BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Leofwine_draca An overview of Italian cinema reveals a rich history packed with fantastic movies. First coming into prominence in the 1950s, with a series of epics, Biblical and otherwise, the 1960s saw the floodgates open with hundreds of sword and sandal and spaghetti western movies pouring into the world market. In the 1970s, the Italians made the thriller genre their own, splitting it into two sub-genres (the polizia and giallo film) and adding oodles of violence. Finally, the period 1980 to 1985 saw a final explosion of cheap-as-hell exploitation films to mark Italian cinema's dying days; the rip-off was the most popular type of film, with dozens of post-holocaust, horror, science fiction and fantasy movies released during these years. Sadly, post 1985, Italian genre cinema has been dull and derivative, lacking even a decent low budget; pretty much every film is a stinker.So here we have the backdrop for CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST II, a supposed sequel to the classic 1979 horror film by Ruggero Deodato, which reached new heights in violence and disturbed everyone who saw it. This sequel comments on the real-life animal cruelty of the original film, by having numerous sequences of our heroes rescuing animals, rather than slaughtering them! Otherwise, the two films are unconnected. CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST II is as lifeless and worthless a horror film as you could expect; in fact, there's no horror to be seen at all, and barely any violence or gore. What kind of film is it then? Well, it could best be classed as an adventure I suppose, charting as it does a massive journey undertaken by the main characters, but it doesn't really have any of the genre trappings.The film introduces all the jungle staples, including piranhas, crocodiles, monkeys etc. but doesn't do anything with them. There's one fun moment in which our heroes look like they're going to be tortured (by ants, amongst other things) but it cuts off at the last minute. Then there's the usual round of grub-munching and fish swimming into private places, but such scenes seem to be played for laughs rather than horror.The casting is really dire in this film – there's nobody you ever heard of, except Sal Borgese. Why is it that when lip-synching got better, the dubbing got worse? Still, the actors are as lifeless as their characters, and for those who think modern Hollywood blockbusters are dumbed down, you should see this film's script! So, finally, is there any reason to watch this film? I have to admit that there are some cool props – the heads in jars are just plain bizarre, whilst the skeleton in the burial mound is suitably icky. There's plenty of native nudity on hand as well, especially a young girl who parades around topless for most of the movie. There are about three or four action sequences, usually involving our heroes escaping from smugglers or other myriad bad guys, but they're poorly shot and not at all entertaining. The film's "big" ending is a battle between Indians and gun-toting bad guys, and is actually quite cool, with some hilarious jungle traps flying about in the air. Sadly, it all comes as too little, too late.Obviously, making this film was a major effort; the jungle locations are authentic, and there's no set-bound foliage on display here. So if director Climati (incidentally, the guy who wrote and directed SAVAGE MAN, SAVAGE BEAST in the '70s – what is it with this guy and his animal obsession?) bothered to get his cast all the way into the jungle, why didn't he make more of an effort to make a remotely plausible, plotted film? The answer will forever be a mystery.

metalrage666 Basically I can begin by simply stating that this movie was totally abysmal. It's a slap in the face to the albeit small cannibal sub-genre that lives among horror/exploitation movies.This movie is a total pox on what cannibal movies are supposed to be. How can this be called Cannibal Holocaust when there is not one ounce of cannibalism in it?The movie starts off relatively OK, and it's a stock standard affair in the premise of going to the jungle region in the first place, however after 30 minutes, tedium begins to mount and you start to realise that very little, if anything, is actually going to happen.The movie almost starts to redeem itself when the natives suddenly turn on the group of four and tie them up in various positions and set about their regimen of torture. One of the guys is pinned to the ground and they place an ants nest on him, so you prepare yourself for what you think is going to be a rather painful death, but they managed to talk their way out their predicament, he gets up, brushes off the ants and the movie continues as normal. The natives forget all about the group as they are now more interested in a tape recorder playing jungle sounds!! What the hell??Very little of this movie actually makes any sense, and it appears to be a culmination of several half-finished scripts all thrown together. I can live with the bad acting, as this was to be expected, I can even live with the poor filming and sound quality, but for a movie that was previously "banned" you expect it to be able live up to that kind of reputation. I gave this movie 2 stars based solely on actress Jessica Quintero who played the young native girl, Kuwala. Since I'm an Australian I thought they were calling her Koala, but in any case she was the only one who seemed to know what she was doing from the time she first showed up, and despite being naked for most of the time she was on-screen, She's really the only believable character in this drivel. Even the hammock loving villain who ordered the 3 guys to remove their pants to be threatened with castration via anaconda, seemed hardly able to maintain a straight face let-alone be capable as anything even remotely bad.The ending made about as much sense as the rest of this abomination. The woman of the group along the guy they were looking for suddenly take off in the seaplane without a word and head back to civilisation with a vague promise she'll return for the others. By way of an epilogue, you find out that she did come back after about 2 years! The movie just makes no sense and just plods along much like a high school play. Do yourselves a favour and avoid this movie. There are plenty of good cannibal movies out there, so get one of them instead.

