Horror Movie Reviews

More Details... Price: $29.95

Title: Salo - Criterion Collection (1998) Starring: Paolo Bonacelli, Giorgio Cataldi, Umberto Paolo Quintavalle, Aldo Valletti, and Caterina Boratto Director: Pier Paolo Pasolini Rating: Unrated Runtime: 112 minutes Avg. Score: 4 Submit Comment Hits: 20

Review of Salo - Criterion Collection

[ Back to Homepage | Back to Horror Movie Reviews Index ]

HellHorror.com not responsible for reviews/comments and they may be removed at any time.

Submit Comment

Comments for Salo - Criterion Collection

• Posted on 2008-06-20
  Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom
  
  The essential "plot" of "Salò Or The 120 Days Of Sodom", what little of it there is, revolves around the abduction and abuse of a group of male and female teens by a group of older male and female extreme decadent pleasure seekers in the Fascist state of Salò in the latter part of the Second World War.
  
  Pasolini's last film, and some argue his finest, takes its nominal cue from the Marquis de Sade's pornographic screed from the 1700's and presents a visually disturbing piece that has been the subject of much debate since its release in the mid 70's. If ever there was a "love or hate" film, then this is it.
  
  To be fair, Pasolini achieves what he has really set out to do...which is to sicken the viewer. The atrocity displayed onscreen is virtually non-stop and humiliation heaped upon the young captives makes for a truly disgusting, if detached, experience. But beyond that, "Salò" has nothing else to say. There are some who have tried to present "Salò" as a critique of Fascism, but other than transferring de Sade's setting from 18th Century France to 1940's Italy, there is no clear comment on Fascism on offer here and that suggests that such effort to align "Salò" with such highbrow opinion is simply an attempt to intellectualise what is essentially a high class exploitation piece.
  
  Where the film's success lies is more as a critique on depraved human sexuality and perverted power play, revealed in scenes showing the teenage captives being subjected to rape, humiliation, torture and finally murder all for the gratification of their captors.
  
  There is also a sense of otherness to "Salò" that accompanies other Continental films of the period, lending the it a weird feeling throughout and the film's notoriety also contributes to the overall sense of oddness that the work emits. But the work is not enjoyable or entertaining to any degree. There are no moments of redemption here or even any characters to identify with, on any level. Even the captives of the perverted bourgeoisie are rendered unsympathetic as they follow their new masters like sheep and then start `ratting' each other out. "Salò" is not a pleasurable experience.
  
  However, the main problem with "Salò" is not the distasteful focus on anal rape, sexual humiliation or coprophilia. It's the fact that the whole project is just rather poorly executed. The dialogue is turgid and absolutely ridiculous at times, it's overlong, with unlikable characters and in between each appalling event the film is incredibly boring. There's no denying that for those with the stomach, the atrocity on offer in "Salò" makes for strangely compelling viewing, but when that's absent the film is simply ticking over its 1 hour 51 minute running time. The end result is that, beyond saying that human beings can sink to extreme depths of sexual depravity, the film is utterly pointless.
  
  Score: 2
• Posted on 2008-06-08
  Pasolini's Salò is Subversive and Controversial.
  
  Well educated in many fields, Pier Paolo Pasolini (1922-1975) was a true Italian Renaissance Man, who not only excelled as a filmmaker, but as a philosopher, journalist, novelist (Ragazzi di vita), poet (Roman Poems; Pier Paolo Pasolini Poems), playwright, social critic (Heretical Empiricism), columnist, actor, painter and political figure as well. As a filmmaker, he is best known for The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964), The Decameron (1971), The Canterbury Tales (1972) and Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975). Pasolini was murdered shortly before Salò was released.
  
  Adapted from the Marquis de Sade's 18th-century novel The 120 Days of Sodom, Salò (Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma) is Pasolini's most controversial and subversive film, which is reason enough to experience it. In fact, many critics consider Salò to be the most controversial film of all time. While it is sadistic, shocking, depraved, violent, and arguably pornographic, it is also a masterpiece in cinema, which offers a sharp critique of Pasolini's culture. Set in the final days of the Nazi-controlled Republic of Salò, the film depicts unspeakable acts of human brutality (rape, torture, mutilation, and murder) drawn from both de Sade's book as well as from Pasolini's own life under Fascist rule. The film is divided into four segments that loosely reflect Dante's Inferno: Anteinferno, the Circle of Manias, the Circle of Feces, and the Circle of Blood. Four powerful Fascits, the Duke (Duc de Blangis), the Bishop, the Magistrate (Curval), and the President, first agree to marry each other's daughters, and then kidnap eighteen adolescent boys and girls, who they then brutalize and ultimately execute at a secluded palace near Marzabotto.(Viewers may draw associations between Salò and Abu Ghrab.) Watching Salò might best be described as experiencing pure evil. While most viewers will find it extremely disturbing or unwatchable, others will find Salò to be intellectually engaging. It left me speechless, and words fall short in describing the spectacle of Salò. It is an unforgettable film that should be experienced at least once.
  
