Before there was South Park, there was Trey Parker’s macabre musical comedy masterpiece Cannibal the Musical! Based on the legend of Colorado Cannibal Alferd Packer, Cannibal the Musical tells Packer’s version of what really happened when he and a group of gold diggers embarked on their fateful trip into the Rocky Mountains. Gruesomely gory, savagely satirical and painfully funny, Cannibal the Musical, which also stars South Park s co-creator Matt Stone, stands as a predecessor to what would come next for Parker and Stone, and features several in-jokes that would become part of the South Park legacy! Cannibal the Musical has become a worldwide cult sensation to rival The Rocky Horror Picture Show, inspiring stage revivals and sing-along screenings all over the world!
This 2-Disc Special Anniversary Edition contains over an hour of new, in depth interviews with Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and Jason McHugh, two full-length commentary tracks including the infamous ‘Inebriated’ commentary track, never-before-seen deleted scenes, production stills, and much more!Alferd Packer was the only man in the United States ever convicted of cannibalism–what better hero for fellow Coloradan and future South Park creator Trey Parker to celebrate in music? Blue-eyed and boyish Parker was still in college when he wrote, directed, composed the songs for, and took the starring role as the innocent young Packer in this film, giving a gee- whiz performance as an ambitious pioneer who joins an ill-fated trek west that ends up stranded in the mountains. At times resembling a perverse community theater parody of Rodgers and Hammerstein (“My heart’s as full as a baked po-ta-to!”), Parker bounces back and forth between cheery production numbers and goony songs (“Let’s build a snowman,” sings one starving-mad hiker) and grotesque gore (bloody body parts, festering sores, human hors d’oeuvres). It lacks in style and consistency and the juvenile gags and fart jokes wear thin over the course of a feature film, but Parker’s sheer energy and inventiveness carry the overlong picture to a rousing conclusion. Regular Parker collaborators Matt Stone and Dian Bachar costar in this tuneful barbecue. –Sean Axmaker
Buy “Cannibal! The Musical: 13th Anniversary Edition” For Only $14.53
Related Blogs
- Related Blogs on 13th
- April 13th: Mumbai Indians v Delhi Daredevils Match Preview, IPL 3 …
April 13, 2010
#1
I must say that I am very open to new film, bold styles of filmmaking, and the opportunity to see the obscure, but I am not open to a lack of excitement. I thought that this was an interesting first film for Trey Parker to create while in film school, but I think the hype behind this movie and one of the reasons that it is referred to as a “cult” film is because of the South Park fame that has subsequently followed this team. Personally, I didn’t see the value in this picture at all. The actors seemed unexcited to be in the picture, the story seemed flimsy at best, and the songs had the feeling of third-gradery to them. Don’t get me wrong, I am always excited about seeing student films and how powerful a fresh mind can be, but in this film I just felt that Parker was trying to press certain buttons, but failed miserably. His comedy was not funny, his scenes of gore can be credited towards Troma, and the references to South Park continued to boost my impression that this film became popular after their South Park inheritance. Parker had no control over this film, no control over his actors, and most importantly, no control over himself. It is difficult for me to watch a film where the main character is only giving 15% at best.
Again, I would like to stress that I am not against this type of filmmaking … when it is done right. In the case of Cannibal! The Musical I didn’t feel that there were any elements that stood out, seemed creative, or were original. Parker seemed to be going for the shock value more than creating a decent piece of cinema. To begin, the characters were all one-dimensional. I cared nothing for the band of men stuck in the Colorado area without any food. If they died or if they survived, I could have cared less. I didn’t know them, I didn’t get to know them, and Parker wasn’t allowing me to see them as three-dimensional people, so my sympathy towards them further plummeted this film. Everyone in this film was silly and stupid instead of funny and independent. I went into this film wanting to see a sharp, independent film that would surprise me and make me laugh. The characters of this film brought that concept to a complete halt. Packer was the worst, providing no emotion at all to his character and simply whispering all of his words. It was pathetic and a very sad sight to see. Then, as if the other actors were following suit, they brought nothing emotional or comedic to the table, but instead went through their lines and did the bare minimum that they had to. I would have to say that the failure of this film began with the actors poorly giving us any decent characters.
