The movie was exactly as it has been billed.  I watched it, enjoyed it for what it was and its stuck with me for days.  Its a movie I think I'n glad I watched..... 

If you were hesitant about clicking on the link to the wiki, be forewarned that this was one of the less disgusting sentences from the entry:

"Miloš jams his erect penis into the man's empty eye socket, killing him."

That is the perfect warning! I just clicked through and read about it and boy am I sorry I did. And I too got to that sentence and thought 'well, at least that one sounds humorously ridiculous.'

 Agreed with fofo. The drug thing really threw me off. It's the device they use as a cause to most things in the movie. It's retarded. I hated the movie not only because of all the hype build up (the sick stuff was half assed and contrived) but also it just really didn't make a whole lotta sense. 

Most parts were laughable and couldn't be taken seriously. I've seen gore movies where the delivery was just so much better without it being "extreme". 

I also don't get the whole "symbolism" defense. Ok yes I was never a serb and blabla bla but to me anyone can dream up a bunch of taboo and call it a reactionary piece to society. I think I've outgrown that.

I downloaded this movie a couple of months ago. I didn't get why that super drug they injected him with made him super horny and super lethargic. How is it an upper and a downer? 

Also, they have Blockbuster in England? And why don't their stores have the same censorship rules they have here?

 haven't seen this film but some of the comments here remind me of the reaction to gummo which i still think is one of the best flicks ever. 

If this were the 1970's, sure, there were some groundbreaking works that had to happen in order to reconcile censorship with film.

But you can watch Gaspar Noe's infamous 8 minute long rape scene & the Story of O's ultimate misogynist fantasy - on Netflix Play It Now - these films inherently become so widely distributed any joke about "satire" is on the artist whoose steaming pile of shit is either censored out of existence or delivered to a mass audience who sees it outside of that context anyway.

People don't need to witness suffering first hand to understand it is bad. Thats why we evolved intelligence, imagination, and empathy.

Thats fine that some director and cast decided to make another graphic movie - its lame that out of the 100's of movies with a limited US release in Manhattan and nowhere else on the east coast, news outlets like Gothamist choose to cover only this one.

For those who have not seen it (and don't wish to) but are appalled anyway, I offer this: http://templeofghoul.blogspot.... the best review I've seen on the film, that explains the real message of the film better than I ever could. Yes some of the scenes are completely demented, but it is not done for kicks, it's a VERY graphic F-You to the Serbian society, mentality and political establishment. Being Serbian I welcome it, we needed this, in some perverted way (not that people are lining up to see it in Serbia either).

Have you even seen this movie?Why would you even write a short article on a film you haven't seen or have no intention of seeing?  

The fact of the matter is the film has to be one of the best realized films of this year...AND if you had actually gone and seen the film before buying into the hoopla you would have realized that the film is actually satirizing media and the political reality prevalent in parts of the Balkans.
Quoting defamatory remarks about a film you've never seen is pretty irresponsible journalism. The child pornography and torture elements of the film are ultimately small plot details and to view them in place of the film's rich symbolism is incredibly shallow.
Just from an entertainment standpoint the film is extremely gripping, exposing you to the full gamut of emotional responses- good and bad.

I've seen it, and it made me throw up.
I'm not over exaggerating, after the newborn porn scene I dry heaved for a good 20 minutes.

"Why would you even write a short article on a film you haven't seen or
have no intention of seeing?"

It's not bad journalism to report on the controversy that surrounds a film; they're not commenting on the quality of the filmmaking or the plot of the movie, just that it's causing a lot of controversy with its content. Plenty of articles were written on James Frey and 'A Million Little Pieces' when there were questions as to its legitimacy; the articles didn't need to address the quality of the book's content to still be legitimately reported.

 Interesting that this same supposedly stifling political reality allowed this film to be made and exhibited in Serbia then.

Your mind is sick.

 As I recall from reading about the film, the filmmakers received no government funding to make it and they had to sent it out of the country for lab processing.

 So I guess you think quoting defamatory remarks about child pornography in the media would be irresponsible too?

And that the audience doesn't understand that torture is bad already? You really think more snuff is going to do anything but desensitize people further?

These "small details" also seem to be the only reason the film is relevant.

Audiences arn't "shallow" because they take offense to graphic portrayals of suffering. I'm not sure the audiences (sheep) your talking about could handle the film anyway.

Just reading the wiki entry made me want to puke.  Some horror film reviewer said no one should watch this film.  Writing about this film having not watched it seems like a reasonable thing to me.

 Date movie fail.

Unless your someone like Travis Bickle... 

"No, this is a movie a lot of couples come to, all kinds of couples go here."

No wonder we bombed those perverts.