A plane crash lands into the Philippine jungle, carrying people searching for oil and a welcoming party, but the newcomers find their predecessors were devoured by cannibals, and are themselves soon attacked. Bobert Harper (Massimo Foschi) is captured alone and tormented by the cannibals but eventually escapes with the help of a native girl, who accompanies him. He is also reunited with one of his mates, and they are pursued by the cannibals together.
Certainly one of the most graphic movies ever made, "Jungle Holocaust" outdoes Deodato's other homage to this theme, Cannibal Holocaust, (cannibalism is in the European titles of both jungle flicks), if not by weight, by quantity. Indeed, the key distinction between Deodato's two bestiality exhibitions (and also compare most anything else, Silence of the Lambs, whatever) is that the graphic displays here are continual, dominant, minimizing to negative infinity anything else, plot, characters, acting. You can cover the entire movie very quickly without missing much by frequently fast forwarding (with picture), with necessary stops for talking and quick backtracks. And for me, this was necessary, because even though I did so, the movie got to me rather than entertained to some extent.
In spite of the considerable human torment and carnage, the animal carnage is much more graphic, and excessive, and was in its own way more disturbing because of its glorification. In a graphic horror movie, after all, is there not a dual experience with human carnage, because of the dramatic effect of the underlying tension? That was certainly present here, but the aforementioned was all there was in this movie, bestiality, cannibals and jungle versus the white man. This is the dream film for those who find that as their ultimate experience, and I appreciate what the movie accomplishes on that level. But I am looking for something else as well, and a little less in some cases. But one final note--there was one graphic scene not involving an animal, not a killing in itself, that outdid any of the animal ones, and from one point of view, is the ultimate; see the film to find out.
7 out of 10
Certainly one of the most graphic movies ever made, "Jungle Holocaust" outdoes Deodato's other homage to this theme, Cannibal Holocaust, (cannibalism is in the European titles of both jungle flicks), if not by weight, by quantity. Indeed, the key distinction between Deodato's two bestiality exhibitions (and also compare most anything else, Silence of the Lambs, whatever) is that the graphic displays here are continual, dominant, minimizing to negative infinity anything else, plot, characters, acting. You can cover the entire movie very quickly without missing much by frequently fast forwarding (with picture), with necessary stops for talking and quick backtracks. And for me, this was necessary, because even though I did so, the movie got to me rather than entertained to some extent.
In spite of the considerable human torment and carnage, the animal carnage is much more graphic, and excessive, and was in its own way more disturbing because of its glorification. In a graphic horror movie, after all, is there not a dual experience with human carnage, because of the dramatic effect of the underlying tension? That was certainly present here, but the aforementioned was all there was in this movie, bestiality, cannibals and jungle versus the white man. This is the dream film for those who find that as their ultimate experience, and I appreciate what the movie accomplishes on that level. But I am looking for something else as well, and a little less in some cases. But one final note--there was one graphic scene not involving an animal, not a killing in itself, that outdid any of the animal ones, and from one point of view, is the ultimate; see the film to find out.
7 out of 10