Rating: 
Summary: a little truth never hurt nobody
Review: "Salo" is a diffcult, challenging piece of cinematic excellence. Brutal and violent in its unforgiving, nihilistic portrayal of the human demons of sexuality, power, sorrow and torture, this film will undoubtedly shut the eyelids and minds of people who are unwilling to face up to the sometimes painful crimes of life. Pasolini, an accomplished cinematographer, editor and writer/poet(his Petrolio is amongst one of the greatest literary achievements ever, IMHO:))is unrelenting in his torment of the captured viewer(this is the point). We are forced to see torture and sodomy; scatophagy and scalping; and listen to endless perverse yet thoughtful dialogues and soliloquies about disgusting sex acts involving feces. We are forced to question constantly the tightly-knotted links between fascist mastery and capitalist submission; the see-sawing power war of gender supremacy; the many conflicts and spiritual contradictions of homosexuality; the sad effects of a crowd mentality. HOWEVER SICK THAT MAY BE, this is a perfect film. The cinematography is brilliant and astounding, the colors of this film are enough reason for any film enthusiast to endure this moral exercise of a movie. The acting, dialogue and script are perfect(if not horrifically scatological)- though the other amazon reviewers are right to say "it's not for the squeamish." Pasolini is a mad genius, though of the true breed: he will not be remembered as Van Gogh's madness is, with mouse pads and corporate cushions; he will tell the truth in words and film and be martyred.
Rating: 
Summary: A big mistake by Criterion
Review: This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.First of all I promised myself a long time ago that I would watch every Criterion Collection DVD. If I had known about this film then I would not have made that promise. Criterion even says that Salò is "perhaps the most disturbing and disgusting film ever made" As a Christian, I found this film difficult to watch for numerous reasons. But before I became a Christian, I had seen material MUCH worse than this. The film is a loose adaptation of 18th & 19th Century French author, Marquis De Sade's book "120 Days of Sodom" De Sade's name is where the word "Sadism" comes from. De Sade's books were way ahead of their time and were banned in some areas. The film Salò was also initially banned in many countries and remains banned in a few. Though I think banning a film like this could lead to the banning of religious films, in the sense that both genres can be considered offensive by people. Every movie ever made will offend at least one person but some more than others. As a Christian I found this film offensive, but there will always be people unoffended by this film while Christian films that I like will offend some. I strongly recommend viewer discretion in watching this film and urge prospective viewers to look at the plot keywords for the film on IMDB. I think that the Criterion Collection made a mistake by releasing this film. It remains out of print and unopened copies have sold for as high as $1000. Be warned, this is probably the most bootlegged DVD ever and some of the fakes are very clever. About 90% of the ones sold on the internet are bootlegs. Authentic copies will have 29 chapters and the disc will have a white ring around the center on both sides.
Rating:
Summary: it was bad the first time...
Review: Salo was a bad movie the first time I saw it in college a few years ago....and it was still bad after a recent viewing...in some repects even worse the second time around as it is incredibly dull, too long, with implausably passive teenagers putting up neary a struggle, etc.....a waste (literally) of time.
Rating:
Summary: Not the most disturbing movie ever made, also not very good
Review: First off, I don't see why anyone who is easily offended would be motivated to watch this movie except by sheer stupidity and/or the desire to be morally outraged. Simply put, if you know (and don't pretend that you don't) that this film will offend you, DON'T WATCH IT AND YOU WON'T BE OFFENDED.
Now on to the film itself. This is a hard movie to criticize due to the uncompromising nature of the film itself and also due to the incredible amount of hype surrounding it. I've seen other movies by Pasolini, and while I thought that they were somewhat interesting but really pretentious, Salo is always regarded as his ultimate movie. When I finally watched it, however, I was quite disappointed with it.
