Genres

Visitors Review

AloysiusWeasley 2012-05-23 00:40:37

One huge glaring issue with the film...

Half my issue with this film is that I felt next to nothing for thecharacters. Literally, not a one provoked any sort of emotion at all,and that really ripped most of the sensation out of any and all actionscenes in the film. It also has some very slow points that really couldhave used some touching up.As odd as it sounds,the other half of my issue with the film is thatthe soundtrack is so jarring and unfitting it threw me right out of thefilm and left me incapable of taking it seriously. SCREECHING violinsduring action scenes were unbearable, and it only got worse as the filmprogressed. Really, it's THAT painful.

davidstanway 2012-05-22 18:05:18

Magnificent and underrated

The great thing about the masses of fake DVDs circulating throughoutShanghai markets is that you can come across barely-known and unheraldedgems such as this. A gruesome satire on the brutality behind the buildingofa nation, Ravenous centres on a remote outpost in the American Civil War.Rarely has cannibalism been treated with such a sense of humour.

artzau 2012-05-21 14:05:47

Windigos and Hollywood

This is a great film with a fine cast and some fine storyline. The theme iscannibalism and it is spoofed to the max. There are several fine reviewsherein that outline the plot and I don't need to add to those. However, asan anthropologist I would like to point out one issue or misconception thatcrops up in the film and reviews, albeit it deals only tangentally with thisvery fine flick.The windigo is an Ojibwa term for a monster who is never seen. In fact, togaze on one, is instant death for the beholder. It is only known by itstracks, a human footprint with a drop of blood in the middle. The originsof the windigo myth are several but at the root of it is the pan-human tabooof eating human flesh. Cannibalism, or anthropophagy, is seen in threeforms: incorporative, ritual and survival. Incorporative, which isextremely rare among human groups, is where other humans are hunted andeaten as food; ritual, is very common and usually entails eating bits ofhuman flesh to garner some of the spirit of the slain victim; survival, iswhere dead individuals are eaten by survivors who have no other food source,e.g., the famous Donner party of California, the Uruguayan rugby team in theAndes, etc. Where humans eat other humans other than for survival nearlyalways has a ritual basis and there are many recorded accounts ofcannibalism among the Aztecs of Mexico, several hill tribes of New Guineaand elsewhere. At the other end of the scale, survival cannibalism waswidely reported among many Native American tribes in areas where extremewinters occurred. It is in this context the windigo myth occurs. Indeed,one finds many similar invisible cannibal monsters among the Mic-Mac ofMaine, the Blood of Canada, the 5 Iroquois nations and many other Algonquiantribes of Northeastern America. There are also similar mythic monsters inNative American lore in Calfornia, although Californian Native Americansreferring to this monster as a "Windigo" is straight out of some Hollywoodwriter's imagination.The theme of this film embraces the spirit of ritual cannibalism (no punintended) and that's what makes it work so well. As a film, I have to agreeas to its potential cult status and I certainly thoroughly enjoyed it andthe soundtrack.

Rodney Richardson 2012-05-21 04:50:20

SHOCKINGLY HORRIFIC(in a VERY GOOD WAY)

This movie has superc acting and a brillaint story, not to mention the truly accessive amount of gore and blood. This is definately one of the most brutally horrific movies I've ever seen(including decapitations, stomachs being cut open, stabbings, etc....) I truly believe this film is extremely UNDER RATED and didn't deserve to flop on at the theaters. Personally I'd blame it on marketing because let's face it- How could you actually promote a movie as violent as this?...."Silence Of The Lambs" has NOTHING on this movie in terms of violence and stunning visuals. This movie is definately a classic with brilliant acting and even more brilliant direction and top-notch visuals that stand up to even today's standards. A Must OWN film. Find it where ever you can

rollrgirl 2012-05-19 22:45:07

One of the best movies I've seen!

Ravenous kept me glued to the screen. Movies this year all seemed to be abit boring but this one...kept my interest from beginning to end. There isblood and guts, drama, fright, everything. Even bits of humor. And JohnBoyd(played by Guy Pearce) has got to be one of the sexiest men I've seen. :)So, I recommend this movie to anyone who's in the mood for one of the bestmovies of their lives.

E n d e r 2012-05-19 05:00:11

After thinking a lot.. it SUX!

