Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom - Criterion Collection Reviews

• the most dangerous film of all-time

  
  By A3NL062U8LTQFA on 2001-11-22
  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.
  
  

• Devastating, horrifying, bleak, disturbing, even today...a film that has lost none of its power...

  
  By A2UYAFQ40U2PHS on 2008-05-26
  Yes, ladies and gentlemen. The infamous film, Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom, has been reissued by Criterion in a special 2 disc edition. Criterion initally put out this DVD when they were still doing laserdiscs and DVD simaltaneously (its DVD spine number was 17), and the original DVD was pretty much barebones and not a particularly good transfer of the film (on either the laserdisc version or the DVD version). Now it's being released in a deluxe edition. What about the film itself? Is it worth picking up? Is it truly disturbing? Is it a work of art? Yes, yes, and yes.
  
  Pasolini made this film in 1975 right after his "trilogy of life" films, which included The Decameron, The Cantebury Tales, and Arabian Nights (aka Thousand and One Nights). Those films were very joyful and playful, and did quite well at the box office. Pasolini went into a deep depression afterwards, feeling that all his films were bogus and compromised, and set out to make a film, as he called it, "undigestable". Salo was that film.
  
  It is based on the Marquis de Sade's book, which was written in 1789 but not published until 1935. De Sade's book, while interesting at first, soon becomes boring and repetitive, outlining one sexual abberation after another. It's not erotic, in fact, it's quite disgusting, as most of the sexual behavior concentrates on coprophilia. Pasolini's film is much better than the novel, as Pasolini had much more to say with his film. He changed the original setting from 18th century France to the last days of Mussolini's government, which had set up shop in Salo, an actual province in Italy. Four fascists round up 8 teenage boys and 8 teenage girls, haul them off to a secluded villa, and degrade them and themselves for the duration. Pasolini here used the novel as a exploration of consumer culture, fascism, communism, perversion, torture (many of the scenes in this film have an eerie similarity to the Abu Ghrab prison photos taken a few years ago), and absolute power. Pasolini had said "he wanted to make a film without hope", and he did. Pasolini expounded upon de Sade's ideas and made a startling film, one that has immense power, even today. Pasolini was murdered shortly after completing this film in murky and still controversial circumstances, and somehow, that contributes to the bleakness and opppressiveness of the film.
  
  The film is as cruel, nasty, controversial, and bleak as you've heard. It totally lives up to its reputation. It has graphic scene of sexuality (despite abundant nudity, the film isn't erotic at all, but cold and numb), torture (the final third is entitled the circle of blood), and coprophilia (the middle third is entitled the circle of s***). But it isn't an exploitation film at all. It was made with the best crew in Italy at the time. The film was shot by Tonino Delli Colli, who shot Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. It was produced by Alberto Grimaldi, who also produced Leone's spaghetti westerns and Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris. Ennio Morricone scored it, Danilo Donati did the costumes, and Nino Bargali edited it. It was a legitamite production, and there was quite a lot of press surrounding it at the time of its release, as Pasolini was a huge name in Italy and international cinema at the time. Finding the film in its uncut form has been notoriously difficult over the years. It's been banned in many countries (it's still banned in Australia today), and even the DVD editions aren't complete. The original Criterion version and this version have omitted a scene where one of the fascists reads a poem from Gottfried Benn, which was included in the British Film Institute version. This 25 second scene has been posted on Criterion's website, and having seen it, it doesn't really add anything to the film. For all intended purposes, the version we have here is Pasolini's final cut.
  
  I saw this recently in an extraordinarily sharp print in NYC, and the patrons in the theater didn't say a word. Some left. Most of them stayed, and were truly stunned afterwards. Some tried to laugh this film off at the beginning; by the end of the film, they weren't laughing. They couldn't. This film was made in 1975, and it still has the power to shake you to the core.
  
  The DVD transfer is superb. It's as good as the print I saw at the IFC Theater. The extras are quite extraordinary, especially the documentary Salo: Yesterday and Today. It includes actual footage of Pasolini shooting the final scenes of the film (the torture scenes), and it's actually very difficult to watch this behind the scenes footage. Even though one may think it gives you a sense of relief that "it was all a movie", it doesn't. The footage (which is in grainy black and white, 16mm footage) has a power all its own. There is another documentary called Fade to Black in which Bernardo Bertolucci and Catherine Breillat talk about Salo. Bertolucci's thoughts on the film are particularly striking and poignant, as he was great friends with Pasolini as well as an artistic colloborator. The DVD box has one of the most chilling covers in Criterion history, including a sinister close up on the inside, which is astonishingly creepy. It also contains a 90 page booklet with fascinating essays by the great, brilliant filmmaker Catherine Breillat (who thinks Salo is a masterpiece) and Gary Indiana (who wrote a very well known book about the film). The only thing about this DVD edition that I object to is the fact that Criterion did not include John Powers's excellent essay on the film, which was printed on the laserdisc edition of the film. He said two things about this masterwork that are brilliantly insightful...
  