The film is elegantly composed and the cinematography is beautiful, but the non-stop human degradation and cruelty becomes quite tiresome. Also, the 70's special effects are somewhat lacking by today's standards, and some of the scenes (particularly in The Circle of Blood) look really cheesy. Other scenes seem to scream, "Well, if you weren't shocked by that last scene, you're really going to be shocked now!" only to fail miserably at fulfilling that promise. There is no real plot or characterization to distract the viewer, so they are forced to contemplate the intellectual aspects of the film, and these are what I found most lacking.
Many justify this film by saying it depicts the horrors of fascism. That's [totally not true]. Who doesn't know (excepting DIJ and Boyd Rice fans) that facism is bad? If you want to really experience the horrors of fascism, rent a holocaust documentary. That's much harder to watch and it also actually happened.
Others justify Salo by saying that the film demonstrates how morals and social taboos are a creation of the bourgeoisie to control the proletariat. Hence, morals only exist for those who lack enough power or money to violate them. But did we really need to see 2 hours of people using the restroom on each other to get this point? Also, that's a highly simplistic view of morality, capable of being appreciated only by idealistic Marxist college students and children. And don't give me a "Salo is an allegory for the evils of modern industrial society" either. If I had a penny for every allegoric movie for the evils of capitalism out there, I'd be a very rich man indeed.
Pasolini randomly throws in pretentious post-modern references, such as mirrors in every shot and references to Huysmans, without making any attempt to fit these references into the intellectual framework of the film. The mirrors in particular I found annoying. It was as if Pasolini were trying to say "Look at me, I'm Jean Cocteau!" While these references will be highly appreciated by "film theory" graduate students who can write their thesis on "Duplication of Sexual Identity: The Use of Mirrors in Pasolini's Salo," those of us who can't tolerate near toxic levels of pretention may have to leave the room during some of these scenes. On a side note, I did enjoy Pasolini sticking it to that (...) Ezra Pound.
And so on. The film exists to relentlessly drive home points that can be summed up in a sentence. Without an intellectual framework, it becomes a cheesy and exploitative shock film aimed at the few people that would actually be offended by it. However, I won't deny that Pasolini had guts to make this movie. If for nothing else, Salo had to be made to demonstrate why this type of movie doesn't need to be made. (...)
Rating:
Summary: Tough for most to watch but very effective
Review: This film has been called trash, a waste of celluloid among other things. I disagree. The film's main purpose was to show the things that happen in the world that no one cares to know about. Schindler's List did much of the same for instance showing prison camps. Now if Steven Spielberg would have gone indepth to show you many of the horrifying things that really happened ie...pumping fluids into the brain till the fluid burst through the eyes, sewing people together, freezing and burning flesh and so on...you would have a modern SALO. Pasolini, basically instead of hinting at the horrors, showed you up close and personal what kind of things really happened in fascist Italy in WWII. Granted it's based on Marquis de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom which described many of the horrors he witnessed while imprisoned. However, it is not unlikely that scenes portrayed in SALO did really happen to someone during that time period. Anyway, to make a long story short...yes it is a hard film to watch and it will desensitize you, but it will also open your eyes to what men are capable of.
Rating:
Summary: Dishonest, cowardly shocker fails as art and exploitation
Review: Pier Paolo Pasolini's notorious 1975 shocker "Salo" is an extremely well-made, disturbing, and sometimes powerful film. It's also incredibly boring, pretentious, and cowardly. Despite the incredible set design and cinematography, "Salo" fails on several levels. Somehow, Pasolini managed to turn de Sade's most incendiary work ("The 120 Days of Sodom") into a dry-as-dirt snorefest, occasionally livened up by assorted atrocities, including rape, coprophagy, and torture. What's most offensive isn't the graphic sexual violence (of which there is plenty), but Pasolini's choice to make his victims emotionless automatons. Pasolini's refusal to treat his victims as human beings changes what could have been a potentially powerful statement about the corruption of power into a dull peep show. "Salo" fails as art, because the film is dishonest in its portrayal of human suffering. Even worse, it lacks the bite of good exploitation fare, because it's pretentious, dull, and way too long. --Dave Jaudon
Rating:
Summary: the most dangerous film of all-time
Review: This film is not an exploitation film. Anyone that watches it based on that assumption is missing the whole idea of the movie. Pasolini made this film as an indictment of society, culture, and history. The film is about fascism, neo-fascism, and capitalism, and the images on the screen are not to be taken at face value, but as metaphors for contemporary society and politics. The sexual depravity shown on the screen, the coprophagy, the torture, it is all symbolic. For example, the children in the film are forced to eat excrement becuase Pasolini believed that contemporary culture and society was excrement, and thus was force feeding us, the consumer, with excrement.
