Rating: 
Summary: An emperor without clothing
Review: I kept hearing how sick SALO was. "It's the most DANGEROUS
movie EVER made!" Whatever. I thought SALO was silly and
completely tedious. It didn't shock me. I laughed at it. Whoa,NUDITY! How SHOCKING. I kept thinking that this is
what ANIMAL HOUSE would have been like in the hands of
David Cronenberg. SALO's reputation is utterly undeserved.
It's basically a movie about a bunch of people who get
naked and eat chocolate. Yes,there's a political subtext,
but so what?
Rating:
Summary: DISGUSTING!
Review: Dont take me wrong, I DO like classic movies, european, and experimental cinema, and I like Sade's books a lot, I think Justine is a masterpiece, but this movie [stinks], I dont mind violence and disturbing images, but come on, all that has to come to a conclusion, leave a lesson, but this movie leaves nothing, maybe it will leave you a "I want to vomit" sensation...
Rating: 
Summary: the Criterion version
Review: I would like to inquire whether the Criterion Collection version has any extra scenes than the pervious version? in other words What are the difference between those two versions?
Rating: 
Summary: a truly disturbing film.......
Review: I am into subject matter of this kind and I never heard of this film until I found out about it on the internet. When I finally watched it, I realized that it is not that bad. This is a abstract piece of art that I found to be visually interesting. The director certainly did have the guts to release this to the public and most likely got killed because of it(the director was killed after the release of this film). The plot is that four men of power in 1944 fascist Italy kidnap a group of boys and girls and expose them to a lifestyle that involves sadism and control. They had no freedoms and no say in what they were forced to do. One segment had the group being forced to eat human excrement as part of a sexual experience that was explained to them. In the end, anyone who was rebellious or disobedient in any way were punished by torture and death. This film shows how much power religious and political leaders have. They did it for their own amusement and satisfaction. The torture scenes are not for the weak-stomached. They are pretty graphic, although I think they could have been alot worse than it was. DO NOT BUY THIS IF YOU GET OFFENDED EASILY!!!! You will not make it through the first half of the film because not only are there torture scenes; there are also scenes of homosexuality and sex fetishes. I recommend this film to anyone who likes films with artistic integrity and a political message, which is that fascism is wrong and that moral redemption is nothing but a myth. People have to realize that stuff like this does and has happened before. Whether it happens in prisons or in a torture chamber, people are exposed to this in real life. This film shows it in an extreme way. 4 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: A genuine testimony of (in)humanity
Review: Films like "Salo" are never made for the sake of entertainment, but they challenge the viewer's motivations and conceptions of what it means to be human. To watch this film requires to accept the challenge to be confronted with such fundamental questions, and to abandon simplistic and modern preconceptions of what film (and indeed art) "ought to be" for."Salo" is Pasolini's adaptation of the Marquis de Sade's last novel "The 120 days of Sodom", an 18th century catalogue of perversions commited by a group of "libertines" whose view of society is opposite to contemporary philosophical rationalism and optimism of the time. Pasolini transposes the story to fascist Italy at the end of World War 2, in Musolini's "republic" of Salo-a region in which Pasolini had resided, and where he experienced the fascist repression. "Salo" tells the story of 4 fascist "signori", who retreat in a remote and decadently decorated villa to engage in, and act out a complex series of perversions (ranging from sexual violence to torture and murder) and degradation on a group of young civilian victims, and with the help of an equally young militia recruited from the same village. Because of its extreme graphic nature this movie is definitely not for the faint-hearted. The scenes of violence and human degradation are truly shocking. However, what is equally shocking are the dialogues and the many details in the rigorous structure of the story that reveal Pasolini's underlying motivations. "Salo" is a gripping and thought-provoking reflection on power, modernism, decadence, and the limits of human rationality-and in that sense its relevance goes far beyond it being a comment on Sade's novel or on fascism. Few movies in the history of the genre had the power to raise these questions as strongly as Pasolini's "Salo", and it is to be doubted that more ever will.
As much as being a chilling visual representation of human irrationality, Pasolini's "Salo" is a highly intellectual, and a deeply moral and moving reflection on (in)humanity, by means of the urgent and ever so relevant questions it raises. This makes "Salo" compulsory viewing for anyone to whom such questions matter.
Rating:
Summary: Hideous Film!!!
Review: I am very much in favor of uncensored art and allowing artists to realize their visions, regardless of how offensive they may be. But, this film by Pasolini crossed a line for me. It gave totally new meaning to the word "gratuitous." It was so replete with violence and depravity that it felt like a meaningless, albeit powerful, assault on my psyche. And for what - to prove what we already know, that Mussolini's fascists were vulgar excuses for human beings? I think films that deliver strong messages through the power of suggestion are much more effective and thought provoking than Passoini's "Salo." Don't get me wrong, I certainly thought a great deal about the film after seeing it, but not in an intellectually rigorous way. My thoughts were more focused on how physically ill it made me feel. In fact, I had real trouble sleeping for a couple of weeks after seeing it. I don't think I need to be shocked to a point of requiring therapy in order to realize how terrible fascism can be.