  "It's the cruelest, most obscene, and most intellectually toxic work ever made by a major director. Once seen, it is forever remembered."
  
  "At a time when movies are routinely called "shocking" and "contro-
  versial", Salo not only lives up to these words but makes them feel childishly inadequate".
  
  It is one of the most disturbing films ever made, on line with Cannibal Holocaust, Ichi the Killer, In a Glass Cage, and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. It is worth watching and owning.
  
  

• power corrupts: absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  
  By A2Z7DOO8L48J70 on 2000-10-24
  Though still banned in my native England, tonight I finally got to see "Salo" after 25 years of hearing its fearful and mis-represented reputation. Reading through the reviews on the IMD and here on the Amazon site, it seems clear that for many it is a "Must See Nasty" - A film whose graphic imagery of torture, rape, coprophilia, sexual perversion and murder become an endurance test to rate alongside "I Spit On Your Grave" or "Last House On The Left". The truth is that on a purely visually graphic level, it's violence and rape is outdone by 1000 other films. But the emotional and mental impact of the film, it's messages and what it tells us of Man's inhumanity is practically unrivalled. It's hard to express the film's strength and message without lapsing into pseudo-psychobabble, and the layers of meaning and allegory contained within it are too various to list, but to try to put it simply, by using the extremity of deSade and the awful truth of Fascism in Europe, Pasolini confronts the beast in us all. Having lived in Italy during the time of Mussolini, Pasolini saw at first hand the distortion and debasemant of humanity under Fascism. DeSade in turn, celbrated the fact that man's capacity for atrocity was what made us human and could free us - two sides of one awful coin. Many of the scenes have an awful stillness, presented as full-frame tableaux, with the four main protagonists watching the degradations: Pasolini flips this back on us sat in a movie theatre watching the film... For anyone seeking to ask questions about whether or not Fascism, nazism or pure evil still has the capacity to re-occur, and particularly for those people who pretend "it could never happen here again", this is the film to confront them with. It is a multi layered, disturbing, often strangely beautiful film and one that any real fan of cinema should see, to fully experience the power of film to provoke, stimulate and force the viewer into confronting real, painful aspects of humanity. Sorry to get arty, but this film has had more impact on me than practically any film I have seen in the past 20 years. A masterpiece, for real. With recent events in Eastern Europe still fresh in the mind, this film and what it has to say about Human Beings is especially relevant.
  
  

• Only in Such A P.C. Society...

  
  By on 2002-07-09
  ...would human beings actually sit in their living rooms and watch this, claiming that it has merit simply because it falls under our catch-all notions of "art" and "freedom of speech."

  Here's a thought experiment...imagine you are watching this flick (with your bowl of popcorn, soda pop, feet up on the coffee table) and an Aborigine walks in. He has never heard political speeches about "free speech," never heard the endless spinning about "art" being a "mirror," never bought into the notion that our minds are "expanded" by subjecting ourselves to such images. All he knows is that you are sitting there, looking at a man forcing a boy to eat feces and sexually molesting him.

  I would argue that his reaction (completely free of political/intellectual bias) would be astonishment and disgust, and he would probably hope never to run into you again!!! He would wonder why it was portrayed and filmed, why you spent money to buy/rent it, and why you were actually watching it. He would not consider you "sophisticated"...he'd consider you sick.

  Healthy cultures have an "ethos," an unspoken communal sense of what is "okay" and what isn't. It has nothing to do with legality or law...nothing to do with censorship...it has everything to do psychology and human nature. Our culture is entirely DEVOID of an ethos...we base what we do and think on whether it's legal or not. Our attitudes have been so skewed and bogged down by ethical relativism that we refuse to be offended by ANYTHING, as we feed our own prurient fascinations and then legitimize it by calling it "art," or by referring to it as some sort of existential exercise in repulsion therapy.

  No doubt my views will be unpopular, but in a world of "Salo" apologists, why should that bother me?
  
  

• �Salo�: A Relentless Allegory

  
  By AWWXYRHI1A6H5 on 2002-05-29
  "Salo" is most certainly one of the most controversial films of all time. With an eye sensitive to horrific imagery, it is easy to fall into a trap and see the imagery for only what it is, as opposed to what it represents. For, the power of "Salo" is to be seen in the relentless metaphor that it contains. Once one knows a couple of basic hints it becomes far easier to peel off the layers of disgust to reveal the true essence of this powerful film.

