Intended to be read as a caustic commentary on the evils of Fascism, Salo is marred by the uneasy perception that Pasolini (rather like purveyors of modern Torture Porn) is simply getting off on the abuse he visualizes with such delight.
This review can't see beyond the images on the screen. A little to simple to be true, in my opinion.
Aug 27 - 04:24 PM
i would agree with the 1st comment.the camera is a disturbed observer, there is no pleasure, no matter how perverse
Feb 4 - 07:48 AM
A very exact and accurate review.cinema is a visual art and images are the most important part of it.this is not literature.pasolini himself says that this is not an anti-fascispt film.in fact the real owner of this film is de sade.de sade tried to express his fantasies and some real life experiences to please himself.we can se behind images and weak metaphor and there exists de sade and his pervert fantasies and experiences.bad acting,no plot,no character development,awful screenplay. pasoling might intend to do something but no doubt he failed.
Oct 8 - 06:19 AM
I agree with your opinion, Ayhan. It's more a perverts sick fantasy than a bold statement on fascism. The film is based on the book The 120 Days of Sodom written by Marquis de Sade. If you know who he is, that should tell you all you need to know about Salo. If the film disturbs you, that doesn't mean it's anti-fascism or whatever because if you actually get off on this shit, then the film won't convince you that you're immoral and you need to change, or that fascism is evil, it'll just get you off. I understand why some people 'like' the movie, but any positive messages you see in the film are not intended. I'm sure any claims Pasolini made were only to justify the films release. And of course, that's just my opinion.
Sep 13 - 11:28 AM
I can understand your comment, because very few hints were dropped by the film itself that it was a commentary, but I must respectfull disagree. Pasolini was a very sick man when he made the movie, and the film is not so much anti-fascism as a comment on the horrible capabilities of humanity. I gave the film a ten, and I certainly didn't enjoy it. It is a statement that is very difficult to endure, but in its own bizarre way, a rewarding insight into the recesses of human depression. As you say, though, that's just my opinion.
Aug 31 - 12:57 PM
AYHAN L: I highly doubt Pasolini said this wasn't an anti-fascist film. The whole film is a metaphor for whole fascism is complete evil.
Feb 24 - 02:43 PM
I agree with this review. I already know about the capacity for man's cruelty, particularly under the reign of fascism. I do not need to experience it to have an awareness of the presence it has in the world of man. Also I found the dialogue to be very oblique if it's aims were indeed to offer any insight. Pasolini could have suggested the horrors with much more bravado than the heavy-handed depictions. Just because he references Nietzsche doesn't make it any more insightful or sophisticated than the soft porn of Caligula.
Jun 4 - 10:40 PM
Exactly what I've been trying to say!
Oct 2 - 11:32 AM
Many of you here have written off and denounced the film on the basis of no merit, morality, or the aborted allegory on fascism. Can't a film just exist to please itself? Do you need to see a bigger picture? The sole point is excess for the sake of excess. The four masters in this picture essentially explain that concept in the first few minutes of the story. They are wholly aware that they are excessive. The issue then becomes how to maintain a level of excess without normalizing, which is why they will never be satisfied with their realization of their exceeding desires. The filmmakers are the masters.
Apr 30 - 07:51 PM
this movie is a piece of art.....you just can't see it
Aug 6 - 08:45 PM