When horror aficionados talk about the most notorious films to emerge from the Italian cannibal subgenre of the 1970s, Slave of the Cannibal God frequently surfaces in conversation, and for good reason. Released in 1978 and directed by Sergio Martino, the film is a potent concoction of exploitation cinema, jungle adventure, anthropological spectacle, and stomach-churning gore. Starring Ursula Andress and Stacy Keach, it remains both a product of its time and an artifact of transgressive cinema, banned in several countries and remembered as one of the most infamous films to capitalize on shock and sensationalism.
The premise is deceptively simple: a woman named Susan Stevenson (Andress) journeys to the jungles of New Guinea to search for her missing husband, a scientist who disappeared while on an expedition. Accompanied by her brother Arthur and a rugged anthropologist named Edward Foster (Keach), the party sets off into the wild, only to find themselves confronted by a primitive tribe of cannibals and the dark legacy of the civilization they stumble upon. What unfolds is a grim, often surreal journey that blends colonial paranoia, ritualized violence, and some of the most grotesque set pieces ever filmed.
What makes Slave of the Cannibal God more than just another piece of shock cinema is the sheer craftsmanship of Martino’s direction. Known for his work in giallo, thrillers, and spaghetti westerns, Martino brings a kinetic visual energy to the film, employing sweeping jungle vistas and tight, claustrophobic tracking shots to heighten the tension. The cinematography by Giancarlo Ferrando is lush and unnerving, using the dense foliage and natural light of the Malaysian jungle (which doubles for New Guinea) to great effect. The contrast between beauty and brutality is constant: cascading waterfalls frame scenes of mutilation, exotic animals scurry across paths littered with corpses, and characters whisper grand philosophical musings moments before another disembowelment.
Ursula Andress, best known for her role as the first Bond girl in Dr. No, plays Susan with a mix of blank glamor and blanker stares. She was never the most expressive actress, but that works in her favor here; her stoic demeanor gives way to horror and fear as she becomes increasingly unmoored by what she encounters. Stacy Keach lends the film a dose of gravitas, managing to portray his role with surprising seriousness despite the surrounding chaos. His performance, steady and brooding, is a reminder that even in exploitation cinema, good acting can anchor the absurdity.
Yet the acting, for all its moments of quality, is secondary to the real star of the film: its unflinching violence. The movie is infamous for its animal cruelty, including scenes of real animal killings, which were unfortunately common in Italian exploitation films of the era. These sequences remain deeply uncomfortable and ethically indefensible by modern standards, casting a shadow over the film’s legacy. While some defenders argue that these scenes add authenticity or cultural commentary, they mostly feel exploitative and unnecessary. The same could be said for some of the more graphic human mutilations, which—though staged—are rendered with such convincing makeup and effects that even hardened horror fans have been known to squirm.
One of the more controversial aspects of Slave of the Cannibal God lies in its colonialist overtones. As with many cannibal films of its time, it traffics in a depiction of indigenous peoples that is offensive, reductionist, and deeply problematic. The natives are painted as savages, their customs portrayed through a lens of voyeurism and fear. Though Martino and his crew may have claimed to offer commentary on Western ignorance or the clash of civilizations, the execution comes off more as a series of titillating, fear-mongering images that reinforce negative stereotypes. The titular “cannibal god” becomes a symbolic figure for the grotesque Other, the unknowable force that threatens the purity and rationality of the Western explorers. It’s a recurring trope in these films and one that aged poorly, if it was ever acceptable to begin with.
That said, it’s impossible to ignore the film’s place within the broader tapestry of horror cinema. By the late 1970s, horror was evolving. American audiences had been shocked by The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The Exorcist, and Dawn of the Dead. European filmmakers, particularly Italians, were pushing boundaries with giallo and splatter cinema. Slave of the Cannibal God arrived at the confluence of those streams, blending adventure pulp with gut-wrenching gore. Unlike Ruggero Deodato’s Cannibal Holocaust (which followed a year later and upped the ante in both realism and cruelty), Martino’s film plays more like a lurid fever dream. It’s hyper-stylized and drenched in atmosphere, prioritizing spectacle over narrative cohesion.
The soundtrack, composed by Guido and Maurizio De Angelis, adds another surreal layer to the film. At times haunting, at times jarringly upbeat, the music seems to exist in a parallel emotional register from the action onscreen. This dissonance contributes to the movie’s dreamlike quality—a nightmare disguised as an adventure. Whether intentional or not, the score enhances the sense that nothing in this world operates on expected rules. Time dilates, scenes drag or collapse, and logic dissolves into ritual.
Perhaps the most enduring image of Slave of the Cannibal God is not its blood-drenched climax or Andress’ nude ritual sequence, but the overwhelming sense of moral disintegration that permeates the film. As the protagonists descend deeper into the jungle, they shed not just their clothes and civility, but their ethical moorings. What begins as a rescue mission curdles into voyeuristic madness, and by the time the credits roll, there’s no redemption in sight. The jungle doesn’t just consume the body—it erodes the soul.
Over the years, the film has found a cult audience, especially among fans of Euro-horror and grindhouse cinema. Its notoriety as a “video nasty” during the UK’s moral panic of the 1980s only increased its mythos. For decades, it was difficult to find uncut, and when it did resurface, it often came with content warnings and heated debate. Modern restorations have preserved its vivid cinematography and sound design, but no amount of remastering can cleanse the film of its ethical quandaries.
Still, it would be too easy to dismiss Slave of the Cannibal God as mere schlock. Beneath its sleaze and savagery lies a potent metaphor for cultural collapse. Whether intended or accidental, the film captures the essence of a genre willing to look into the abyss. It exposes the latent barbarism beneath polite society, the fragility of moral codes, and the terrifying idea that given the right circumstances, civilization itself is a thin veneer. The film’s jungle setting becomes a crucible—one that reduces its characters to their most primal instincts. What emerges from that crucible is not enlightenment or self-discovery, but raw, unsettling truth.
That truth may be hard to stomach, especially for modern viewers accustomed to more nuanced storytelling and culturally sensitive portrayals. Watching Slave of the Cannibal God today means confronting a host of uncomfortable realities—not just within the film, but within ourselves as consumers of media that trades in suffering and spectacle. Is the shock worth the watch? That depends on one’s tolerance for moral ambiguity and visual extremity. For some, it’s a badge of cinephilic honor; for others, an example of what should be left in the past.
Regardless of where one lands, there’s no denying that Slave of the Cannibal God leaves an impression. It’s a film that dares you to look away and punishes you when you don’t. It’s absurd, grotesque, hypnotic, and at times surprisingly beautiful. Above all, it is unforgettable. Like the jungle itself, it lures you in with promise and wonder—only to trap you in a nightmare that smells of sweat, blood, and rot.
This post has already been read 977 times!
