|There weren't really any images from the film|
that I could use... image via the list
sick,sad,disgusting, (Yes, the acts depicted in the film are all those things. But the film is very much against these things happening.) I'm trying very hard to find something good to say about this atrocity (No. This isn't an atrocity. The Holocaust was an atrocity. This is just a film that shows simulated nasty things happening), sorry, cant! (The direction? The acting? The anti-consumerist, anti-fascist message? Surely the fact that you feel this strongly about the film means that it has done its job in eliciting an emotional reaction, suggesting that it did something right?), not clever (It most definitely is clever.), not art.definitely not sexy (It is art, and it never tried to be sexy. In fact it was going for the exact opposite. Pasolini wanted the audience to be sickened by what was happening. Not turned-on.),I now fell feel ashamed at watching this perverse rubbish never mind owning it (It's not perverse you moron. It shows perverse acts, but since the objective was not sexual gratification but horror, the film itself is immune to such claims). I regretfully say I bought a blu-ray version of this film and if any one wants it thy can have it. (If this wasn't from 2 years ago, and somebody else had already asked, I'd take you up on that kind offer.)Here we have another:
If your just looking for a 1970's soft porn, stay well clear. (It isn't a 1970s soft porn film though. Don't criticise it because you thought it was something that it just isn't, and never wanted to be. Also, have you even been to school? You're punctuation is so haphazard that I really cannot be sure.)
After having read positive and negative reviews of the infamous "Salo" for years i decided it was time to decide for myself. I mean it is directed by one of Italys most famous directors and apparently is a scathing criticism of fascism and study of the abuse of absolute power (Not 'apparently'. Is.). How bad could it be? How mistaken i was! There is nothing worse than exploitation being disguised as high class art (But this isn't exploitation. Exploitation cinema featured sex scenes to excite the audience, not disgust them. And the quality of the filmmaking alone is enough to raise Salò above the exploitation films). The stature of the director and his attempts at giving social meaning to abhorrent acts of evil makes the events which unfold all the more unpleasant (How does having a message to convey within the images make those images worse? That makes no sense at all). Make no mistake, Salo is as bad as anyone of the litany of cheap, exploitive films which dot the motion picture landscape, bringing to mind hideous films such as Cannibal Holocaust (I haven't seen Cannibal Holocaust, but as I said, this is far from one of those films). No film scholar or political professor can seriously argue that this film has any real social merit other then revelling in its well deserved title as one of the most vile films ever made. (And yet they do. Answer me that.)Here we have an even more in-depth look at the particular problems with this film...:
All biases aside (So you admit that you're biased then? Well done. Though I doubt this next bit will be truly unbiased either...), this film is nothing more than 117 minutes of continuous torture and sexual perversion directed at young people (I think you'll find that there are quite a lot of gaps between the upsetting images. Usually when the 'Narrators' are telling stories to get the men excited). Any socially responsible director can get his point across without feeling the need to wallow in this filth with questionably young actors being violated in nearly every way possible (You realise that they are acting don't you? They're not actually eating poo or being raped. All the actors knew what they were doing when they agreed to be in it.). I have no doubt that Passolini either was getting his jollies out of the action being performed in front of his camera or was suffering great mental illness in order to allow his cast to be degraded in this way (Ah. Good old libel. I think you'll find Pasolini was gay, with little interest in pornography. Indeed I feel pornography was very possibly one of the films targets.). It really is no wonder he was murdered shortly after completion of this film (Before it was released, he was indeed murdered. It seems likely however, that he was murdered by an extortionist. Not by one of his cast.). I am a movie buff (Clearly an idiot one...) and have seen films of all types and creeds and cannot find anything remotely redeeming or of importance in this film (Then you're either a moron, or not looking hard enough.). At least films like Cannibal Holocaust and Blood Sucking Freaks didn't pretend to be anything else. As another reviewer has previously said this is an evil film and leaves an incredibly bad taste in ones mouth particularly when one realises they have partaken in this viewing experience willingly and contributed to the films revenue (It is not evil. You're just being silly now.). Considering all of the wonderful films around it is disgraceful that the BFI has endorsed and given this film the royal Blu Ray treatment (Surely you realise that the BFI knows more about films than either of us. If they can find something important in this film, surely there is at least the option that it is you who is wrong, not them?). My copy now resides in the local garbage tip, where it belongs (What a waste. I hope Pasolini comes back to haunt you.). This film is best avoided, even as a curiosity piece (which was precisely the reason for my purchase). (I like to think people can make their own minds up. If they want to dislike it, that's fine. But, please, dislike it properly...)
Appalling, sickening, tedious garbage (The acts are indeed appalling and sickening. But the film is most definitely not tedious.); should be banned as an afront to humanity (But it isn't an affront to humanity. And you cannot just go around censoring anything you don't like. That would make you Stalin.). Doesn't have a single redeeming feature (Except that it does. See my comments above for details.). Salo is the product of a disturbed, insane mind (And there's some more libel. He was neither disturbed or insane. He just adapted a novel to be a critique of fascism and consumerism.). Took me a month to get this evil nonsense out of my mind. JP. (It is neither evil nor nonsense. It is a film. It cannot be evil. It is lots of pieces of celluloid with images reflected onto it. Hitler was perhaps evil. Salò is not.)Then in the comments section he left this:
I presume from the 11 negative out of 12 clicks that there are people out there who think that this atrocious movie is not appalling drivel (Yes. There are a lot of people out there who consider this film to be something other than appalling drivel. Critics and filmmakers amongst them. I would also like to point out that you don't even do a good job of criticising it. Perhaps other people who don't like it, just thought yours was just a really shitty review.)? Astonishing! The world is full of sick, depraved lunatics.... you know who you are! (I like the film, from an artistic point of view. Does that make me a sick, depraved lunatic? In which case I might just have to recreate some of this film with myself as one of the masters, and you as one of the victims...) JP.I think when I start to threaten people with some of the events from Salò, I should probably stop for the day...