Another failed element was the story, which seemed to jump around all over the place like a scratched CD. The film technique of making us believe that this was a “true” story by using pseudo-documentary moments just hurt this film more than helping it. It made the overall production seem cheap and uninformative. There was no consistency or excitement to get from one scene to the next, and I think a reason for this was the poor choice of songs. This was to be a musical, and I have seen Matt and Trey write songs (see South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut) that were both humorous and powerful, but in this film, they just felt like eight year olds created them. You could tell that they were dubbed over and that some of the actors didn’t even know all the lines to the songs. These are elements that need to be addressed during production because it could either make or break a film … and in this case it broke it. The only song that I found myself breaking a smile was the “Let’s Build a Snowman!” ditty that at least showcased some originality. Outside of that, I don’t believe that I broke a smile once during this film, and this was to be a comedy?
Finally, I would like to say that you can not create a film with the idea that it will become a “cult” film over time. I could see this pompous nature in Parker as he was creating this film. During his performance as Packer, you could see that glimmer in his eye that screamed, “This will be bigger than we imagined because smart people that love South Park will love this later in life.” It nearly made me wretch. These actors knew what they were doing, and I think Troma did as well, since all are now cashing in on this film since the popularity of South Park. There just seemed to be this aura of arrogance while I watched the film that hampered my enjoyment.
Overall, I was very unimpressed. I was expecting bigger, bolder, and much more creativity behind this feature than what was presented. As I watch what these boys can create now, I cannot help but think that they have a much smarter head on their shoulders than Cannibal! The Musical presented. This could have been a very lucrative and intelligent film, but instead they seemed to make it just a cheap production with a catchy name and simplistic songs. I do not recommend this film, unless you are in desperate need of more sleep at night and desire to see the boys of South Park finally fail!
Grade: * out of *****
April 13, 2010
#2
While I can understand true Matt Stone and Trey Parker fans drooling and blustering over this silly amateurish movie-musical, I can’t see any reason why somebody this side of the Betty Ford Lobotomy Clinic would find it any more than an amateurish albeit remotely entertaining piece of student film exploitation. The point of this exercise is pure capitalism. You have a neat little piece of cheap cinema you put together with your friend and $25,000 after quitting college. Now, after perfecting your style and humor, you’ve become famous for something completely peripheral (South Park). How can you cash in on your fame even more? Why, tap into your already existing fanbase with that piece of crap you have in your closet from your college years! Fans of the show will eat this up like Marlon Brando at a twinkie factory simply because it has their favorite fart-joke duo at the helm. They will give it exaggerated praise filtered through their idolizing lemming brains, adoring it for the very reasons Parker and Stone lambast in their brilliant “South Park” movie. They will love this movie not because the film was good, but because it was made by the rebels they have come to adore. My point is this. The lavish praise in all of these “reviews” isn’t based on anything but a kneejerk reaction to enjoying the work they have already seen of Matt and Trey’s. I don’t want to pee on anybody’s “golden goat”, but this movie stunk. Stunk like 3-week old deep-fried hamster testicles dipped in fermelnahide. Stunk like a sweaty jock strap tied covered in cheese whiz and dipped into a septic tank. It was bad. But that’s not necessarily bad! It was so bad, it was good. Do you see my point? I don’t know if most South Park fans have a even a vague notion of what this concept is, or even the name for it. Well, I’ll tell you. it’s called “camp”. No, not summer “camp” at Lake Humpaneighber. What I’m talking about is “camp” as in “banality, mediocrity, artifice, so extreme as to amuse or have a perversely sophisticated appeal” (Websters dictionary). Another word that might be properly suited for this movie is “kitsch”. No, not the tasty pastry with all those yummy fillings. That’s “quiche”. “Kitsch is art, writing, or in this case a movie “of a pretentious but shallow kind, calculated to have popular appeal.” I think much of “Cannibal” is chock full of “camp” and “kitsch”. I think Matt and Trey knew this while making it. And that’s the problem. Movie making that is overtly self-conscious is simply not good movie making. It’s as if throughout the movie, to compensate for a lack of talent, acting ability, directing experience, and even general cinematic know-how, Trey went out of his way to bring attention to the lack of budget, experience, or any artful means. That added a klunky kind of energy to the campiness of the film, but it didn’t compensate for the lack of all the previous. I have seen student films made on a similarly tight budget that were infinitely funnier, and could be