  The Criterion Collection's Double-Disc Special Edition of Salo features a newly restored high-definition digital transfer; "The End of Salò," a 40-minute documentary about the film's final scene; "Salò: Yesterday and Today," a 35-minute documentary featuring interviews with Pier Paolo Pasolini, actor-filmmaker Jean-Claude Biette, and Pasolini's friend Nineto Davoli; new interviews with set designer Dante Ferretti and filmmaker/film scholar Jean-Pierre Gorin; the theatrical trailer; and a booklet featuring new essays by Neil Bartlett, Roberto Chiesi, Naomi Greene, Gary Indiana, and Sam Rohdie, and excerpts from Gideon Bachman's on-set diary.
  
  G. Merritt
  
  Score: 5
• Posted on 2008-06-05
  A horrendous film - avoid at all costs
  
  I am a huge fan of the Criterion Collection and own every title in their line. I do not - and will not - own this one for one simple reason - it is the most vile, disgusting piece of garbage I have ever seen. I watched a video of the film several years ago - and yes, I'm sure on the DVD it will be much sharper and clearer when the children are forced to eat their own feces (seriously). It is the one movie I have ever watched that literally made me ill, I wish I had NEVER seen it. I am not a prude, I am a liberal, censorship-hating cinephile who nevertheless feels strongly enough about this film to publicly denounce it, hoping to save some fellow human beings from enduring this horrendous work. Some films stick with you and change you forever - "Sophie's Choice" and "Schindler's List" spring to mind as examples of films that still haunt me and disturb me but I am glad that I saw because they reveal truths about humanity that need to be expressed and shared. "Salo" is haunting because it was made by someone who obviously hated himself and humanity, and it haunts for it's hatred and misanthropy. If you're into seeing young people forced to have sex and eat their own urine and feces, and then watching them brutally and graphically mutilated and murdered - then this is the film for you. I am embarrassed that the revered and esteemed Criterion Collection is putting out this piece of garbage - for a second time. There are those that will buy this simply because they TRUST the folks at Criterion, and in choosing to put out this film, they have betrayed that trust.
  Score: 1
• Posted on 2008-05-26
  Devastating, horrifying, bleak, disturbing, even today...a film that has lost none of its power...
  
  Yes, ladies and gentlemen. The infamous film, Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom, is being reissued by Criterion in a special 2 disc edition. Criterion initally put out this DVD when they were still doing laserdiscs and DVD simaltaneously (its DVD spine number was 17), and the original DVD was pretty much barebones and not a particularly good transfer of the film (on either the laserdisc version or the DVD version). Now it's being released in a deluxe edition. What about the film itself? Is it worth picking up? Is it truly disturbing? Is it a work of art? Yes, yes, and yes.
  
  Pasolini made this film in 1975 right after his "trilogy of life" films, which included The Decameron, The Cantebury Tales, and Arabian Nights (aka Thousand and One Nights). Those films were very joyful and playful, and did quite well at the box office. Pasolini went into a deep depression afterwards, feeling that all his films were bogus and compromised, and set out to make a film, as he called it, "undigestable". Salo was that film.
  
  It is based on the Marquis de Sade's book, which was written in 1789 but not published until 1935. De Sade's book, while interesting at first, soon becomes boring and repetitive, outlining one sexual abberation after another. It's not erotic, in fact, it's quite disgusting, as most of the sexual behavior concentrates on coprophilia. Pasolini's film is much better than the novel, as Pasolini had much more to say with his film. He changed the original setting from 18th century France to the last days of Mussolini's government, which had set up shop in Salo, an actual province in Italy. Four fascists round up 8 teenage boys and 8 teenage girls, haul them off to a secluded villa, and degrade them and themselves for the duration. Pasolini here used the novel as a exploration of consumer culture, fascism, communism, perversion, torture (many of the scenes in this film have an eerie similarity to the Abu Ghrab prison photos taken a few years ago), and absolute power. Pasolini had said "he wanted to make a film without hope", and he did. Pasolini expounded upon de Sade's ideas and made a startling film, one that has immense power, even today. Pasolini was murdered shortly after completing this film in murky and still controversial circumstances, and somehow, that contributes to the bleakness and opppressiveness of the film.
  
