IslandGuru Who payed the critics

GazerRise Fantastic!

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

damian145 I think this movie is Arrabal's attempt to achieve something that looks like surrealism, taking scenes from Jodorowsky's "El Topo" and turning then into just senseless images. It seems like if he was just searching for things that would look "surreal", so to put them in the film. The plot, besides all the misleading "surreal" stuff, turns out to be a simple (and very used) boring movie plot; the guy that takes the native man from his environment and shows him the city blah blah blah. Besides this, there are still good things in the movie, like the lady from the TV news in the beginning of the film or the police trying to capture the main character. I didn't like the film, but what i do like is what Jodorowky has done with Arrabal's work, turning it into a masterpiece.

happyreflex This film really straddles the line between art and pornography. I feel the need to praise it for its uniqueness and beautiful surrealism, but I don't think I would want to watch this film again. Between these two points of view, I'll never forget this film.There are some great images: a skeleton in a nest at the top of a steel pole; sex between two people wearing gas masks; the protagonists being rolled around in a plastic sphere.Then there are some absolutely unpleasant images. The midget places a rose into a woman's crack, pulls it out covered in s--t, and licks it clean. This and similar scenes have done nothing but disturb me. This fascination with human waste seems fetishistic and pornographic rather than artistic. Also, the film features some oedipal scenes that just feel uncomfortable. I have to reflect that Un Chien Andalou, which is considered a masterpiece of its genre, deliberately went for shock value in its day, so I forgive this film somewhat. But at the same time, I feel unwilling to see it again.Some scenes have me on the fence. In a nativity scene, the Christ child has his genitals skewered. A young boy gets shot to death by a firing squad. There is a scene of cannibalism. The scenes are both artistically striking and difficult to watch.I wrote in an earlier review for Blockbuster.com, "This film really is a troublesome one. It is at turns a sublime menagerie of images and a grotesque carnival geek show. The director is at turns a genius and a pervert. The works of genius make the film worth seeing." As before, you have the right to be curious.

Rumi Sobek The late 60's/early 70's were a time of experimentation for most filmmakers. In fact filmmakers got away with things back then that few would be able to get away with now. Arrabal and his first two features, VIVA LA MUERTE and this, are no exceptions.One thing you still can't do without scandal is full frontal male nudity - especially of children. The scene where the little naked boy is gunned down by a firing squad of an Army of Christians could be reinterpreted today as a metaphor for how children always get caught in the crossfire when religions declare war on one another. The nudity symbolizes innocence. The 10 second scene is in no way pornographic but try doing that today and you will be shut down before you can call action.One scene predate's THE CRYING GAME by 20 years. It's too good to give away. The character of Marvel would be seen now as a Arab stereotype for sheer ignorance of all things western. Political correctness aside, the character is too funny and likable to hate.Cannibalism, still a taboo topic, is treated by Arrabal here as a mere plot device. No wonder this movie had censorship problems, which Arrabal addresses in the DVD interview segment. My only regret is that he didn't include scene by scene audio commentary as Jodorowsky did for DVD of FANDO & LIS -which is based on the Arrabal play. It would be especially helpful in this particular scene because it looks like they may have used an actual cadaver. This finale even tops the VIVA LA MUERTE finale in which a bull is sacrificed on camera. Unless you're doing the latest installment in the FACES OF DEATH series, you just can't do that kind of stuff in a narrative feature today.Those who see this now as merely a pretentious art film, forget how shocking it must have been then. That's especially true when you consider that it's a gay love story. One of the most unusual ever filmed. It's unsettling in a way that is stimulating. This movie was buried by the censors in 72. No major studio would green light such a production today. If you think you've seen it all, this is one you've got to go back and see in order to say that. Filmmaking could move forward if filmmakers looked back at the "scandals" the "Panic" movement of Arrabal, Topor and Jodorowsky caused in those days. It's a miracle that a film like this can survive intact. Definately not for all tastes but 10 of 10 anyway.

michel_mayer A strong and moving SYMBOLIST fable on existential questions. NOT a Hollywood bonbon. I think it's good to see a movie that makes people uneasy and not only on the violence level (which I think the society is getting numbed by). In the North American society, archetypes are often distorded or tainted; in the movie they are plainly exposed,and it is not crude but the reality.