MovieChat Forums > Cannibal Holocaust (1985) Discussion > Quite rightly, the animal cruelty contin...

Quite rightly, the animal cruelty continues to provoke angry responses

posted 12 years ago by iainhammer
7 replies | jump to latest

I'm sick and tired of the "so what, we kill animals for food" argument fans of the movie raise when faced with outraged criticism of the turtle slaughter.

And no, it's NOT what "we do anyway", as someone on this board said in a dull-witted attempt to rationalize the animal cruelty in CH.
"We" who, exactly? Many millions of us don't eat animals. And yes, that includes me.

And what's a carnivore's diet got to do with the vicious tormenting and killing of the other animals in this despicable, foul insult to the very notion of Exploitation Horror, this movie that exists for no other purpose than to give fanboys a few titillating jollies to test their revulsion thresholds?

[–] gax001 12 years ago

Slaughtering animals is not torture,I would like to torture you so you know what the word means

Possessed by homicide is what i'm obsessed

[–] ScorpionTDC 11 years ago

There was definitely no excuse to have actual, RL animal killings occur

Death Awaits you (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/

[–] Starcraft_90 11 years ago

The fact that this movie is still wildly popular in the underground and is still talked about endlessly proves the director made a timeless movie that will be around for long after these animals have died, thus bringing invaluable discussions to the table as what is okay and not okay, what is humane, and what should and shouldn't be censored..

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] panthersrulenfl69 10 years ago

Actually they ate the animals that was the reason for killing them did they need to film it not necessarily but they did is what it is.

Welcome to primetime b*tch

[–] CharmingAss_hole 10 years ago

^^Jesus f_uck, have you ever heard of punctuation?

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe f_uck yourself.

[–] Bobby Briggs Briganza 10 years ago

I agree with you that this practice is unethical. And I, too, think that the argument of “we kill animals anyway” is weak.

However, I am not about to get angry about a film of the past -- history, so to speak.

This was fairly par for the course for 70s movies. (I know it wasn’t made in the 70s technically, but it’s of that “era.”) After so much that came before and was going on, people seem to have been desensitized.

Currently, we tend to be more sensitive, and rightly so.

Having recently realized that the actor who played the professor was a big porn actor, I tend to reflect on this film as akin to porn. Both engage in something “bad”; they trend dangerous ethical ground.

Let’s not glorify the film. However, again, I refuse to focus on this aspect and trash the movie simply because of the dubious ethical choices made in that atmosphere and time of film making.

One of the later re-makes of this, on video -- I forget if it was from the 1990s or 2000 -- again includes an animal killing, which I found more upsetting because it is out of step with its time.

I think there’s room for a few “bad” films, assuming they have some other merit. But I wouldn’t be happy to see a habit of such films being made.

Your film gods: Lee Van Cleef and Laura Gemser
http://tinyurl.com/pa4ud44