  The basic characters fall into several archetypes:
  1) The 4 Men: represent the fascist rule that dominated Italy during the Nazi rule. Given more power than they should have, they are content to savage the people they rule over with no respect for the humanity that they have been given control over.
  2) The teens: the victims of this fascist control (the Jews of the Holocaust, the Italian people, etc.) who quickly lose all their dignity and rights under such savage treatment. Escape appears to be only a couple of steps away and seems quite easy; yet, for these individuals, it is impossible.
  3) The madams: The politicians that (although not participating directly in most of the exploitation of the populace) provide the direction and desire to commit such crimes to humanity. Easily recognizable, they are just a step below the 4 men in the line of power.
  4) The soldiers: the populace of Germany/Italy who allowed these atrocities to go on. Witnessing the entire situation as it escalates (much like it did in Nazi Germany), these people fall under the Nazi spell. For them, it is impossible to sympathize with individuals that have been so debased, so no guilt is felt on their part for the crimes they are involved in.
  5) The piano player: the populace of Germany/Italy who allow the atrocities to go on, but eventually become aware of the horrors that they have helped cause. Inevitably, rather than direct their guilt externally to change the system, these individuals internalize it upon themselves.
  6) The viewer: as an individual watching this movie, the viewer is being asked by Pasolini what side they are going to fall one: the soldier or the piano player? Are we to feel sympathy for these violated teens or are we to look at their plight with the same detached lack of interest as the soldiers?

  Thus, Pasolini has created a large allegory that can be seen in today's light, as well as those of WW II. Essentially, these archetypes are applicable to most any situation in the world where individuals are being exploited...and this is Pasolini's message. As individuals outside the loop (viewers) we possess the ability to evaluate the scene and react in a way that can alleviate or enhance the scenario, it is up to us to decide.

  A word about the imagery: This too is an essential aspect of "Salo;" for, in its relentless onslaught, Pasolini is trying to tell us something. Once upon a time imagery like that of the Holocaust in WWII was capable of shocking the populace of the world (as it was REAL); however, much of humanity has become desensitized to this. Pasolini is trying to offend us with the imagery of this movie in order to parallel how we SHOULD be offended by the imagery of the Holocaust. He is showing us these atrocities without "Hollywoodizing" them (try "Schindler's List" for that)...these are images we cannot deny and they are based on reality. Humanity is capable of tremendous horror and through the imagery of "Salo," Pasolini is forcing us to acknowledge a side of our species that we have lost sight of over time.

  In this fashion, "Salo" is an exploration on the psychology of mass fascism. Not only are the soldiers placed under the spell due to the debasement of the people that are being exploited, but the exploited individuals are turned against themselves to continue to live (one particular scene is "Salo" articulates this perfectly). Promises of "freedom" that are never delivered also helps to keep these individuals in line. This mass psychology is evident throughout "Salo;" for, there are ample chances to attempt escape, but all are kept in line with minimal effort.

  Finally, a quick word about the ending (I will keep this vague so as not to spoil it for those that have not seen it): Pasolini is telling us that, in the end, we have become so desensitized to the horrors that surround us that we are all inevitably the soldier archetype. No longer able to see the suffering that surrounds us, we are dancing right along with the 4 Men...although perhaps not directly involved, we see all that is going on and help allow it to happen through our lack of action. Pasolini is describing humanity's fate here and forcing us to confront it so that, perhaps, something can be done to change it.

  This movie is one that is NOT recommended to potential viewers unless they see this movie for the imagery it represents. Contrary to what many will tell you, this movie is NOT a dark comedy and is, indeed, as dark and relentless as they come. Again, the imagery is RELENTLESS...be prepared if you decide to see this; after all, the imagery is only a fraction as disturbing as what it represents.

  Hope that helps...
  
  

• A genuine testimony of (in)humanity
  By on 2003-06-02
  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.
  
  

• A Treat for the Whole Family to Enjoy
  By A3CM1CDUSWYDIO on 2003-11-13
  From Disney's Pixar Entertainment comes a film for the whole family: Pasolini's "Salo." A heartwarming tale of bonding under the worst of circumstances, "Salo" will tug at your heartstrings. Some family films feature a lovable animal or an adorable child. This one features activity so horrific and scandalous that Marilyn Manson and the court of Caligula would blush with shame. But, hey, it helps to have a wide open definition of "family film."

  So break out the popcorn and gather your loved ones around the television set. Granny and little Tommy will be in therapy for decades over this one. The scenes of coprophagia remind me why the remote was equipped with a slo-mo button!
  
  

• So this is what we have come to.
  By AVLY40ZOVIWP0 on 2005-11-03
  David Cronenberg's film Videodrome was right: pretty soon people will be wanting to watch movies of pure torture, with no redeeming values what so ever. Im sure I'll get o out of 137 people finding this review helpful, and that sickens me. In my opinion, movies like this are bad for your mind. The whole movie is a bunch of innocent teenagers being torured, raped, molested, disembowled, and wirse things of which I won't even describe. I can't believe people enjoy this movie. Im not trying to insult anyone, im just trying to get people to realize that they are enjoying a movie about kids being tortured and sodomized. Im not some fanatical christian, or over protective parent, Im just a college kid whose worried about what movies like this do to people's minds.
  
  
• Sick to the bone!
  By A1J1JUN0AIZGLO on 2007-02-24
  This is not a review of the Criterion edition. I have seen several of their productions, and they are the best! This is about this movie.
  
  This film is sick. Very sick. I am not a prude. I am a grown up gay man with rather radical views.
  Still this film made me throw up when I saw it while preparing to write an essay on the director for a gay, cultural magazine.
  I am aware of Pasolinis intentions of describing the real inner life and dephts of fascism, and I hate anything that even comes near to fascist views, even ordinary right wing views.
  