The soundtrack was like a strawberry ice cream topping for a New Englandclam soup... they just DON'T mix.And the story... my GOD! How could somebody even IMAGINE that cannibalismcould give you powers of healing and not just that, but being infectiouslyaddictive! What a stupid notion! Is like making a movie where whoeverinhales smog will automatically become a mutant genius with the ability toforsee the lotto results! It just offends.And please, don't tell me that this is a symbolic movie because I don'tbuyit.. it's too cheap for that.I feel sorry for Guy Pearce, but at least a year later he redeemed himselfwith one REAL piece of art (MEMENTO).But, I still learned a lot with this movie:1. Antonia Bird's movies sux.2. It is possible to ruin a movie about cannibalism.3. Cartoonish country soundtracks DO NOT mix with suspenseful chasescenes.4. You can make your characters stand still while an evil looking cannibalaproaches you with a blood dripping knife and have them to do nothing butdie. Even if they have a loaded rifle in their hands.5. People will buy anything that hypes itself even if it is becausewhateverhypes it is that which destroys it.6. Cannibals are lonely people.7. Human flesh can be used to eliminate scars or any plot hole in amovie.8. You can still feel guilty for wanting to like a movie with a coolpremisebut with a horrible performance.9. Human stew has to have bones in it.. and unaware people will still takeasip on it.10. Antonia Bird's movies sux.. big time!Thanks for reading.

Butch Rosenbalm 2012-05-19 02:06:11

RENT THIS MOVIE

If you have a dark sense of humor, and like to enjoy something different,rent this movie. It was about ten minutes in to this movie, I knew I wouldbe buying it on DVD. It's hard to really describe it, it changes as themovie progresses. All of the performances aregreat, special notice to Guy Pierce and Robert Carlyle. If you have abrain, you should enjoy this.

2012-05-18 14:28:29

An outstanding movie...

This movie is outstanding and unforgetable. People who works in it, is unbelievable! It is the best movie I have ever seen...

Rob 2012-05-13 11:54:19

Oh My God

Hi There,It's about bloody time that I found someone who appreciatedRavenous. It is such a great movie because it's original, it's got the bestsoundtravk ever, even though damon albarn did the soundtrack and I hate himbut I guess I can make an exception, but hell yeah it's a brilliant movie.When I first heard about the film I was so looking forward to seeing itbecause of it's cast and from the pictures I saw, it looked amazing. When Ifinally got to see it, I thought it was a bit dull but I remembered that Ihad it out of the video shop for one more day than I expected, so I watchedit again and to my surprise it was bloody great because I finally gotthrough to what they were trying to let us watch. Robert Carlyle isfantastic in it because of his sheer wit and looks and guy pearce is alsoamazing because of the way he presents himself throughout the movie. All Ican say is, if you haven't see it yet then pick out you're pennies and getdown to the local video/dvd shop and get it before it gets you.

mm-39 2012-05-13 05:44:06

Sick film

This film is sick, you bet it is. Many people will be repulsed by thiswork. I myself found this film on the edge of sick to brilliant. It goesthrough the issue of cannibalism and one eats to live and the morals ofsurviving on the expense of others. Good criticism of society and we maynot eat each other, but we do victimize each other daily. Guy Pearce andRobert Carlyle back up a very strong cast. If you can get over how strangethis move is you will find it integrating, or at least I know I did. Forhistory bluffs this movie is influenced by the events of the Donnor party. The movie was marketed for gen x and probably the high school crowd, it isnot for every one

giggs 2012-05-09 15:12:53

the story of a cannibal.

This is one screwed up movie.But that definitely does not matter I thoughtthis was still a very cool story. On The Internet Movie Database itsdescribed as a comedy/adventure/horror, I think that because itsconsidereda dark comedy makes it even cooler. There is a lot of graphic violence,andacts of cannibalism. Because of this I would not recommend this for anyonewith a weak stomach. But there were a few things that I don't think theyfully explain so I will only give this a 8 out of 10.

brendonm 2012-05-09 04:38:47

will most likely become a cult film...

RAVENOUS was a let down for me because I really liked BEST LAID PLANS, whichTed Griffin also wrote. The problems I found with this movieare:1. passive protagonist -- Guy Pearce says nothing until 14 minutes into themovie! He's pretty much silent throughout the whole thing.2. mixed tone: is it supposed to be a comedy or horror film? They tried tomake it both, but it works as neither, and I ended up gettingbored.Granted, it has an interesting premise, beautiful photography (who knewSlovakia was so gorgeous?!) and some fine acting. But overall, it didn'twork for me. Your mileage will vary. Not a bad movie, but not greateither.

kintopf432 2012-05-08 09:54:40

Pretty much your run-of-the-mill mainstream homoerotic political satire staged as a vampire story in Gold Rush drag