Rating:
Summary: It shouldn't be viewed by anybody
Review: Passolini won a golden palm at Cannes with this movie. He must have handed out joints to the jury.
This movie is disgusting, gross, obscene, violent, abhorrent. I am about to run out of epithets to describe it. The scat dinner scene actually made me nauseous, and I have a very very strong stomach.
Yet I am giving it 4 stars.
After the nausea is over, the movie is actually a pretty good adaptation of the book 120 days of Sodom, transferred to the ephimerous Republic of Salo, after the first fall of Mussolini. In that context, a scenario like this movie depicts could be imagined.
In that context, the powerful men, who know they are doomed, could conceivably meet for a dark, sadistic, orgiastic last bang.
For creativity, impact, and the actual production of the movie, as well as for the sheer chutzpah of filming it, is why I give it the 4 stars.
However, still my recomendation is "Do not buy this movie" It has artistic value, yes. It has literary value, yes. It probably should not be seen by anyone under 30 (or even 40)
Just walk away
Rating: 
Summary: My Two Cents
Review: ...I believe it is irresponsible for any human being to close their eyes to acknowledging human nature, whether it be happiness, sadness, fear, or the most unthinkable modes in which one satiates pleasure. Because when we ignore these very facets of human nature, we in turn ignore ourselves. The wretched and terrible things that happened in this movie are depictions of what happens all the time in REAL LIFE (far worse even - the rape of Nanking, slavery in the US, women being kidnapped and sold to European prostitution rigns, Rwanda, etc.): these are vices that have been existent in our species since the beginning of time (Don't believe me? Well take a look at the Bible as a historical document). Now I'm not saying that you should show this to a child, but I am saying that this is a MOVIE, nothing more than one, which is perfectly responsible to watch if the viewer has a strong sense of what's right and what's wrong. Pasolini was religious, and he had a strong sense of morality - what he intended for this film was to show us what happened to his people in Salo under the reign of the Mussolini fascists. The content of art (yes, this is art!!!) should never be taken into account in it's criticism. Plus, the claim that this is the most disgusting and disturbing story put to acetate is dubious. Take a look at some of the undergound animations that come from Japan - now those are far more disturbing. With that said and done, I think this was an average movie at best. Reasons? Well for one, given it's explicit content, it was boring. I was never grabbed into the narrative the way all great movies do. Not one character was developed fully in any way, and a lot of the their motivations are not fully believable. We see through a static camera looking at a group of characters, who for the most part are static throughout most of the film. Yes the cinematography is gorgeous, and yes the set design was great - but that does not merit this being a good film. Some of the worst films ever made had great set designs and cinematography (e.g. Less than Zero, XxX) I don't care if people say that Pasolini intended for there was no real structure or character to give it a voyeuristic/documentary feel, all forms of story telling need these elements. This was lazy film making in my eyes. Definately not a masterpiece.
Rating:
Summary: Sick and demented film of perverse minds
Review: Salo: The 120 days of Sodom is often referred to as "brilliant" and "haunting". Why? I really want to know why. Would we, as a people, have paid money to watch the Nazis torture the Jews? Would we have paid money to see the Stalinists torture and kill the Croats? What about any other culture where torture is used as a device of pain and humiliation? I know. I know. This is art, because it is based on deSade's great works - but de Sade wasn't a great author or a great man - he was a man reviled and feared. His place in history exists because of his infamy not his fame. To revere the man through his works is amazing. I don't know about the rest of the civilized world, but for me, watching children eat feces and be raped and tortured at the hands of adults is not art, not matter how you dress it up or strip it down. It's a sick endeavor. I was given this film as a present by a friend. I soaked the film in acetone to destroy it afterward, then I bathed and scrubbed myself vigorously trying to get the sick feeling off me. Finally, I distanced myself from that friend - because there is no way I want to associate with anyone who would enjoy a film of such a purile and disgusting nature.
Rating:
Summary: MOST SHOCKING AND DISTURBING MOVIE EVER??? - YES !!!!!
Review: If this movie was a low budget movie of an ordinary director -like texas chainsaw mess..- i could call it "the sickest comedy ever". (Yes, there are scenes that u normaly lough at, but u just cant!!!)
But this movie is far beyond the sickest, most horifiying and dýsturbýng movie ever. It is just something that hard to describe! "Funny Games" of Michael Haneke is like "Happy Days" and "Reservoir Dogs" of Tarantino is like "Snow White" when compaired to Salo!!! Technically directing and acting is superior. But there is more than that in this movie. There is no arguments like; "love" or "hate" or "enjoy" for this movie. U just hate what u see!!! And u shock and after a while u start deep thinking while feeling real bad... U think of how "low" and "evil" that the human kind can be! U start hating the human kind. (And even ur self!) SALO -120 DAYS OF SODOM- will change ur life !!! (Bealive it or not!!!) Note: This movie is rated 18 but in my opinion ýt has to be rated 28 !! -Its not because of the extreme sex and violance scenes but the movie it self!!! CAUTION: PARENTS BE ADVISED THAT IT CAN BE EXTREMELY HARMFULL FOR TEENAGERS. IF U BUY THIS MOVIE KEEP IT IN A SAFE PLACE.
(ý mean it! No kidding!!!)
|