  And still: This is the most evil film I have ever seen.
  To think up this film, even with the literary source of it as a background, Pasolini had to use his own imagination. And I am glad I never knew a person with such an imagination (at least I hope I don't know any such person).
  And worst of all: The young kids in the movie had to go through these scenes, to act out this sick story. To do those things! I do really hope they have been taken good care of ever since!
  I do not understand how it can be high art, except for being very professionally acted and photographed.
  For the rest of it: I will never watch as much as a minute of this film again!
  After viewing it I had to watch The Sound of Music three times. In a row! That was the best thing I could think of, just to get the images of this film away.
  But they are still there. Two years later.
  Do not watch this! You can't ever really escape its images, and you do not want to carry them around with you. There are other ways to find out what fascism is. This is only pollution!
  
  
• Beware! Close-out-goods/Amazon are DVD Pirates
  By A1VGAI02W2VUMQ on 2007-03-22
  I just want to let potential marketplace buyers of SALO that the seller: closeoutgoods and other Amazon marketplace sellers are selling pirated (bootlegged) editions of this movie and other Criterion DVDs. If Amazon were legitimate, they would ban these marketplace sellers from their website. Every potential buyer should report these crooks to the FBI and Criterion.
  
  
• Warning: Must Remove Head from Sand to see Movie
  By A2I9IO15NUIIHJ on 2003-01-07
  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.
  
  

• Graphically sick and demented film for perverted minds
  By A15Q9YEG1XPEJN on 2003-03-05
  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.
  
  
• An Excercise In Perversion
  By A2Y0JQNCWGFVKX on 2002-07-31
  Intrigued by the controversy surrounding this movie, familiar with the supposed themes, and unfamiliar with the uncompromising and relentless brutality depicted in the film, I dove in feet first. I am no prude and believe in an artist's right to free expression. However, this film has little redeeming value. It is an excercise in perversion and exploitation. It's depictions are almost as dehumanizing as the true life subjects that inspired this movie. Those who believe it is hip and chic to apologize for films like this miss the point entirely. I admit, I could not finish the movie. I found watching a roomful of innocent youths forced to eat their own feces in graphic detail nauseating, unsettling, and strangely banal. Populating a film with images of extreme violence does not substitute for commentary or condemnation. Leering at these victims is tantamount to one being complicent in their fates. There is nothing educational, liberating, life-affirming, or redeeming about Salo. I strongly urge anyone considering viewing this film against wasting their time. The points made in Salo have been made better in much more dignified settings. Unless you have a desire to watch unspeakably dehumanizing acts, skip Salo. If this is your thing, skip out on the nonexistent artistic pretense and take a trip to your neighborhood adult movie store.
  
  
• Dishonest, cowardly shocker fails as art and exploitation
  By on 1999-01-11
  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
  
  

• Salo
  By ACDS0GR2ESK8I on 2006-04-18
  I don't get it. Judging from the reviews, some people actually like this movie, or so they say. Well let me tell you what: if you really enjoy this film, that means you're stupid. Unless you're lying to yourself and others, for some reasons, being dumb is your only exuse for praising it.
  
  Salo is based on de Sade's book. I've read some parts of it and it was worthless. All it contains is large amounts of boring philosophy, which, I'm sure, no one even bothers to read because it's so dull, and even larger amounts of different abominations that the authors two-dimensional characters do upon each other.
  
  The movie is not better. The whole point of it is that the fascists did some bad things. Well duh.
  
  So, is this a high class piece of art? My ass. Is it at least as disgusting as they say it is? Yes it is. But if you really need to puke for some reasons, then why don't you just stick two fingers down your throat and save your time.
  
  
• The DVD facts on Pasolini's SALO...
  By A3J5V2GMXMOGCI on 2006-05-04
  Other reviews have significantly covered the content of this controversial masterpiece, so I will offer some information of note about the film's release on DVD for those who have decided that this film deserves a place in their film library. The quality of Pasolini films are less than pristine, inspite of a formal attempt to preserve his works. SALO is not an exception. The highly-prized Criterion edition is of secondary quality to the British Film Institute Region 2 PAL release, in spite of the high market value of the former. The color timing on the Criterion version results in a pervasive green tint, while the UK PAL release is more vibrant, though overly warm (reddish). Contrast boosting and edge enhancement on the Criterion make it sharper than the PAL version, but also far less authentic to the original look of the film print. Neither the Criterion or the BFI DVD is as filmlike or sharp as a French DVD from Gaumont, but, sadly, this French release has no English subtitles (ruling it out for English-speaking audiences). An interesting note on the Criterion editon is that about half a minute of material is missing, a short German poem during the wedding sequence has been removed; this again makes it totally less desirable than the BFI UK release. Those with multi-region, multi-format players should seek out the UK print, which provides a superior, filmlike image, particularly when screened on a digital projection system. Please note: the Facets bootleg editon of the Criterion (9 Chapters) is a step down visually from the original 29 Chapter Criterion. The BFI print, by the way, has minimal chapter breaks in accordance with the segments defined in the film by Pasolini. A Chinese print on DVD is availabe for all-region play, but I've yet to screen it. It's possible that this print is made from the BFI master, so may be a good choice for NTSC Region 1 players.
  
