This is a very scary movie. I do not know why it got 3.8. That is just underrating it. I give it a 6. It is a very good horror movie. It not a sequel to Cannibal holocaust and that is why it is a good movie. Cannibal holocaust was just gross crap and had nothing to do with being scary. This is very scary. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It is scarier then The silence of lambs could ever be. This scarier then The Omen and that is not easy to do. This is scary then the 2010 remake of A Nightmare on elm street could ever be. This is scarier then the 2009 reboot of Friday the 13th could ever be. If you like real scary movies you should see this movie.

An overview of Italian cinema reveals a rich history packed with fantastic movies. First coming into prominence in the 1950s, with a series of epics, Biblical and otherwise, the 1960s saw the floodgates open with hundreds of sword and sandal and spaghetti western movies pouring into the world market. In the 1970s, the Italians made the thriller genre their own, splitting it into two sub-genres (the polizia and giallo film) and adding oodles of violence. Finally, the period 1980 to 1985 saw a final explosion of cheap-as-hell exploitation films to mark Italian cinema's dying days; the rip-off was the most popular type of film, with dozens of post-holocaust, horror, science fiction and fantasy movies released during these years. Sadly, post 1985, Italian genre cinema has been dull and derivative, lacking even a decent low budget; pretty much every film is a stinker.So here we have the backdrop for CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST II, a supposed sequel to the classic 1979 horror film by Ruggero Deodato, which reached new heights in violence and disturbed everyone who saw it. This sequel comments on the real-life animal cruelty of the original film, by having numerous sequences of our heroes rescuing animals, rather than slaughtering them! Otherwise, the two films are unconnected. CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST II is as lifeless and worthless a horror film as you could expect; in fact, there's no horror to be seen at all, and barely any violence or gore. What kind of film is it then? Well, it could best be classed as an adventure I suppose, charting as it does a massive journey undertaken by the main characters, but it doesn't really have any of the genre trappings.The film introduces all the jungle staples, including piranhas, crocodiles, monkeys etc. but doesn't do anything with them. There's one fun moment in which our heroes look like they're going to be tortured (by ants, amongst other things) but it cuts off at the last minute. Then there's the usual round of grub-munching and fish swimming into private places, but such scenes seem to be played for laughs rather than horror.The casting is really dire in this film – there's nobody you ever heard of, except Sal Borgese. Why is it that when lip-synching got better, the dubbing got worse? Still, the actors are as lifeless as their characters, and for those who think modern Hollywood blockbusters are dumbed down, you should see this film's script! So, finally, is there any reason to watch this film? I have to admit that there are some cool props – the heads in jars are just plain bizarre, whilst the skeleton in the burial mound is suitably icky. There's plenty of native nudity on hand as well, especially a young girl who parades around topless for most of the movie. There are about three or four action sequences, usually involving our heroes escaping from smugglers or other myriad bad guys, but they're poorly shot and not at all entertaining. The film's "big" ending is a battle between Indians and gun-toting bad guys, and is actually quite cool, with some hilarious jungle traps flying about in the air. Sadly, it all comes as too little, too late.Obviously, making this film was a major effort; the jungle locations are authentic, and there's no set-bound foliage on display here. So if director Climati (incidentally, the guy who wrote and directed SAVAGE MAN, SAVAGE BEAST in the '70s – what is it with this guy and his animal obsession?) bothered to get his cast all the way into the jungle, why didn't he make more of an effort to make a remotely plausible, plotted film? The answer will forever be a mystery.

Basically I can begin by simply stating that this movie was totally abysmal. It's a slap in the face to the albeit small cannibal sub-genre that lives among horror/exploitation movies.This movie is a total pox on what cannibal movies are supposed to be. How can this be called Cannibal Holocaust when there is not one ounce of cannibalism in it?The movie starts off relatively OK, and it's a stock standard affair in the premise of going to the jungle region in the first place, however after 30 minutes, tedium begins to mount and you start to realise that very little, if anything, is actually going to happen.The movie almost starts to redeem itself when the natives suddenly turn on the group of four and tie them up in various positions and set about their regimen of torture. One of the guys is pinned to the ground and they place an ants nest on him, so you prepare yourself for what you think is going to be a rather painful death, but they managed to talk their way out their predicament, he gets up, brushes off the ants and the movie continues as normal. The natives forget all about the group as they are now more interested in a tape recorder playing jungle sounds!! What the hell??Very little of this movie actually makes any sense, and it appears to be a culmination of several half-finished scripts all thrown together. I can live with the bad acting, as this was to be expected, I can even live with the poor filming and sound quality, but for a movie that was previously "banned" you expect it to be able live up to that kind of reputation. I gave this movie 2 stars based solely on actress Jessica Quintero who played the young native girl, Kuwala. Since I'm an Australian I thought they were calling her Koala, but in any case she was the only one who seemed to know what she was doing from the time she first showed up, and despite being naked for most of the time she was on-screen, She's really the only believable character in this drivel. Even the hammock loving villain who ordered the 3 guys to remove their pants to be threatened with castration via anaconda, seemed hardly able to maintain a straight face let-alone be capable as anything even remotely bad.The ending made about as much sense as the rest of this abomination. The woman of the group along the guy they were looking for suddenly take off in the seaplane without a word and head back to civilisation with a vague promise she'll return for the others. By way of an epilogue, you find out that she did come back after about 2 years! The movie just makes no sense and just plods along much like a high school play. Do yourselves a favour and avoid this movie. There are plenty of good cannibal movies out there, so get one of them instead.

Antonio Climati's "The Green Inferno" is obviously inspired by Ruggero Deodato's unforgettable masterpiece "Cannibal Holocaust"(1979).Professor Koranz is missing so 4 individuals(one woman reporter and three guys)head off to the Amazon to search for him.They encounter fish that feed on the intestines of live humans,bat attacks,unfriendly headhunters,anacondas and more jungle horrors."The Green Inferno" is nothing special.It has some rather unpleasant scenes involving animals,but the amount of violence is extremely low.Still if you like Italian exploitation cinema give this obscure little flick a look.However fans of Antonio Climati's downright unpleasant mondo movies will be sorely disappointed.6 out of 10.