Scoopy's comments in white:

Aka Mountain of the Cannibal God, Mountain of the Cannibal Gods, and Prisoner of the Cannibal God.

All of which are poor titles in that they make no sense in English. The film should be titled "God of the Cannibals". A cannibal god would be a god who eats other gods. This isn't a movie about a cannibal god, but about a god who has cannibal worshippers. So it goes.

The basic plot: Ursula Andress ostensibly is heading up an expedition into the jungles of New Guinea (it was actually filmed in Sri Lanka and Malaysia), determined to find her lost husband. When the natives find out that her husband is John Derek, they want to do all the same stuff to her that they did to Bo Derek in that Tarzan movie. They have apparently run low on whitewash, so they paint her ass bright orange instead.

In order to fill out the 90 minutes or so of the plot, the filmmaker brings in the usual conventions of these Italian jungle movies:

1. There are long drawn-out pictorializations of the inhospitability of the jungle to Europeans. This inevitably features documentary-style shots of large snakes eating cute little baby monkeys, lizards eating snakes, and crocs eating everything. Not to mention near-misses for Ursula with poisonous snakes and hairy spiders.

2. All the native "bearers" are either killed or scared off by the end of the film. Some of them meet particularly unpleasant fates here, skewered in animal traps or eaten by crocodiles.  

3. The Europeans are always up to something more than they admit to. In this case Ursula doesn't even like the husband she's "looking for". In reality, the whole expedition is a ruse to exploit the local mineral wealth.

4. There are various sensationalistic native rituals, especially castration, bestiality, graphic masturbation and eating live things. Plenty of nudity required.

5. And, of course, what cannibal film would be complete without some cannibalism? In this case, there's only one cannibal scene, but it's a pretty cool one where they pull out the guy's intestines bit by bit, and kinda argue over them, tugging them from each other as if they were Bonomo's Turkish taffy.


Ursula Andress is watched by a native as she changes her shirt.

After Ursula's capture, the natives strip her naked and paint her orange.

The women who paint Ursula are also topless.

There is a native woman who removes her top in order to seduce Ursula's brother.

See Tuna's comments about the expanded version

Tuna's comments in yellow

La Montagna del dio cannibale (1978), or Mountain of the Cannibal God, is re-released and remastered, and contains 17 minutes of additional footage, which, as near as I can tell,  has never before been released in the USA. The first 2/3 of the film is a nature study as we see jungles and jungle creatures doing what jungle creatures do, as Ursula Andress, her brother, and the rest of their band search for the forbidden Mountain of the God of the Cannibals. The most controversial segment of the film occurs during this portion. Seems they had a boa who followed them like a puppy while they were filming. The decided to include it in the film, but it was sleeping, so they walked a small monkey past it. Not only did that wake the snake up, but made him hungry. Final score, snake over monkey one nil.

There is some nudity during the first section. We see Ursula undressing (breasts only), and an unknown showing breasts while seducing her brother. Once they climb the mountain, things switch to high gear. Ursula is declared a Goddess (these cannibal savages know talent when they see it), stripped, and painted orange. Here, we see breasts, buns and bush. The unknown exposure among the natives is bordering on hardcore. We see a couple doing the doggy, a woman masturbating, including a gyno shot, and inserting one finger, and some guy banging a wooly beast. There is also a graphic scene where someone tries to rape Ursula. They catch him, Bobbitize him, then slit him open for dinner.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen letterboxed, 2.35:1

  • nothing else of note

The film has been criticized for having very little cannibalism. There is a scene where some natives eat the intestines of an iguana, a very graphic scene where they fight over human intestines and force Ursula to take a bite, and a meal where they chow down on raw birds and live snakes. IMDB rates it 4.1 of 10. Solid genre film, and based on the clean transfer and the added footage, I will have to  say C+.  Even the National Geographic portion is almost watchable with this high quality transfer.
Scoop's DVD notes:

This actually has one of the best DVD's I've seen for older movies.

1) It is an excellent 2.35 widescreen anamorphic transfer

2) It is a fully restored version of the film. It isn't much of a movie unless you're really into Italian jungle pictures, but it looks super. I had an earlier DVD of this film which was a bare-bones DVD of a censored version with a non-anamorphic transfer. This uncensored version has several graphic sex and violence scenes - a woman masturbating in front of the gyno cam, and a guy screwing a giant hog, for example.

3) It has one of the coolest features I've ever seen on a DVD. they have an interview with the director where he talks about the famous close-up scene of a python eating a monkey. In the interview he says "oh, no, it wasn't planned. It was just a chance thing. The snake just snapped up all of a sudden, and we left the cameras rolling. I feel so bad that we did nothing for the monkey".

Then, the documentary makers interrupt the interview to demonstrate that he is lying. A frame-by-frame dissection of the film shows that the python did not snap at the monkey. In fact, they had the monkey attached to a device which was camouflaged as a tree branch by an editing room addition - and they waited until the snake was teased into showing its fangs, then shoved the monkey into his mouth!!!! Not only did the snake not move forward toward the monkey, but you can actually see the snake going backwards, away from the monkey, because the monkey was shoved toward it.

Then they show the guy saying "we upset the local puritans, but the film didn't have any erotic or pornographic content". As he says this, they show the erotic and pornographic scenes (which are graphic and explicit!

You have to love a director's interview where they pause to show you that he is bullshitting you. I think this should be made mandatory with every DVD!

But you have to love any film where they can claim "many animals were harmed in the making of this film", and you have to love any movie with Ursula Andress naked. I didn't do too many collages since I've done it before, and Tuna also covered it extensively, but they are pretty good ones. The first one is a two-frame composite.

The Critics Vote

  • Maltin 1.5 stars.

  • You really have to read the review of genre experts with a film like this. Whether you are a novice or an experienced cannibal lover, this review should tell you what you need to know.

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 4.7.
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C+. It's a great-looking, sensationalistic genre picture. It is an exploitation picture in the purest sense. It delivers shock value. Not for mainstream tastes, or for those with weak stomachs.

Return to the Movie House home page