  
• Bitter and bad.
  By A34QX4C1HJFX3W on 2000-06-11
  This is the only movie I have ever seen that has a bibliography in the credits. The bibliography mentions writers like Roland Barthes and Simone de Beauvoir who might be able to explain the content of this film since nothing in the film itself explains why anybody would make such a disgusting, bitter movie or what this inhuman spectacle could possibly mean.

  I doubt those writers can accomplish what the director failed to accomplish and redeem this film.

  I have never seen anything as awful and life negating as this movie. And its no wonder. I have never been an active member of Hitler's SS. Only the cruelest and most sadistic moron could enjoy this movie. It is repugnant and rejects every decency of which man is capable.

  There is no reason to watch this movie. Only if you are like me, all these warnings will only serve to make you search out the video cassette, thinking, "Damn, how bad could it be?"

  I had to cover my eyes over some of it and I am not a squeemish person. This movie is really an atrocity. "Nothing is shocking," a lot of people say, but this movie shocks and its not a good shock. Watching this movie is like being in hell. It really is. If you are smart you will avoid it. At least be kind and watch it alone. Do not subject your friends or loved ones to this filth.
  
  

• Some masterpiece....
  By A153EWR6V83J9G on 2005-12-05
  There are so many reviews here that hail this as a masterpiece, as a landmark in cinema history...and then they complain at the poor acting, editing and script. So what exactly makes it a masterpiece then? Beats me.
  
  Ok, you have to admit that the main reason people watch this is to get shocked, offended and generally freaked out at some of the weird stuff they'll see, but at the end of the day I found it boring. Yes, even the 'distrubing' scenes seemed so over-the-top that they just didn't seem realistic, and after it all ended I felt violated. I felt like someone had come into my house, destroyed my belongings, beat me up, beat up my parents, raped me and made me eat s**t. That's basically what the films about. And if you enjoy watching that... you need help.
  
  
• An anti-masterpiece
  By A2DW2FGYMHV7QJ on 2000-12-29
  Ever wondered how a film version of Marquis DeSade's "120 Days of Sodom" might be like? "Salo" is the answer. Salo is a film which has been mislabeled everywhere it goes. It has been filed in the pornography section, the horror section, and has been categorized along with films like the "Ilsa" series and "I spit on your grave." Yet those films, which were true exploitation films, are nowhere near as shocking as Pasolini's "Salo." And the funny thing is, there isn't even as much violence in Salo as in the aformentioned films, or even today's films such as those by Tarantino and Stone.

  Pasolini is no exploitation director - He has receieved many awards and praise for his "updated classics" like the Canterbury Tales and Arabian Nights. "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" received the highest possible rating from probably the stingiest critic today, Leonard Maltin. "Salo", on the other hand, received a Bomb by Maltin. The most controversial elements of this film are mainly the use of underage actors, who are perhaps real teens (not those twenty-somethings Hollywood uses and passes off as teens). They are used as subjects of torture by four cruel, remorseless men which put them through eating excrement, whipping, drinking urine, and, in the climax, torture. The film is also filled with sex, both hetero and homo. Yet, despite all this disgusting matter, the film is directed very masterfully. Shot very realistically, you get the feeling of being a witness to atrocities that were committed in real life at another time in history. The sets are very beautiful, and the torture scenes are VERY realistic, and the tension during these scenes are made even more horrific, credit to ominous growling sounds in the background and a classic score from Orff's "Carmina Burana." "Salo" can even be viewed as an extreme allegory, where the four men represent Fascists, and the teens are victims of fascism. Whether it'd be viewed as trash, allegory, an extreme film on censorship, film adaptation of a nearly unfilmable book, a masterpiece, or even an anti-masterpiece without compromises, excuses, or any happy endings, "Salo" can never be forgotten by anyone who has the chance of seeing it. Unfortunately, the studio stopped releasing the video. There has never been a film before like "Salo", and there probably will never be any more after.
  
  

• Soul crushing--recommended very highly to a very few
  By A2MDZVFELW98B5 on 2008-04-24
  I watched this film late one night (after my parents were in bed), and for a while it was merely uncomfortable to sit through. The actors weren't particularly emotional, the sets weren't hugely exciting, and the storyline consisted of four libertines and their accomplices listening to dirty stories and doing dirty things to their child victims.
  
  And yet, halfway through this blasé piece, I began crying. It was, I believe, at a part where the whore was telling one her sick stories while dancing with the libertine, and she begins laughing as if it is the funniest thing in the world. And yet the laugh sounds false--not just false, but hopeless. I cried off and on (though more on than off) the rest of the film, and from now on I cannot think about "Salo" without tearing up; I am trying not to cry even as I write this.
  
