I saw the unrated color restored version of the film and think that it is a mere excuse for marketing a soft porn movie. The ending was as sick as could get with the revelation that Celia was Christopher's sister and she continued to make love almost endlessly (wat super stamina) whilst Chris melted in the pit. Don't you think it's just A miserable excuse for soft porn?
If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed - Stanley Kubrick
Even though that's not what he intended it surely comes across as it, pretty disgusting movie in general for die hard exploitation fans only: bad acting, stupid story, lame fight scenes, only the sick acts stick out.
"I'am laughing on the outside, crying on the inside"
I managed to stay with it, there was a wierd fascination about such a terrible film and at least the naked Jane Lyall was nice to look at. Is it possible to watch this film more than once? Only by fast forwarding everything except the naked Jane scenes. Her acting is unintentionally funny too.
To make a lot of money as cheaply as possible. The director was amazed at how much money Texas Chainsaw (the original) had pulled in. So he decided to top it by making a twisted sex and slasher film thinking there is a population around the world that will pay good money to see it. And he's right, I guess. I stopped watching the main when that little goat or lamb got raped. I mean, if they are going to rape animals could it at least have been an adult sheep?
Although I did fast forward a bit and caught the "making the guy drink the paint" scene. I turned it off after that.
I do like films that are not intentionally funny i.e. the ones that are so bad they are good, but I'm just not into bestiality and the bad acting couldn't persuade me to keep going with it.
It was simulated bestiality, I hope. I am into all kinds of exploitation but I draw the line at animal abuse. That's why I can't watch Cannibal Holocaust as much as I admire Deodato.