Rating: 
Summary: . . . ! ! ! . . .
Review: (Revised/Corrected, 6/17/'03) Fantastic. Unbelievable. Makes things like RESERVOIR DOGS look like a walk in the park. Quentin Tarantino, David Lynch, and similar purveyors of the au courant and fashionably dark may have their virtues. However, they are naive, lame amateurs by comparison to Pier Paolo Pasolini's SALO. This movie is too powerful for the Goth/lamer crowd. Pasolini, whatever his personal flaws, was highly educated and literate. SALO uses a kind of pacing that assists the march of Pasolini's grasp of psychoanalysis, Sadeian brutality and cruelty, and related subjects into the susceptible viewers' subconscious. Art as film method, psychology, and fifteen years experience in filmmaking created SALO. (Pasolini even starred, in the early 60s, in a spaghetti western, no doubt assisting his grasp of the actor's techniques that he later directed.) SALO has a way of insinuating aspects of itself, by degrees, into any weaker subconscious. SALO thereby predisposes the unprepared, naive, and the vaguely self-destructive to hurt themselves. (...better to bone up on some good Clint Eastwood first, in order to have the strength to make it through this stuff!) Still, SALO remains not only one of the most powerful films ever made. SALO is also one of the top dozen most beautiful color films ever made. One may dispute with the method of depiction of brutality here. Yet, brutality is NOT an unfamiliar subject: it may be found, pursued both in suggestion and depiction, elsewhere in many other critically distinguished films. Rossellini's OPEN CITY, Fellini's LA STRADA, and the oriental SANSHO DAYU(Sansho the Bailiff)come to mind. Yet SALO distinguishes itself by virtue of its method and technique. It has much to teach us. One may dispute with Pasolini's intentions and devices. Perhaps, one feels, his exposition might have been better facilitated and assisted by some other route. Debatably, Pasolini might have left us an unforgettable message by other means. In spite of its brutality, SALO is still a masterpiece, and remains one of the most singularly unforgettable films of all times.
Rating: 
Summary: overrated, piece of garbage.
Review: I saw this film (unfortunately) years ago. I've never forgotten it but you know what? I've never forgotten "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" either. Pasolini was an angry man from what I've read about him. Fans of this "masterpiece" defend it as a brilliant satire of fascism, corruption, the Church, commercialism, etc. etc. Bull! This is a movie meant to shock and offend as many people as possible to draw success through controversy and, to call attention to the director's radical political views. I'm not advocating censorship here but if any theater or video store refuses to carry this one, then good for them. Even if this seriously was a satire of whats wrong with society, there are more effective ways of executing it. We really didn't need to see the scenes from the circle of excrement or the final scenes; sometimes what we don't see onscreen is more powerful than what we do. Some reviewers praise the art direction and scoring. Yeah, so what? True the photography and piano music are good but compared to other moments in Italian cinema history, its not "La Vita et Bella" or "Cinema Paradisio". Only serial killers and child molesters will get any enjoyment out of seeing this more than once.
Rating:
Summary: Pasolini's swansong: grim, disturbing, but fascinating
Review: The setting: North Italy during the Nazi occupation of 1944-1945. Four Italian leaders, the Duke, the President of the Court of Appeals, the Bishop, and the President, conceive a scheme to take nine young men and women, late teens, take them to an exquisite villa, "far beyond the reach of any legality", and perform their indecent desires on them. They also marry each other's respective daughters in order to "join our destinies." Thus begins Pasolini's adaptation of the Marquis de Sade's 120 Days Of Sodom. What kind of indecent desires? Basically, the routine is as follows: at 6 pm, the captives are to assemble in the 'orgy room', where storytellers would tell a series of stories on a given subject, and where the leaders, inspired by the stories, could engage in any act of lewdness at the expense of the captives. The President insists on details: "It's solely how we draw from your stories, the type of stimulation that serve us and that we expect from them." The captives are on the receiving end of the inspirations conceived by the four leaders, whether it's acting like dogs, forced to eat a meal of...best not described here, being raped, or being mistreated in general. They are naked most of the time. The most despicable of the elite four is the President, a thin, wormy-looking man with a permanent sick smile on his face. He tells stupid jokes, (well, actually one involving a man and his friend 6-times-8 is kinda funny) and is rather fond of being on the receiving end of homosexual sex, which consists the majority of sex in this film. Those who break the rules, such as having sex with another woman or performing the slightest religious act have their name written down in a black book to be given some cruel punishment. It is in the Circle of Blood segment that the captives are tortured in cruel and disturbing ways while each leader takes turns watching the events from upstairs with binoculars. The radio playing "Veris leta facies" from Carmina Burana adds to the grimness of the spectacle. There are some interesting quotes, political and psychological. "Nothing's more contagious than evil" says the Duke, to which the Court President says, "Some can only do evil when their passion drives them to evil." This ties in with the ambiguous difference between freedom and utter willfulness defined in fascism as described on the video sleeve blurb. Also, "as you well know, killing the same man many times is not enough; it's advisable instead to kill as many living beings as possible." And on love: "the limitation of love is that one needs an accomplice. A libertine$B!G(Bs refinement lies in being at once, executioner and victim."