  What makes "Salo" the most disturbing film I have ever watched, no competition? It is not the acts depicted--the coprophilia, the torture, the murder, the betrayal. It is that supreme and utter hopelessness behind the whore's laugh. It is the insatiable desires of the libertines, constantly fed and yet never quenched. It is the victims who are willing to sell each other out in order to escape just a little bit more torture before their inevitable death.
  
  The novel described the four libertines as being people who not only did as much evil as they possibly could, but also as people who went out of their way to avoid doing anything virtuous. Pier Paolo Pasolini has extended this bleak outlook to the entire human race. The entire film is soaked with his utter hatred and disgust for humanity--nobody in this film has a redeeming side, not even the victims. Everyone in this film is going to die--even the libertines, sometime after the film comes to its conclusion, are going to be tried for war crimes as part of the Fascist regime. Pasolini paints a portrait of the human race as a race that is wallowing in the lowest depths of misery as it drags itself towards its own demise.
  
  There is no moral to this story. Pasolini figures that the human race will merely ignore the moral if he tries to give one. Neither does he try to spruce up this film with interesting acting or camera-work. The direction is bland and the cinematography is largely static--and therein lies its greatest (or is it its worst?) talent. It is as if Pasolini is looking up at the human race from behind the camera, his face gaunt and hopeless, considering the various ways to spice up the scene before saying: "Why bother? You are worthless; this film will not satisfy your desires, whatever they may be."
  
  Which leads me to one last question: how the heck did I give this 10 stars? And how the heck can I possibly recommend it to any of you? It was upsetting, disturbing, and appalling. And yet it has changed my life--for the better? For the worse? Does is crush my hopes for humanity, or does it give me an understanding of its darkest facets and how best to avoid them? Look, people, I don't rightly know! I'm still figuring it out!
  
  To most of you: stay the heck away from this film. But to a few of you--a very, very few--those few that want to see this movie for more than its shock value, those few that are willing to explore humanity's darkest recesses, those few that are not mainstream moviegoers and are actually willing to think--I recommend, no I BEG you to watch "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom." You will never forget it.
  
  
• Its all about Humanism
  By A1SL8JOY6PFWEV on 1999-08-30
  When walking out of the cinema after seeing this picture, I was first of all shocked... I consider myself very broadminded, but this picture nearly tipped my scale. The reason why I say nearly, is that after a walking round in Copenhagen for a while with the film in mind I suddenly realised that what really happened in the cinema was a showing of what people - i.e. all of us - are capable of when dehumanising human beings.

  This film really showas what happens when you get convinced that there is a level of people underneath yourself, and that these particular beings are of a lower value than others and yourself. Then you are well on your way to becoming exactly as the sadistic men in this movie. Because what they really did was de-humanising people they thought were under themselves. They transformed humans into objects, life to meat.

  Therefore the film is not a farce and it is not just 'the worst/most disguting film ever made' because this is one of the only film really capable of showing the value of humanism, the value of human beings. And it does this by showing us what men are capable of when they forget that we are all equal...
  
  

• 5 STARS?- U PEOPLE ARE BEYOND DUMB
  By A30XEDC7BZJ4FS on 2004-11-15
  This isn't an amazing or deep film that must be seen. Its a discontinued, rare, High E-Bay bidding, attention capturing, hyped up cinematic trash that people ONNNNNLLLY WATTCCCH because its hard to obtain a copy, rent it. Im not disgusted easily but those who are will find this repulsive. This may be based on 120 Days of Sodomy but its retarded. NOTHING HAPPENS.
  Kids get tortured
  THAT
  IS
  ALL
  THATS THE ONLY!!!! reason people watch this. It isnt a guilty pleasure but people want what they cant have
  Hence the high E BAY prices due to its discontinuation on Region 1 Criterion Collection DVD.
  AND
  Its graphic, violent, disgusting---> kids being tortured and raped. Again theres nothing wrong with curiousity but please dont be dumb. Dont tell me this film is ANY deeper than what you see. Kids being tortured and then more kids being tortured.
  ANyone who likes this film, likes the imagery of torture. There is nothing deep here
  And no, I GOT IT, theres nothing here
  no, he just didnt get it crap??!!!!??
  I got it
  its dumb but worth one view so you can say---> Yes I saw the forbidden Film of the century!
  
  P.S.
  The acting sucks
  their are gay male scenes- which unlike people from San Francisco i dont enjoy
  Most of the scenes are either
  1. Boring
  2. Funny (No intentionally though)
  3. Disgusting but not half as digusting as some make it out to be
  NOT the worst film ive ever seen but still stupid and terrible.
  Plus theres no replay value
  u would never want to watch it again unless you want to show people u own it, or u atleast have it in possession.
  OR u want to gross out your friends and say:
  Want to see what some critics describe as the most digusting film ever?
  p,P,S
  Caligula is terrible but great compared to this
  Malcolm McDowell is the man
  
  3 WAYS TO OBTAIN THIS FILM
  [...] You need a Region 2 DVD Player but you get the DVD for regular price
  EBAY- ORIGINAL can be up to $400 or more (yes ridiculous i know)
  EBAY- bootleg $20 and up (Labeled No White Ring- the true mark of the original Criterion DVD)
  Rumor has it, the dvd MIGHT be released again due to high demand
  