  The film is as cruel, nasty, controversial, and bleak as you've heard. It totally lives up to its reputation. It has graphic scene of sexuality (despite abundant nudity, the film isn't erotic at all, but cold and numb), torture (the final third is entitled the circle of blood), and coprophilia (the middle third is entitled the circle of s***). But it isn't an exploitation film at all. It was made with the best crew in Italy at the time. The film was shot by Tonino Delli Colli, who shot Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. It was produced by Alberto Grimaldi, who also produced Leone's spaghetti westerns and Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris. Ennio Morricone scored it, Danilo Donati did the costumes, and Nino Bargali edited it. It was a legitamite production, and there was quite a lot of press surrounding it at the time of its release, as Pasolini was a huge name in Italy and international cinema at the time. Finding the film in its uncut form has been notoriously difficult over the years. It's been banned in many countries (it's still banned in Australia today), and even the DVD editions aren't complete (the original Criterion version omitted a scene where one of the fascists reads a poem from Goethe, which was included in the British Film Institute version).
  
  I saw this recently in an extraordinarily sharp print in NYC, and the patrons in the theater didn't say a word. Some left. Most of them stayed, and were truly stunned afterwards. Some tried to laugh this film off at the beginning; by the end of the film, they weren't laughing. They couldn't. This film was made in 1975, and it still has the power to shake you to the core. It is one of the most disturbing films ever made, on line with Cannibal Holocaust, Ichi the Killer, In a Glass Cage, and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. It is worth watching and owning.
  Score: 5
• Posted on 2008-04-24
  Soul crushing--recommended very highly to a very few
  
  I watched this film late one night (after my parents were in bed), and for a while it was merely uncomfortable to sit through. The actors weren't particularly emotional, the sets weren't hugely exciting, and the storyline consisted of four libertines and their accomplices listening to dirty stories and doing dirty things to their child victims.
  
  And yet, halfway through this blasé piece, I began crying. It was, I believe, at a part where the whore was telling one her sick stories while dancing with the libertine, and she begins laughing as if it is the funniest thing in the world. And yet the laugh sounds false--not just false, but hopeless. I cried off and on (though more on than off) the rest of the film, and from now on I cannot think about "Salo" without tearing up; I am trying not to cry even as I write this.
  
  What makes "Salo" the most disturbing film I have ever watched, no competition? It is not the acts depicted--the coprophilia, the torture, the murder, the betrayal. It is that supreme and utter hopelessness behind the whore's laugh. It is the insatiable desires of the libertines, constantly fed and yet never quenched. It is the victims who are willing to sell each other out in order to escape just a little bit more torture before their inevitable death.
  
  The novel described the four libertines as being people who not only did as much evil as they possibly could, but also as people who went out of their way to avoid doing anything virtuous. Pier Paolo Pasolini has extended this bleak outlook to the entire human race. The entire film is soaked with his utter hatred and disgust for humanity--nobody in this film has a redeeming side, not even the victims. Everyone in this film is going to die--even the libertines, sometime after the film comes to its conclusion, are going to be tried for war crimes as part of the Fascist regime. Pasolini paints a portrait of the human race as a race that is wallowing in the lowest depths of misery as it drags itself towards its own demise.
  
  There is no moral to this story. Pasolini figures that the human race will merely ignore the moral if he tries to give one. Neither does he try to spruce up this film with interesting acting or camera-work. The direction is bland and the cinematography is largely static--and therein lies its greatest (or is it its worst?) talent. It is as if Pasolini is looking up at the human race from behind the camera, his face gaunt and hopeless, considering the various ways to spice up the scene before saying: "Why bother? You are worthless; this film will not satisfy your desires, whatever they may be."
  
  Which leads me to one last question: how the heck did I give this 10 stars? And how the heck can I possibly recommend it to any of you? It was upsetting, disturbing, and appalling. And yet it has changed my life--for the better? For the worse? Does is crush my hopes for humanity, or does it give me an understanding of its darkest facets and how best to avoid them? Look, people, I don't rightly know! I'm still figuring it out!
  
  To most of you: stay the heck away from this film. But to a few of you--a very, very few--those few that want to see this movie for more than its shock value, those few that are willing to explore humanity's darkest recesses, those few that are not mainstream moviegoers and are actually willing to think--I recommend, no I BEG you to watch "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom." You will never forget it.
  Score: 5