and ivories... all it lacked was a maniacal laugh.

Apart from that what the writers Joe D'Amato (Director) and George Eastman (Actor) give the audience is a new take on both the Cannibal and Zombie legends, by giving you Nikos Karamanlis, a man turned beast who is something other than alive and with a penchant for human flesh. He acquired this evil and unnatural taste after he and his family were shipwrecked... when you're miles from anywhere and starving you have to eat.

This is so much better than his follow on movie Absurd, which also fell foul of the dreaded Video Nasty title and banning.

The acting is above average. Tisa Farrow (Mia Farrow's sister) who gave a well-disposed portrayal of Julie, a student on her way to a Greek island and summer job. Along with Saverio Vallone who gives an affable portrayal of Andy, the unheralded leader of the group, these two hold the film together. Even the mostly silent Eastman as The Beast does a decent job of being menacing and actually uses his size and facial features to add power and unease (wish he'd done the same in Absurd)

For the time the effects are more than passable, the only let down is Eastman's "Beast" face as it looks like somebody has spilt cold porridge over him. Most of the dead look nasty enough, with decaying skin and maggots writhing in eye sockets. The scene with the rats would have looked more realistic had they not covered a skeleton in spam... they could have added more blood to disguise the fact - go Herschell-Lewis on them.

One thing that did impress me is most of the scenes are shot in daylight and D'Amato still builds a sense of tension and unease. The scene where Arnold is looking for his pregnant wife Maggie and stumbles into a clearing by a ruinated abbey sent a shiver down my spine. You can actually feel something watching him.

There is more to this film than I originally thought and I would recommend it to all horror fans who haven't seen it yet. And I will be watching this again in the future.

I tend to shy away from Joe D'Amato's more sleaze & sex orientated efforts. But I don't mind giving his horror outings a watch. Up until now, I thought "Buio Omega" (aka "Beyond The Darkness") was about the only film I found to really live up to its notorious reputation, while still being a reasonably good film. And as far as I'm concerned, after just having watched "Atropophagus", it still is the only one. Plain and simple, "Antropophagus" was a mild disappointment of the boring kind. It couldn't fascinate me the way "Buio Omega" did, mainly because it drags in so many places, it becomes tedious very quick. So, a bunch of characters on a holiday - all good folks, as they don't drink alcohol, they don't smoke, do drugs or have sex either - get stranded on a Greek island. Not ship wrecked, just stranded as they loose their boat. They find an abandoned village, decide to spend the night there, and rather later than sooner, some mysterious killer starts abducting and killing them off one by one. It takes even longer for them to figure out exactly what's going on behind their backs.

Now, D'Amato sure knows how to present us grisly images, creepy settings and at times inject his film with a bit of atmosphere. He also knows how to make gore look good on screen. But building up tension, clearly isn't his strongest skill (he does try, but doesn't really succeed). Also, the man has absolutely no clue how to make a decent film (with an interesting plot or how to construct a proper mystery) nor does he know how to get on with the story. The acting is awful, the dialogues are close to moronic and the movie suffers too often from scenes in which nothing is going on, really, and even senseless & illogical things occur. Like for instance, those two guys deciding to leave the village to go down to the beach to try and look for someone who was still left on the boat. Now, instead of walking down the hill, to the sea, one of them is suddenly seen walking up the mountain for no apparent reason, only to find some ruins of a castle. Him finding them by coincidence, is very convenient to the plot, of course, as it proves to be one of the hideouts of George Eastman, our demented Cannibal Man from the title of this film. And when it comes to his character, I'll admit I was thankful they gave him some sort of background story, as to why he became what he is. Though it was a very thin explanation, with little info and no elaborations, at least there was one. That did put my fear for this being merely a film about an unknown cannibalistic lunatic (of whom we learn nothing) on some island to rest.

On the other hand, the subplot about the mysterious woman in black was severely - shamefully, even - underused. Of course, you suspect from the get-go that she has certain ties with Eastman's character, but all she ever does, is stand behind a couple of windows. Well, actually, she does something else too (later on in the film), her act making up for a fine, short-lived scene. But what she does, doesn't add anything to her character, nor the story. To switch to a positive note again, Eastman's make-up was good. It really succeeds in making him look gruesome and menacing.

Then there was that one scene, earlier in the film, when a couple was investigating a basement. Another highlight, that's at the same time also a low-point. Suddenly and very obviously, some set assistant out of frame, just throws a kitten on a piano. A fantastic fake jump scare, of course. Well done, D'Amato! But then, the real shock-scare comes on, and that one really is priceless. Behind our couple, is a barrel. Suddenly, a woman covered in blood from head to toe, jumps out, screaming, waving a knife. Great shock-moment, I agree. But only if you don't think about it. If you do, for a second, then explain this to me: The barrel was filled to the top with blood - I presume, or was it wine? Inside, was a woman (waiting to jump out). Now all that time our couple was searching the basement, that woman was holding her breath in that barrel of blood? Or was she drinking the wine? This is typically D'Amato throwing logic and plausibility out the window, only to favor presenting us his precious shock-moment. It turns a cool moment, into sheer stupidity.

The musical score was at times, uh, both amusing and interesting. The big mansion near the end was a great location. And the film had that typical late 70's/early 80's gritty feel to it. But it takes more than all this to make a good film, doesn't it? The couple of death scenes we do see, are fine and bloody, with decent make-up effects. And the two most notorious gory shock-moments (which only happen near the end), are well worth seeing. But the whole film really isn't worth sitting through just for that. You might just ask a friend who was the film, to show you the nasty bits and be done with it. But make sure it's the complete uncut version.

I understand the cult following this film has (D'Amato, George Eastman and the few gory bits, I imagine), and I am glad I finally saw it myself (it is kind of a must-see, if you are into obscure & vintage Italian exploitation horror). But I can't say I watched a good film here. I would like to flunk it, even, but looking at it from all possible perspectives, I find myself able to conclude that as an exploitive shock horror feature, trying to be sickening & unsettling (and hoping to upset your stomach), well... it does succeed. So there you have it.