  
• You'll Only Watch It Once...
  By on 2000-02-18
  This brutal, beautiful film is not meant for the casual viewer. In trying to indict the fascists of his home country,Pasolini has been (wrongly)accused of glamorizing their degradation of things human. I saw this film in the theatre on it's US release. No one with a weak stomach should consider this film. Anyone, however, with a strong interest in art as a means of political expression,flawed or not, should see this. If Heller's CATCH-22 points out the utter lunacy of war in a fanciful way, then Pasolini's film is the opposite side of that-it will make you cringe at the depravity visited upon the victims of sadistic torture. What was Pasolini's point? Perhaps he wanted to push us to think about what we refuse to consider is being done for us as well as to us. If you can take it, you'll never watch a film that can equal it's ability to disturb...
  
  
• a truly disturbing film.......
  By A1CRLXOTC04E6G on 2003-06-14
  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.
  
  
• Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom
  By A2I4VTPKGSQZ75 on 2008-06-20
  The essential "plot" of "Salò Or The 120 Days Of Sodom", what little of it there is, revolves around the abduction and abuse of a group of male and female teens by a group of older male and female extreme decadent pleasure seekers in the Fascist state of Salò in the latter part of the Second World War.
  
  Pasolini's last film, and some argue his finest, takes its nominal cue from the Marquis de Sade's pornographic screed from the 1700's and presents a visually disturbing piece that has been the subject of much debate since its release in the mid 70's. If ever there was a "love or hate" film, then this is it.
  
  To be fair, Pasolini achieves what he has really set out to do...which is to sicken the viewer. The atrocity displayed onscreen is virtually non-stop and humiliation heaped upon the young captives makes for a truly disgusting, if detached, experience. But beyond that, "Salò" has nothing else to say. There are some who have tried to present "Salò" as a critique of Fascism, but other than transferring de Sade's setting from 18th Century France to 1940's Italy, there is no clear comment on Fascism on offer here and that suggests that such effort to align "Salò" with such highbrow opinion is simply an attempt to intellectualise what is essentially a high class exploitation piece.
  
  Where the film's success lies is more as a critique on depraved human sexuality and perverted power play, revealed in scenes showing the teenage captives being subjected to rape, humiliation, torture and finally murder all for the gratification of their captors.
  
  There is also a sense of otherness to "Salò" that accompanies other Continental films of the period, lending the it a weird feeling throughout and the film's notoriety also contributes to the overall sense of oddness that the work emits. But the work is not enjoyable or entertaining to any degree. There are no moments of redemption here or even any characters to identify with, on any level. Even the captives of the perverted bourgeoisie are rendered unsympathetic as they follow their new masters like sheep and then start `ratting' each other out. "Salò" is not a pleasurable experience.
  
  However, the main problem with "Salò" is not the distasteful focus on anal rape, sexual humiliation or coprophilia. It's the fact that the whole project is just rather poorly executed. The dialogue is turgid and absolutely ridiculous at times, it's overlong, with unlikable characters and in between each appalling event the film is incredibly boring. There's no denying that for those with the stomach, the atrocity on offer in "Salò" makes for strangely compelling viewing, but when that's absent the film is simply ticking over its 1 hour 51 minute running time. The end result is that, beyond saying that human beings can sink to extreme depths of sexual depravity, the film is utterly pointless.
  
  
  
• overrated, piece of garbage.
  By on 2003-02-12
  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.
  
  
• man - the most vicious animal on earth
  By A19R4LR4NTKG1P on 2006-07-17
  Being a borderline fan/admirer of shock/exploitation films from the late 60's to the early 80's I'd known about Pasolini's film for quite a few years before actually getting my hands on a copy.
  
  I hesitate to say that it was well worth the wait, but what I can say is that it's a film filled with disturbing images that I will never forget.
  
  The film can be, and has been, interpreted in many different ways, two of the most popular:
  
  (1) A film against fascism. To depict tyrannical rulers as unsympathetic, cold, heartless beasts.
  (2) A shock film. Nothing more, nothing less.
  
  Now, the people who believe the film to be nothing more than a quick shock film have obviously something wrong with them. Pasolini was an artist of the highest degree, and this was his vision, his creation, his voice against fascism: that it absolutely destroys people in every form, mentally and physically.
  
  One of the main aspects of the film that disturbs me the most is, as an existentialist, these men, the fascists, choose to do this out of their own free will, and enjoy every single moment, every minute, every second of it, with a greater degree of bliss than a fat kid in a candy store placed right next to a Burger King.
  
  So, in summary, I sincerely belive that Salo is, without a doubt, one of the most powerful films of the last 50 years, and that if you're not moved in any way after viewing it, you've been utterly desensitized and have lost all credibility as a human being.
  
  And on a side note, I can guarantee you that the majority of the people who declare Salo "oh, it's not so bad," are the same hypocritical invalids who cry & moan about 'animal cruelty' in films, but are more than happy to watch human suffering, be it on some internet site, or film, you're just as bad as the fascists in this film.
  
