Should be renamed to "Animal Holocaust"
-
PurpleLemonadeDinosaur — 11 years ago(March 08, 2015 10:53 PM)
Yeah, you're obviously for human rights of people of color who are slaughtered like that everyday. Funny how the "worst" part of a horror film is the slaying of animals. I'm not for animal cruelty either, but you people are something else with how you value animals over human life.
I get high on hydroponic weed -
PurpleLemonadeDinosaur — 11 years ago(March 09, 2015 04:23 PM)
I know the difference. My point still stands that the message of the movie was clearly lost by the animal killings and I don't feel comfortable about people complaining more about the slaughter of animals real or not and the message of women and children being terrorized. I did find it ironic the message was how awful white "missionaries" can be when it comes to slaughtering indigenous and brown people for profit and entertainment purposes, but it seems like the real directors of this film killed animals just for that. Can't say I liked the muskrat death.
I get high on hydroponic weed -
panthersrulenfl69 — 11 years ago(March 31, 2015 10:55 PM)
At least all the animals were eaten they were actually killed for food and they decided to film it in a way it helped with the realism documentary style at least for me, I mean really if you were in the jungle like that you'd have to eat something. The muskrat is definitely the hardest to watch because of the screaming,
Also I agree with you I get so sick of people whining about the animal deaths but have no issues with people dying. Ntm most releases of this do come with a animal friendly version along with the uncut version.
Welcome to primetime b*tch -
-
Angelic_Arrow — 10 years ago(July 07, 2015 04:53 PM)
I get so sick of people whining about the animal deaths but have no issues with people dying.
People whined, so much that the film's director was charged for murder and he was facing life in prison, until he proved that he did NOT kill a human being during the making of this film.
So the killing and torture of people is OK, but not of animals?
No, they are both wrong.
Hitler thought the same way.
And he had people actually tortured and killed.
These comparisons are idiotic, the film is NOT killing or torturing people, but it DOES kills and tortures animals.
One is a staged situation, whereas the other one is a REAL situation. You people seriously can't comprehend the difference? People comparing them and putting them on the same level have created an entirely new level when it comes to stupidity.
Good gurls are just bad gurls that haven't been caught. -
-
LordInsect — 10 years ago(October 07, 2015 09:17 AM)
It's f.cking despicable. This is would be an amazing film, but those scenes, yeah, f.ck that, I can't look past them, it's absolute bullsh.t. There was absolutely no reason not to use effects for those scenes or if you REALLY can't afford it then just MAYBE not put them in the film? They aren't even the most shocking scenes, so that makes them completely pointless too.
"Ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?" -
Kaliyugaforkix — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 10:47 AM)
I guess it speaks to a general atmosphere where so many people value animals over their own species. The director sounds like a real unsavory character if a self aware one; I find it hard to appreciate his movie magic trick when he was such an beep pulling it off. I guess i like the
idea
of interspersing all this authentic death between the faux carnage, confusing everybody about what they are even watching but its a ghastly thing to actually go through with it IRL. Its more carny act than valid statement, other than 'I'm a clever a$$hole'. Like he knew
exactly
how he was playing everybody, having the actors sign an agreement not to appear in anything for a year after the film just to fool everyone into believing the whole thing was real. Part of me admires his balls and part of me thinks 'what a beep'
The only animal death that felt inexcusable was the Tortoise; those things live longer than we do. -
illuminatedspiral — 9 years ago(August 01, 2016 12:48 AM)
I belief that depiction of animal killings was intended and meant to be highly symbolic. Although I also belief that the actual killing of animals was rather cruel and unnecessary. This makes the symbolic nature of this film almost ironical.
To begin, the murder of the turtle has a very high degree of significance. If you notice, the men are happy and content when killing the turtle, but the woman begins to throw up. She is experiencing an emotional discomfort which causes the physical effect of vomiting. Therefore, this scene is essentially meant to illustrate how humans are not meant to kill animals, it is something that should cause use emotional and physical discomfort. This is further supported by the other scene where another animal is killed. During the killing of the pig, the guy who shoots the pig yells excited "In the jungle,its daily violence of the strong overcoming the weak!" Therefore illustrating the fact, and clearly articulating it, that they were killing not for any reason other than to attain some feeling of superiority. That mentality is not entirely fictional, if you think about it even the mere eating of "steak" is considered to be a symbol of status in present, modern society.
Thus, the acts in the movie have some highly symbolic philosophical value, which then makes the killing of real animals almost ironic; which makes the film maker a twisted genius, or a completely delusional and self-unaware individual. The whole premise of the film is a based around the complete lack of empathy and the prioritization of film over human life and compassion. During the scene when there is a giant spider on the woman's shoulder, the on of the guys actually instructs the other to leave it and film it. Then during the first rape scene, the woman film maker observing the rape of another woman completely disregards any feelings of empathy, but instead becomes jealous the moment its her boyfriend doing the raping and begins yelling that it should not be filmed because it is a waste of film rolls. So then, during the movie the people filming continuously value the film footage over human life and empathy. Thus then, the killing of real animals makes the intention of the film somewhat puzzling. For in their absence, it would have made a good advertisement for animal rights and the preservation of life. But in their presence, it illustrates the film maker as an intellectual capable of illustrating animal cruelty as akin to rape and murder, but sadistic enough to commit them for himself for the very purpose of attaining some "real" footage; which was the moral fault of the characters in the movie. -
greasykid1 — 9 years ago(October 18, 2016 03:58 AM)
Are people purposefully missing the point in this thread just for sake of argument?
We are not upset about the depiction of cruelty to humans in this film because it was fake. The animals are really being killed on camera, for entertainment purposes.
Also, it is NOT the case, as someone has stated here, that the animals would have been killed anyway, and they just recorded it for the movie's realism. The animals were captured and killed in order to get the shot for the movie. In fact, the spider monkey scene was done twice, killing 2 animals because the director wasn't happy with the first take!
If we're talking about the movie's plot, then yes. The animal death is depicted as either for food or in defence of themselves. So, the human torture and murder is worse.
But in the context of MAKING a movie, there's NOTHING to debate about whether it's right or wrong to have characters in a story killed. It's just a story. This depiction may be more realistic than most, but it's still FX, still simulated - as the animal killing should have been!