Helltopay27 I didn't come into this movie with high expectations. I knew it was essentially a spoof of the cannibal genre, I knew there was no actual cannibalism, and I knew that the violence and action was incredibly low. Upon watching it, I realized that those missing elements were the only things that could have saved it. I couldn't believe what I was watching. I was more than disappointed; I was dumbfounded. Antonio Climati, a man notorious for Mondo cinema, which has some of the most disturbing and violent images ever put to celluloid, makes a movie that some high school kids could make. There's hardly any worthwhile action in this movie. It's not toned down; it's non-existent. I've seen more from a PG movie, let alone from the cannibal genre. Not to revel in the violence, but that's what you expect from these movies, and it at least makes for an entertaining movie experience. This, however, leaves you watching a movie with people rowing down the river, laughing, in no real danger (for the most part), strutting in Amazonia with the most clichéd plot and events. Even worse, Climati seems to be attacking Deodato, the same way Deodato attacked him with Cannibal Holocaust, by insulting him for his treatment of animals! That would make more sense if he wasn't a Mondo man! The whole ordeal opens with Jemma getting Pete, Mark, and Fred to come down to the Amazon, because she has a good hunch that some Professor Korenz, who was believed dead, is still alive. They come down to this small town looking for a guide. When he refuses, they go on the search for gas instead. This is where Climati starts his awkward, "animals are our friends" stance. When Pete resuscitates a monkey for a monkey trapper, the trapper decides to give them gas if they get him monkeys. Pretty dumb, but I've seen worse in better movies. Well, once they catch some monkeys, the natives get ticked and decide to "torture" them by making them pretend like they're monkeys and see how it feels. So they offer the natives a tape recorder if they let them go (Cannibal Holocaust, anyone?). When they finally reach this native village they're looking for, they find that gold hunters have been through and tortured the natives for information about the Imas tribe and their treasure. Of course, they must put a stop to this. On the way, they meet a horny river fisherman and child smugglers until they finally face off against the treasure hunters when they find the professor and his tribe. They leave the jungle feeling proud, like they found really themselves in the whole adventure. How incredibly corny can you get?!I'm not going to analyze the faulty animal rights and cannibal genre morality, as it's so self-evident that there's no more discussion needed. That said, if you come into this movie with any expectations at all, you're going to be horribly disappointed, because there is so little substance to this film. As already mentioned, the plot is very cliché, and it's easy to figure out the main characters make it through. What isn't cliché is the array of completely random and confusing events that show up throughout. Instead of sticking with the actual story, you get lost in unnecessary and extremely boring side plots of different struggles and sequences cropping up, and by the time it gets back on track, the movie's almost over! They seem to be looking for this professor, but all the while they encounter child smugglers, gold hunters, and other bad-boys ruining the natives' way of life. These random events makes there very little action at all, because every ten minutes there's something new to focus on. There's no time to gain any interest. As a result, it's a very boring movie experience. A corny one, too, as it has the same set up of an inspiring children's movie. Being the "good-guys," our group has to take a moral stand to stop the "bad-guys," following nothing but their conscience. They're personality consists of everything right, and whatever could be misconstrued as bad they completely avoid. It makes them the stereotypical, happy, and extremely annoying do-gooders just because they have to be (and they're all best friends, how nice). There's no character development or any attempt at twists or turns, and it leaves a very bland aftertaste.Even if Climati was trying to take a jab at Deodato and his genre, he could have still done it by making a better movie. Besides, he'd be attacking Deodato by using the same tactics Deodato was condemning! This anti-animal cruelty act would make a lot more sense if he didn't make Mondo films that the highlight of the movies was animal violence. The only way this could insult Deodato is by associating his film with it by naming it Cannibal Holocaust II. Maybe that was the point: he was trying to make the cannibal films look so damn bad that it would destroy the genre, like Deodato was able to annihilate Climati's Mondo world with Cannibal Holocaust. In fact, this wrecks any adventure movie by forcing them to share a genre with it. Besides the technical problems in morality, the movie itself is awful, as there are no noteworthy aspects what-so-ever, and the plot couldn't get any sappier or cornier. What's most disappointing is that it's very obvious that this movie has great potential. New decisions, such as better actors and different events were needed to pull it off. You'll be bored to tears (and frustrated as hell) with Cannibal Holocaust II, so only see it if you're a cannibal completionist (though this isn't a cannibal movie, per-se) or are incredibly curious beyond belief.

dung_rat Anything usually associated Deodato's original Cannibal Holocaust will conjure up images of severe violence, real animal cruelty, and pure visceral shock.When Cannibal Holocaust 2 reached the shops here in the UK (released by the 'weak' VIPCO label) it seemed like a rather intriguing title. Having only been cut by a few seconds (according to the BBFC) I was expecting something rather extreme, to say the least.This film is simply incomparable with Deodato's. Again, no cannibalism is shown whatsoever and what exists is, to quote my title, extremely diluted. The acting and (alarmingly) bad dubbing makes this film seem emphatically laughable. There is nothing worth analysing here and the only reason to review this film is to shame it. A hyperbolic blood-bath would have done the trick more than this!Protagonists driving around in 'monster' trucks...stealing amphibious aircraft...playing trumpets while canoeing down the amazon...sound terrible so far? The problem is, it continues to get worse by the minute. Anyone expecting a crescendo of violence at the film's 'climax' is going to be very disappointed. It makes you question why this film was given an '18' certificate. Blow-darting monkeys...fish swimming up natives rectums...getting worse...and the cherry on top: a vomit inducing 'happy ending' whereby all characters seem to find some form of happiness after parading around the jungle like a prize set of ignorant s**ts! If only I could have returned this and got my money back. It is fair that this sub-genre of film is a marginal one but this is, without a doubt, absolute garbage.