This is one horror movie with real bite, a ha ha ha ha ha ha! Thatobligatory joke out of the way, I will say that this one seems to have flownunder most people's radar screens. And I find that somewhat surprising, asit's pretty much your run-of-the-mill mainstream homoerotic political satirestaged as a vampire story in Gold Rush drag. Oh, wait, that's exactlywhy.It seems a lot of books and movies involving cannibalism wind up beingsatiric (think of Romero's `Living Dead' movies, `Eating Raoul,' `Parents,'`The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover,' `Delicatessen,' etc.). Isuppose the metaphor of eating one's fellow man is just too tempting for thesatirist to pass up (too appetizing? Mouth-watering? OK, I promise tostop.).I won't spoil anything, but the satire of the U.S.'s expansionist policies(the movie's set during the Polk administration, but its message is morerelevant than ever) is very smart. And it's wrapped up in a spooky, veryold-fashioned we're-stuck-in-the-middle-of-nowhere-with-nothing-to-eatstory. When it came out, some reviewers compared it to Poe, but it remindedme much more of Ambrose Bierce, both in its horror and its politicalsubtext.The aesthetic elements are well-realized and stylish. Both Guy Pearce, whobarely speaks, and Robert Carlyle, in the meatier acting part (there I goagain, sorry), are quite convincing, and they're given terrific support byJeffrey Jones, John Spencer, and Sheila Tousey. The cinematography, withcentral European mountains standing in for the High Sierras, is gorgeous. And the score, a collaboration between Michael Nyman and Blur's DamonAlbarn, is nothing short of brilliant--idiosyncratic and ironic, butcompletely appropriate and effective and American-sounding at the same time. It's easily Nyman's best work since his collaborations with PeterGreenaway.It's not a perfect movie by any standard. Not all the acting is subtle--anunrecognizable Jeremy Davies is quite horrible, and David Arquette iswasted. Most of the jokes are played admirably straight, but one or two ofthem are cringeworthy (a single line--`That was really sneaky'--nearly ruinsthe whole film). And you do come away wishing the screenwriter had had abetter ear for 19th-century dialogue. But I'm inclined to forgive these faults, and in fact the movie actuallyimproves on repeat viewing. It's a fun, scary story, and a smart, scarypolitical fable. It's highly recommended, though, of course, it's not goingto be . . . for all tastes, a ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh, forget it. 8 out of10.

Ricardo Maria 2012-05-07 22:10:15

Very entertaining

I liked "Ravenous". Actually, i liked it a lot. It starts slowly, but thetension just keeps building and building. A lot of people complained that itwas too gory, i didn't tought so. Guy Pierce is very low profile, but RobertCarlyle shines, and steals every scene. He is great. He is the reason towatch this movie. I give "Ravenous" 4 stars out of 5.

Scott Andrew Hutchins 2012-05-05 12:23:07

Quirky, fast-paced, pointed

I saw _Ravenous_ at a 12:30 matinee with a handful of people in theaudience. Perhaps it should not have been marketed as a mainstream film.This quirky little film is essentially serious, but has a tone that wobblesinto comedy as effortlessly as real life. The comedy does not make the filmany less powerful or disturbing. I would not be surprised if Antonia Birdis a vegetarian, because the film begins with an absolutely sickening dinnerof something like prime rib that the wild editing style makes appearabsolutely disgusting. I went to Old Country Buffet that night and foundmyself still repulsed by red meat, particularly ribs, after seeing thisfilm, even though the comment about them is spoken by Ives.This film is nowhere near as graphic as I expected it to be, and it moves asswiftly across its running time as _Singin' In the Rain_, ably abetted by avery different form of music, a powerful score by two very differentcomposers (Michael Nyman, one of my favorites, a contemporary classical(minimalist) composer, and Damon Albarn of the rock group Blur, who hadpreviously collaborated on a track for a Noël Coward compilation) whichreally gets at angles different from what could be presented without it,particularly when Boyd has to choose whether or not to eat tosurvive.However, the film suffers because of its obligatory death count. Many of thecharacters, particularly Chaplain Toffler, are quite interesting, but asthey start to develop, they are killed. It almost seems like a statement onhow horror films cheat their audiences out of characters that ought to beinteresting, but usually aren't. The fact that so many are killed so earlyon does not help either.While Pearce manages to be almost an everyman as Boyd, Carlyle delivers aperformance that makes Francis Begbie look halfway sane. Particularly goodis how different Colquhoun appears to be from Ives, despite being the sameperson. Jeffrey Jones as Hart is even stranger.This film also heralds the return to significance of the title design,although it's a far cry from what Saul Bass was doing. The visuals of 1870sCalifornia (actually shot in Slovakia) are quite beautiful and mark a sharpcontrast to the scenes shot in Mexico. The cinematography and editing arequite brilliant.It deals with ironies of war and survival, but never seems to make aheavyhanded display at any particular point it tries to make. Instead, itlays things out for the viewer to chew on (pun intended), and does not tryto draw attention to the scene that leaves it open for a sequel through itsmatter-of-fact presentation and no return to the scene at the very end onceits shown and instead focuses on its rather poignant final shots. There isan effort, although not entirely successful, to not play the Indiansstereotypically, but it is much better handled with Martha than with herbrother, George.This may not have the most profound script, but it is worth a look,particularly during the February-March doldrums of bad theatrical releases.It probably won't win any awards, but its score certainly deserves to, ifonly there were more effort to promote the album. It often reminded my ofKubrick's _The Shining_ and Dante's _The Howling_, and is destined to becomea classic of the genre.