The most interesting aspect of this film is that Pasolini, a homosexual, linked homosexuality with death and fascism. Why after portraying homosexuality in a beautiful way in his earlier works did Pasolini change his tune, nobody knows. Some think he lost his mind while making this movie.
Many don't like the film because Pasolini makes the victims out to be emotionless and doesn't allow us to pity them. But thats just what he wanted! By watching the movie, we are like the victims, allowing ourselves to be abused and also being a spectator to abuse. Again, everything in this film is done for a reason.
Before watching this film you should be familiar with de Sade, Dante's Inferno, and have some basic understanding of fascism and its history. If you lack any of these three elements, don't watch the movie because you will not get it at all. Again, don't watch this movie at face value. It is one of the sickest, most disturbing films ever made, and it is that way for a reason. Not for shock value or to get banned in country after country, but to make a statement. This film is so dangerous that it is believed by many that Pasolini was assassinated for making it. If everyone got this movie, the world would be in deep trouble.
Rating: 
Summary: the horror! , the horror!
Review: This movie was banned in my home country for many years, for good reason,and having seen this movie I have developed a new appreciation of censorship. The alternate title should warn you, 120 days of Sodom, and believe me, thats not just a name! Anyway, the story is set in WWII, in Northern Italy, Salo is apparently a town there and it may have been the new capital of the rump Italian Fascist state that formed after the death of Mussolini. The plot is quite simple, the four new leaders of the state decided to have a "rest-cure" before they started the busy work of governing the state.In order to do this they kidnapped a number of young teengers of both sexes and with a number of old prostitutes begin to recreate the marquis de sades book. The actual movie is beautifully done which adds to the horror, as the intense acts of sexual cruelty become real......it is no wonder that half the audience walked out of the theatre half way through... I must add though, that this movie is not a pornographic movie, the director, before his untimely death at the hands of an enraged christian soon after he made this moviee had embarked on a so-calleed "trilogy of life". I had the good luck to see another of his movies in this triolgy and it was brilliant. However i would not reccomend watching this movie unless you have a staunch constitution and no children.
Rating:
Summary: Hey, I liked it.
Review: Much has been said about Salo, so I'm not going to repeat it. I liked this movie for many reasons(...).
My main point is this: forget trying to EVER find a real Criterion copy of this. They are ALL bootlegs (even the Amazon copy above) unless they are in the triple digits in price. YES, even if a insert is included. Jeez, I have a fake copy with an insert on my shelf right now. So, that being said, follow my advice. Go to www.revok.com and order a copy from them for around $20. Note: this is not a copy of the Criterion version. (...) It's still a copy in some respects, but at least you won't get burned for a fake Criterion.
(...)Apparently, there is some kind of loophole in US copyright law concerning films that have different foreign versions. This is explained on the site. All of there DVDs are very well done. No, I don't work for them. I'm just trying to help out all fellow film buffs who repeatedly get ripped off looking for rare movies. Well, I don't even know how many people read these things, but hopefully I've helped someone out. Bye.
Rating:
Summary: Stop!
Review: This is not a review of Salo, enough words have been said about it already. What this is is just a few words to all you people thinking of shelling out lots of money for a (probably fake) second hand Salo DVD from the Criterion collection. Go to Amazon.co.uk and get a fully uncut BFI (British Film Institute) print for a lot less. Hope this saves you some money!!
|