  
• Enough Now
  By A1LMQHB3ZANNVN on 2008-08-26
  This is going to be a long review, because I feel obligated to answer to all those who have left negative reviews and to point out their weakness on the points.
  
  The first thing to do, is to concede to the negative reviews, several major points. This movie is depraved, sickening, horrifying, violent, disgusting, inhumane, disturbing, nightmarish, and violent. It shows the most despicable images you may ever see. Cannibal Holocaust has nothing on it. Saw and Hostel wish they could be as disturbing or violent, but they just aren't. This movie isn't an enjoyment to watch. It's interesting. It doesn't leave you with a good experience. It leaves you with a sickening feeling in your stomach. You may want to fastforward through scenes, you may want to fast forward through the whole movie. This has a lot of horrible scenes. Everything about the cruelty of this movie is true.
  
  Now here's why the Negative reviews are wrong. Pier Paolo Pasolini wasn't Meir Zarchi (Writer and Director of I Spit On Your Grave) nor was he Ruggero Deodato (director of Cannibal Holocaust). Pier Paolo Pasolini wasn't a exploitation filmmaker. His films weren't about zombies or murderers or psychotics or woman getting revenge. He wrote dramas (Mama Roma, Accatone). He wrote the story christ (The Gospel of St. Matthews). And retold many mythology (Odepus Rex, Medea). He made real films, using realism and other styles of filmmaking to create a reality that showed a world that Italy wanted to deny, a world of pesantry and prostitutes, of gamblers and thugs. Pier Paolo Pasolini wasn't a filmmaker of shock and exploitation, he was a maker of art films, of dramas. He was a novelist, a poet, a columnist. He worked with Bernado Bertolucci, Federico Fellini, some of the greatest foreign filmmakers of his time and of the 20th century. So Salo shouldn't be seen as a filmmaker deciding to make a splatter porn, or torture porn, like Hostel or Saw, but trying to make a statement, since he did it with his entire body of work.
  
  Negative reviews seem to say that this film is wrong. It's not. They want to point out how only sick people would watch this film. But one could say the same thing about The Passion of the Christ. This is a violent film. So was the Passion of the Christ. This is an unpopular stance, how can one--some cocky little person--compare a movie of sadism and violence, with a movie about the Lord and Savior and our redemption, I do so, simply to make a point, that violence is seen in the context in which people know it as. The Passion of the Christ was to make a point about the suffering of the lord for our sins. This movie is the horrid nature of fascism and the dangers of globalization (whether you agree with the views of not, the views exist and are on full display). This movie was a hard movie to watch, just as hard was it to watch The Passion of the Christ, and Apocalyptico, there's not a difference, just a different point. One was made with the idea of showing you a culture that once existed and a story you all knew, the other used a form of horror that a dying breed witnessed and understood, and put it out there for you to consume and view, to understand the true horrorifying possibilities.
  
  Watch it at your own peril. It's a horrifying movie. You won't get those images out of your mind for at least a few days. This movie will effect you. It will make you think. I'm not sure if it's worth the money, but it's definitely worth the view.
  
  
  
• One of the most shocking films
  By on 2000-08-10
  It's no wonder that this movie stirs up passions. It's very graphic and it's not for faint-hearted. But in my opinion it's less cruel than some Terrentino movies, like Reservoir Dogs, for instance. In terms of graphic representation of cruelty, it's not even close to some modern movies. The difference is that it has that horrifying suspense - you don't know what will be in the next scene; it's a very sophisticated movie. Also, this film contains an important message - that everyone there is a victim - the governors, the guards and not just the victims/youths. There are no positive characters; maybe only 2 youths who got killed earlier in the movie when trying to escape or for praying to God. I think the purpose was to show what lower depth a human being can reach, torturers with inventing new tortures, guards being stone-hearted and "just doing their job", and victims themselves who gradually turn into obedient sheep where there is no human dignity left. They try to fight for favours from the governors/torturors and any trace of pride is gone; they've turned into animals as well. It takes a while to stomach this movie and to decide for yourself what the author wanted to say. It is not a simplistic film where all thr answers are suggested. It's not a romantic kind of movie, too, so skip if you look for pure light-minded entertainment. By the way, it was not directed by Pasolini, but by his long-time assistant.
  
  
• WRONG
  By on 2002-08-22
  Depravity far worse than that depicted in the film exists in the world today, acts far more violent and horrendous. Nonetheless, their representation without any moral standpoint is immoral because it proposes that the morality of extreme violence is up for debate. It simply isn't. Depicting brutality such as this film does without condemning it is to open the possibility that we accept it without thinking, the ultimate in moral perversion. The proper response to watching this film is to stop; to continue is to indulge, and I mean indulge, not explore, the absolute worst elements of the filmmaker and the human beast.
  
  

• Vampyr - Criterion Collection
• Caligula (Unrated Version)
• Brand Upon the Brain! - Criterion Collection
• Earrings of Madame de...
• Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters - Criterion Collection