glenn h 2012-05-04 20:41:11

a weird movie to review

like a said this is one weird movie to review. people at a outpost in california are killed off and eaten. the setting is beatiful and the actors are good but there are major plot holes which really don't get explained. this movie doesn't know if it wants to be a horror movie or a comedy.the elements work okay together but the story could of been much better. like how a man can be run through with a sword and eat human flesh and all the sudden just heal himself. this could of been great, but to me it's just fair. and the music doesn't help either. i watched it for free from my public library so guess i can't fret much. just watch at your own risk. this is one of those movies u will love or hate.

T Y 2012-05-02 19:35:45

Death Becomes Her II

You'll get more out of this movie if you don't think of it as anunderground masterpiece (it isn't); and instead think of it as a prettystupid movie that occasionally goes more interesting places than most(it is).The movie's topic is pretty icky, but only according to wrong-headedsocial mores (Why are 12,000 vampire movies 'normal' entertainment?).The movie deals with cannibalism in the mid-nineteenth century; not theCivil war, but the Mexican-American war (See... Thoughtful!) To say anymore would weaken some of the shocks. The movie begins in oneinteresting direction, and throws all that away for dumb supernaturalcop-outs/clichés in the 2nd half. (Eating human flesh repairs mortalwounds) You can see where the movie's fresh ideas are thrown aside forthe stale kind that bring so much comfort to Hollywood execs. The movieeventually becomes no different than a vampire movie. By the time youreach the films quadruple false ending, all the good will has expired.I appreciate it trying to make the 19th century hip (There's anexperimental score). It basically demolishes Ken Burns's ennui-filledapproach to a similar era. The kid from E.T. shows up here as asheepish preacher, and does a very poor job with the role.

Eli-28 2012-05-02 06:50:46

Back to "horror school" for Bird

"Ravenous" was good fun, and I was certainly on the edge of my seat a goodbit of the time. But it wasn't what it could have been. The comedy couldhave been more plentiful and funnier; the horror could have been,well...more horrifying. The classic black-and-white "Night of the LivingDead" from 30 years ago was much creepier in the chomping human fleshdepartment. Robert Carlyle was suitably demonic as Ives, but Guy Pearcespent most of his screen time looking attractively forlorn. Flatteringcamera work helped him pull that off rather nicely, but "LA Confidential" itwasn't. Nor "Priscilla", for that matter. Several other featured actors,David Arquette and Stephen Spinella included, had roles that wereessentiallycameos. The stars who didn't disappoint were the stunning Tatra Mountainsof Slovakia and the cinematographer who filmed them. All in all, it's amovie worth catching.

CMRKeyboadist 2012-04-30 01:32:44

Not What You Think It's Going To Be

I first saw Ravenous on HBO at about 2 in the morning and only saw thelast 10 minutes of the movie. Well, that last 10 minutes grabbed me andI had to go ahead and buy it on DVD. This movie is excellent in manydifferent ways. For one, the movie opens up and it seems like it may bea dark comedy but this changes so drastically that it becomes one ofthe most serious movies I've ever seen. Two, this movie has some of thebest music written for a film like this. The music incorporates a veryfolky sound with a mix of bizarre repeating samples that give some ofthe best scenes a really creepy feel. Three, the story line is so muchmore than just a cannibal film. Many people have their interpretations,I think the film is about drug addiction. It is definitely a movie youhave to view more than one time to truly understand where it comingfrom. And Four, I can't ruin the movie but I will say the end of themovie is one of my all time favorite endings. So in-conclusion, Ihighly recommend this movie to anyone who has an open mind and canappreciate art when they see it.

MsMamaBaby1 2012-04-29 13:59:10

Did anyone else notice this?

When Boyd and Reich are in the pit and the movie flashes to Ivesskipping rocks across a river then laughing maniacally. When the movieflashes back to Boyd and he looks at Reich, Reich has this seriouslywide grin on his face under the tree branches. Eyes wide open and amillion dollar smile. Then a few moments later they show Reich again,he's still grinning but in the next shot his face has no branches on itand the smile is gone. I'm a huge fan of Neal McDonough, the actor whoplayed Reich, so I couldn't help but to notice. This was obviously doneintentionally probably just to make sure we were paying attention. Didanyone else notice this and, if not, then you'd do well to take anotherlook at the movie, it's pretty funny. It happens about 50 minutes intoit.