Animales racionales

My answer to the above question is: not necessarily. Before watching this movie, I had already seen any number of movies that contained nudity, sex, violence, blood and gore. The way this movie combines all of these elements may well be something many people haven't seen before. The biggest mistake here is in the casting. We have three characters. One woman and two men. Why not two women and one man? Why not three women and no men?! The situation is somewhat interesting. Three people who are the only survivors of a nuclear explosion. However, the story could have been done in a much more interesting and tasteful way. I never have a problem with nudity. Nudity, however, is much more appealing when it is not mixed in with rape, incest, and bestiality. The actress ( Carole Kirkham) is a beauty. Delightful to watch, with or without clothes. The movie undermines her beauty, by surrounding her with so much violence and vulgarity. I would like to see Carole (with or without clothes) in a different movie.

Things must go a lot quicker at a movie shoot when there's absolutely no dialog to remember or forget. This is certainly the case here. Movie starts with a number of nuclear explosions (stock footage from different eras) Then 3 people apparently have survived unscathed. The rest? Well the previous reviewer pretty much sums it up. The actress (Carole Kirkham) who never appeared in any other movie apparently, spent most of the movie running around half naked, which exited the men and the canine. The best performance was probably turned in by the canine as he managed to "take her" in the missionary position!!

I hope the 1-star rating doesn't convey hostility. Animales Racionales is like Plan 9, or The Room, insofar as it is a film that is fascinatingly, hilariously awful. It is mindbogglingly, jaw-droppingly terrible. It is a real talking piece, despite having no dialogue except for inarticulate yelping, yawping, hollering and guffawing. And barking - let's not forget the dog.

A portrait of what life was like on the Canary Islands before the tourists came? Well, not quite. A portrait of what the tourists might secretly be hoping for upon arrival on Lanzarote? Maybe yes.

The world is ravaged by nuclear meltdown. Three people, remarkably well dressed and tidy, survive. Or they just sort of turn up, unmarked, unscarred, dressed for a party. They don't seem to have any language. Brother and sister, the blondes, and the other guy. They roam around and try to scavenge. They eventually find a fruitful zone - it's all a bit Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve-y - and the dog, and an ocean to swim in. And they have sex, all three of them. And plenty of it. And it is even strongly implied that the dog mounts the woman as well. By the sounds of things, the dog is the best lover of the three.

No conversation. No dialogue except for various cackles and shrieks, and an impossibly busy, strident, overcooked orchestral soundtrack. Where in heavens name does all that music come from? I mean, this movie is basically no budget, not low budget. It's hard to believe there was even a script.

Now for the kicker. This really takes the boot. 1 hour 37 minutes. 97 minutes of the writer/director's fantasy of a new Eden after apocalypse. Not an entirely peaceful, conflict-free Eden, to be fair; the dog is in no mood to share after getting its turn on the blonde. And what of her opinion? Lots of lascivious, mischievous looks, and cackling. But seriously. 97 minutes! How can this film last so long with so little happening?

Give it some credit though. Despite having overblown symphonic music that doesn't fit the primitive world being shown, despite having no script, despite having sexual couplings that are too bizarre to be sexy, Animales Racionales is still a better and more entertaining movie than, say, Jeanne Dielman (1975), the purported, according to Sight & Sound magazine (2022), Best Movie Ever Made. I guess this bizarre post-Apocalyptic love-in is meant to be a makeout-movie (IMDB calls it a grindhouse). In which case, find yourself a second pair of lips and get stuck in. The movie can play in the background.

10/10 for sheer inexplicable daftheadedness.

You like weird movies? If you do, you must search this complete oddity out!

It involves 2 men, a woman and Larry the dog. The men have their turns and begin to fight over who is going to be the dominant male of the group. Only problem is "Woman" has picked someone else!?!? :)

This is not your conventional sci-fi. It plays with a very odd soundtrack and has no speech what so ever! What you do get is a lot of grunting, groaning and barking!!!

HUMAN ANIMALS is one of those arty exploitation films that no one would want to see, even if they had the opportunity. Its theme, the cultural regression of three people who survive a nuclear holocaust, is nothing new. These include a well-manicured young woman, a somewhat greasy and leering musician, and another young man who is apparently the woman's brother. They wake up on one of the Canary Islands after we witness an impressive library of stock atom bomb blasts. Almost immediately, they fall into neanderthal ways and spend most of the film fighting, having sex, grunting, and killing one another.

The ringer is that, in the windswept post-apocalyptic landscape, they find a resourceful German Shepherd dog that helps them find food. The dog observes the two men engaging in (sometimes non-consensual) sex with the woman and figures, why not join in? As ridiculous as that sounds, the dog and the woman do get it on, albeit in a scene that thankfully leaves much to the imagination. Thus, HUMAN ANIMALS is a must-see for bestiality fans and anyone who thinks they've seen it all.

Aside from that aberration, the rest of this charade is supremely pretentious. For example, the wind doesn't just blow, it practically knocks over the actors; a lush orchestral score plays over nearly every scene for no reason; an ocean spray signifies lust; there's even a silly "Adam and Eve" ending. Most irritatingly, there is no dialogue whatsoever. The actors awkwardly play the entire film in a kind of exaggerated pantomime.

As with the film's direct antecedents, Arch Oboler's FIVE (1951) and Ronald MacDougall's THE WORLD, THE FLESH, AND THE DEVIL (1959), the best scenes in HUMAN ANIMALS come very early on, in which the characters discover their planet's fate. But the comparison ends there. Try as they may, the makers of HUMAN ANIMALS cannot create a meaningful subtext beyond the implications of what a German Shepherd sees in the last woman on Earth.