considered good films alongside mainstream movies. Because Stone and Parker have a large juvenile following, this obviously juvenile film will get undo attention. Also, while I’m sure the DVD commentary is rightly hilarious (especially if they get drunk), one comment below is telling. A viewer remarked on how this audio commentary had him laughing harder than the movie. This is sad. It means that a bunch of guys sitting around a table drinking beer can be funnier than this film. It means that Stone and Parker were funnier ‘on their own’ than this movie was in its entirety. I don’t care if Trey Parker becomes Sultan of the Sudan. It won’t change the fact that this movie would be rotting in obscurity and rightly be considered a piece of radioactive sludge if South Park hadn’t taken off. It’s not even the South Park style of thinly veiled social satire laced with expletives and fart jokes (which I personally love!). It shows that Trey’s ideas were a work in progress, and he needed to move on and hone his humor and song writing skills (which he did with his South Park movie and the considerable help of Marc Shaiman). Fame does interesting things to people’s concepts of quality. A painting of a waterfall that a collector would burn if they found in their cheap motel room suddenly is worth 10,000 dollars to him because it was drawn by Paul McCartney. That doesn’t make it a quality piece of work. That makes it a piece of crap drawn by a celebrity. We tend to put an extra price tag on anything done by celebrities, whether it’s in the past or present. “Awww, Mr. McCartney can draw. Kind of. But not well. But who cares? He’s Paul McCartney!” It’s like we treat celebrities as little kids. “Aww, little Timmy drew a picture of a Hippo and wiped a booger on it. let’s put it on the fridge! Isn’t it perty?” I don’t want to see the dumb home video of “Lassie: a Tale of Murder” Trey Parker made when he was 12 with his video camera, three gallons of ketchup, and the help of the neighbor’s chihuahua ‘Skippy’. Why would I want to see an amateur film they made of a bad musical when they were 22? And then fawn all over it like a horny puppy dry humping a Furby? It would be like selling a tape of Rachmaninoff practicing scales on the piano at age 5, and considering it an “early work”. Our artists have no chance to develop their craft anymore. Trey’s skills were simply not developed when he made this movie, and anyone who isn’t blinded by celebrity or their wild obsession with South Park should see that too! Now, after all of that, I want to say, I didn’t necessarily “not” like this movie. I liked it in the Ed Wood sense. I enjoyed the camp. The purposefully bad lyrics. The purposefully exaggerated gore. The self consciously atrocious acting. I liked it- but only in the sense that it was “camp”. Like Ed Wood’s “Plan 9 from Outer Space”, it was so bad, it was good! So I laughed. I thought some of it was silly. Anybody who thinks there is anything of lasting quality in this movie has been deep throating the exhaust pipe of a Toyota Tercel with transmission problems. It was kind of entertaining. Trey and Matt admitted they made the movie in a rush, not having a clue how to make a film, with barely a cent to work with. It shows. I’d shave off my eyebrows if with a year of preparation, a reworking of the script, a proper auditioning period to find high quality actors, and the assistance of Marc Shaiman with music, the movie didn’t improve ten thousand percent. I’m a fan of some of South Park, especially the movie which satirized fanaticism and Hollywood’s hypocrisies perfectly. But that doesn’t mean I have to like Trey’s work when he was just some obnoxious college kid with an attitude- and a dream. The movie occasionally made me laugh. That doesn’t make it a good film. I think Adam Sandler is funny. I also think he’s a terrible actor. Just because he makes me laugh in a film, doesn’t mean I think he’s a quality performer. For some reason, most people who watched this movie used the following equation. Funny = Spectacular acting, music, and direction. Half of what I found funny was due to obviously bad acting, music, and direction. If a movie makes you laugh, that doesn’t make it a high quality movie. I can differentiate between laughing at something, and respecting it for its craftsmanship. Can you?
April 13, 2010
#3
This movie was absolute krap. The only good thing about the DVD version is the T.I.T. II Troma Trivia. This movie is not funny at all, and if I had to listen to “My heart is full like a baked potatah” any more I’m gonna puke. The only reason you will laugh at this movie is due to the insanity you will get wondering why you bought this movie in the first place.
April 13, 2010
#4
I’m a south park fan and bought this movie because I thought I could find something similar funny. Instead I found the worst thing I’ve ever seen. No humor, no shocking stuff, just stupid singing.
April 13, 2010
#5
In order to appreciate this horrid piece of low low budget bucket o’ feces, you have to watch this movie twice. After you watch it the first time, go back and watch it with the commentary on. Now it’s not a movie, now it becomes an extremely funny tell all as they describe scene flubs, the back stories, etc,. The commentary deserves 5 stars as some of their comments had me in tears. As a South Park fan, I wanted to see the growth of their writing and it is obvious it has really matured. The wit had not hit here yet.