Rachmaninoff28 I don't believe art's role is to "entertain" (although it can do that) but to engage, stimulate, inspire, confront, challenge, etc. And it certainly doesn't have to be nice about it! If a work of art does any of those things for me (and, of course, this is highly subjective), then it works for me.This is why I believe that Salò is very flimsy artistically. The craft of it, including the excruciatingly wooden acting and equally wooden script, simply weren't sufficient for me to ever suspend disbelief, and I was therefore never engaged by what was going on. There's no plot development, no journey, no character development, no emotional insight into characters. Nothing. Like its subject matter, the film itself is dehumanized. No doubt this was intentional, and its almost "anti-art" aspects are part of the film's "art" (for other people...), but its effect on me was that I was always aware that I was watching second-rate actors reading a second-rate script. And I just didn't care about any of it.The shock value was kind of minimal, too. I came to this film already aware that it focuses on horrible depravity. I watched it and saw a depiction of horrible depravity. So what? It needed a framework to have meaning and, therefore, rise above the level of a splatter movie (but see below).I don't believe Pasolini was commenting on Fascism or any -ism, but simply on the darkness within human beings and used that period of Italy's history as an appropriate context and pretext. I guess someone needed to make a film that showed this. It's been done now...If there is artistic merit to this film, I believe it's because it's so open to interpretation: Pasolini shows us human depravity, leaving it up to us to make of it what we will, to bring our own frameworks with us to give it meaning. (Some people even see a criticism of fast food in the pooh-eating scenes!) How much of this was part of Pasolini's design, though, I have no idea. But as art, it's right up there with, say, putting a mutilated animal carcass on display in an art gallery and calling it, say, "Installation 38b." That's pretty shallow art. (And, in 2018, quite dated -- which is another criticism I have of this film. Good art doesn't date.)The only real moral stand (and intellectual substance) I can find here is that by not providing a framework, Pasolini is rejecting the mind-control philosophy typical of the Fascists and other totalitarian regimes. Again, though, I'm not really engaged, stimulated, inspired, confronted, or challenged by that. But it is a nice idea.

Michael_Elliott Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Nine young boys and nine young girls are gathered up and taken from their homes. They are taken to a secluded castle in Italy during WWII where they hear a variety of perverted stories while their captures sexually and mentally abuse them.Pier Paolo Pasolini would be murdered before the release of this, his final film and many still seem to think it wasn't a random murder. Many people believe that his politics had some higher ups order his murder but it's doubtful we'll ever know what the truth was. With that said, this final film of his is certainly unlike anything you're ever going to see as it's about as depraved, disgusting and depressing as you're going to get. I personally think SALO, OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM is a very good movie but it's hard to really recommend it to anyone.Based on the work of Marquis de Sade, this film is about as disturbing as everything put to film. The real debate is rather this is some sort of serious art film with a message or is it just a cheap piece of exploitation that was meant to make you sick. I mean, certain horror movies are trashed for their disgusting scenes of violence and sexual brutality but how many movies are actually worse than this one? Not only do you get disgusting stories being told ranging from child rape to people being forced to eat poop but we have to see these things as well. This is a film that really works on the viewers mind so it's going to be up to that viewer whether they take it in as art or some sort of exploitation.For my money, the film is a piece of art. I'm not going to say what the director was trying to do or say with the picture but to me this film works because it seems very real. It seems like you're really there watching these horrible events and the film really doesn't back down at anything. The stories are rather brutal and we get scenes of such sexual depravity that you can't help but be disturbed. There really isn't any style here because the camera just captures the horrors that are there. The performances are raw, realistic and just add to the horrors of the story.Obviously, not everyone is going to be able to take this film and I really can't say I'd blame anyone for turning it off. Again, we can debate the politics and message of the film but there's no question that when the end credits start you're going to need a shower.

Antonio Kowatsch I didn't quite get the movie. It had a lot of insane moments that would shock people that are not so much into these types of movies (shock exploitation flicks). But as someone who has seen a fair share of them I didn't quite get the feeling that the movie lived up to it's reputation/hype. Many people told me that this is the most messed up movie they've ever seen. I don't mean to brag but I've seen way worse. The main reason why this movie never really managed to shock me was because of its inherently comical nature. As messed up as it was, every shocking scene was accompanied by a fair share of humorous remarks and some occasionally profound monologues. It was much more a comedy than anything else (especially if you have a dark sense of humor).If you're a shock movie fanatic this is probably not the right movie for you. The only disturbing thing about the movie was the fact that the protagonists were all coprophiles (if you don't know what this word means, good. Don't google it).

Angelika_New_York Hey there! Guess what?! You're not going to believe that I have actually watched this film. I have not heard of it until late 2010 when it had been recommended to me here on IMDb because of my interest in Gaspar Noe's Irreversible. I really am into film, however I would like to state that I would never, ever watch Cannibal Holocaust, really. No thanks. Supposedly there are similarities, but I must say that this is about as far as I am likely to go in regards to watching a disturbing film.Initially I was ignoring the recommendation. I disregarded it as being some obscure film that had come out in the 70's. I had never heard of Pier Paolo Pasolini. I am not going into his demise as you probably have your theories. Besides this is basically a film review.Let me tell you: for a long time I felt I just was not ready to watch this; unsure if I ever would be. The reason being is that after everything I have read about it, (which you probably should do also, if you are seriously thinking about watching this) I was hesitant that I could really sit through it. My main concern was that it could be too graphic considering the subject matter. On and off I have contemplated it for three years. Yes, three years wondering whether or not to watch a movie! By the final year, I have thought about it more and more. So you want to know how I watched this? From Netflix. And you want to know something else? I watched it…a couple of times…in like six weeks maybe. That was it really. I just wanted to watch it a second time to get a little more familiar with it from the first time. Actually speaking of the first time; afterwards like the next day, I remember actually feeling a bit queasy from even thinking about what I had watched. Since I recoiled during the explicit scenes, it was a brief feeling of mental disturbance. I wouldn't say I was absolutely ready for my first viewing, although I was as ready as I ever could have been, I was a little more composed on the second viewing. I still could not watch the really graphic parts.It doesn't take either side of right or wrong. It is not a dramatic film. It isn't really all that violent either, not by horror movie standards. The DVD/Blu-Ray cover showing the side of a long blonde haired naked girl on her knees with her face in her hands is misleading. There is not a scene in the film that shows that. I was expecting something like the scene showing Marilyn Burns freaking out with her hands tied to a chair at the one end of a dining table towards the ending of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) but there wasn't a scene that was like that, although there are moments in the film where I had to look away, such as: A scene when one nude victim wearing only a dog collar is fed a piece of cake with small razor blades in it.In addition, a young woman is forced to eat human feces, the seven minute scene where everybody eats human feces at a dinner event, some are smiling and loving it while others are disgusted. The ending when a young man's tongue is cut off and a young person's eye is cut out with a knife.It is a rather talky film. I remember thinking after I made it up to the 42:00 mark that it really was not all that bad.It is best to research the film before viewing it. The homosexuality aspect of it makes it interesting. What made it even more compelling is that I found myself attracted to Paolo Bonacelli, even although he plays one of the fascist libertines.