The bearded Paolo Bonacelli plays the Duke, and also came out in The Stendhal Syndrome, in Night On Earth as the monsignor in Roberto Benigni's cab, and Johnny Stecchino, also opposite Benigni. The video sleeve description of "Revolting, memorable, and beautiful" hits the mark. It's self-indulgent, excessive, and deserved the X-rating it got, but I found myself fascinated by this sordid mess of a movie. The movie's sordidness took on a new meaning with Pasolini's own murder--he was bludgeoned to death and run over by his own Alfa Romeo (!!!) by a youth who claimed Pasolini made homosexual advances towards him. Oh, by the way, for those who don't know where Salo is, it's inbetween Milan and Verona, sitting at the west shore of Lake Garda.
Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest films ever made --
Review: Without question, the ugliest and most beautiful film ever made. And I'm glad some people will find my five-star rating scary.
Rating:
Summary: Warning: Must Remove Head from Sand to see Movie
Review: A suggestion to those who have been so appalled by this movie as to give it negative reviews: read the back of the video or DVD before watching the movie, and save yourself and the rest of us a lot of time. If escapist entertainment is your cup of tea, then by all means indulge. But, like it or not, films like should and indeed must exist. That said, this film is not for the faint-hearted or those with weak stomachs. An author once said that it is the function of the artist to hold a mirror up to society, but that it's not the fault of the artist if society doesn't like what it sees. Such is that case with "Salo." Yes, if you watch this movie you will see a protrayal of human depravity, brutality and cruelty to a degree you probably hadn't imagined possible. You might not have believed, or wanted to believe, that people are capable of doing such things to one another. Salo is only a movie; fiction. However, we live in a world where people do the same things, and much worse, to one another every day. But many of us in this country, well-off enough to afford a computer and internet access live in a society very distant from places where very simliar and actual brutality is happening; like Rawanda where people are hacking off one another's limbs, or parts of African where some children are sold into slavery, or parts of the middle east where bombs paid for with our own tax dollars are are falling on people whose only crime is living in a country whose government we despise. Compared to these real horrors, from which many of us are shielded, "Salo" is hardly an outrage. And to be outraged by it, but not by the real horrors taking place in our world - or trying to stop them is perhaps precisely the kind of hypocrisy-disguised-as-morality that Passolini and perhaps even de Sade were attempting to address. We look past the exact same type of human cruelty every day, but justify it to ourselves as necessary, sometimes for the greater (read: our own) good. It's no accident that Passolini set his movie in fascist Italy, during a time when the horrors portrated in his movie were actually taking place, and people looked the other way. If people are outraged at "Salo" they are not so much outraged at what they see in the film as they are at what they see in the mirror that Passolini is holding up to them and the rest of society, even if they do not see the mirror. If we wish to turn away from the mirror, we may. But it will not change the reality it reflects. When the movie is over, the mirror removed, we would do better to change the reality instead of cursing the reflection.
Rating: 
Summary: Anyone who rates this 5 stars frightens me!
Review: A loose adaptation of the Marquis de Sade's The 120 Days of Sodom, Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salò is perhaps the most disturbing and disgusting film ever made. It is also one of the least important.
Rating:
Summary: A Lighthearted Feast For The Soul!
Review: In the tradition of such timeless family classics as "The Wizard of Oz," "The Sound of Music," and "The Mighty Ducks 2," (not 1 or 3, i said 2 you presumptuous freaks) comes a sweet little Italian movie called "Salo". Let me tell you, you will NOT find a better movie to watch with your family this or any other year! It has a little bit of something for everyone... kids being forced to eat their own poop, fascist dicatators, beautiful scenery, kids being forced to eat their own poop....THIS MOVIE HAS IT ALL!!! You will simply not find another light-hearted comic gem quite like "Salo". It is a truly beautiful, life-affirming masterpiece.
Rating:
Summary: It's what you've been looking for...
Review: This very disturbing, controversial Italian film, brings the viewer to another demension of life all together. The decadance of society and the struggle to have power over others, particularly sexually.
Loads of nude young people...being tortured, whipped, forced to have intercourse with old men, the list goes on and on. If you are looking to be amazed and shocked...this film may just do the trick.
Not your average film about times during World War II. It has nothing to do with Facism or Nazi's in Italy during the war. It has everything to do with perversion, sadistic behavior, sexual gratification and voyerism. Sit back with the lights dimmed and let yourself into the perverted world of Pasolini....
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant and Disturbing
Review: Pasolini applies his craft as an amazing poet to the medium of film. A brilliant artist, Pasolini explores the calculations and fantasies behind the sadistic decadence of fascism. This film is a traumatic voyage through unconsensual sadism, betrayal, and murder. The dramatic cimematography provokes a strong empathetic response to the degradations of the prisoners and is a difficult experience to get through. However, this is far more than a shocking film bordering on snuff. Pasolini conveys a warning not only about fascism but the ugly side of human survival where in extreme situations, conformity is pursued instead of martyrdom.
Rating:
Summary: Believes It's Saying Something Important
Review: After viewing this depraved piece of celluloid all you'll wonder is how a film so idiotic could ever be made let alone be released. Based on De Sade's novel of the same title, a group of Facist kidnap a group of young men and women and keep them in a mansion for a total of four months. While there they are forced to eat food off the floor like dogs, eat excrement and romp around naked (that's just to start). The story is told in four different "chapters". Each one tries to out-pervert the one that proceedes it. Is this movie disturbing? For 1975 yes but not nearly so as its reputation would have you think. Unless you find sex stories and people crying disturbing. Is this movie any good? No. It's not even medicore. This film is single-handedly THE worst movie I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. I've read where people said that the director wanted this film to symbolize what he thought the Nazis did to his home country of Italy. What I pulled from this film is a waste of two hours. Unless watching a group of naked men and women cry for two hours is your idea of a good time, I say pass this one up.
| 
