VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

nzswanny Faces Of Death is a film that doesn't really follow any storyline. It really doesn't, so you must be asking yourself, "How does this movie go on then without a story?"A false rumour spread that the violence in this was unsimulated, so this film immediately caused controversy. That false rumour is how this film got all of these viewers, people were flocking to see it just to see how graphic and disturbing the violence was. Most audiences were repulsed by the violence, calling it "graphic" and "disgusting," and the false rumour spread even more.Let me get this clear: this does not have unsimulated violence. If some silly friend of yours came over to you and said, "Hey, there's this film called Faces Of Death with unsimulated violence," then he/she's lying without knowing it. But, the violence in this looks very real, which may be why so many people were led to believe the rumour. Of course, we all know it's false now, but back then, Faces Of Death was one of the most disturbing and graphic films of all time, along with I Spit On Your Grave, Cannibal Holocaust and Mondo cane.Despite being simulated, I can guarantee that the film lives up to the hype, violence-wise. It's graphic, shocking, disturbing and downright tasteless, with no coherent storyline at all. The film was made just to shock viewers out their lunch.I won't call this film downright bad, but I won't call it a masterpiece either. It's an interesting film with very realistic violence that makes you stand and marvel at how the filmmakers were able to create such realistic looking violence. But remember, the violence in this film is completely tasteless, and doesn't really serve apart from shocking.Overall, it's disturbing, but I wouldn't call it a film to go put on your watchlist. If you get the chance, maybe watch it if you have a strong stomach, but otherwise, just steer clear from it. 5.2/10.

t_atzmueller Being a teenager in the early 90's, in the days before the internet, watching "Faces of Death" with your pals (and, sometimes more important, the girls) was something of a rite of passage. After all, the movie was notorious: the "ultimate Mondo picture" and "the closest thing to a real snuff film", for the first time depicting uncensored (and supposedly real) bloodshed and death. Most viewers were grossed out, others were grossed out but pretended to be hard-a***es; others yet again made it a sport to detect the bogus scenes among the real carnage, never tired to point out that the guards in the infamous execution wore make-up and that a drowning victim, a dead cave-climber and a crashed stuntman were played by the same actor.Apart from a few scenes culled from news-reels and animal slaughter, most scenes are as authentic as the weasel-ish "Dr. Francis B. Gross" is a real doctor – as real as a three-dollar-bill. Watching "Faces of Death" today is mount amount to watching the original "Reefer Madness": one can quip about the cheap, untimely soundtrack, the even cheaper bit-actors and laughable special-effects, well aware that the "real-deal" is just a mouse-click away (provided the "safe-search"-option of your search-engine has been deactivated). Aware that most contemporary kids have seen more shock-videos that would have been considered inconceivable when "Faces of Death" was filmed, and where the myth of snuff-films is no longer a myth but a sad reality."Faces of Death" is not so much a documentary as it is a synonym for the creepiness, the inner-gorehound and the voyeur that hides in the back of many-a viewers head. We pride ourselves that we've progressed beyond the days of howling spectators applauding the carnage in a Roman arena or the bloodthirsty medieval mob cheering a public disembowelment. Considering the success and cult-status, indeed, the pure existence of "Faces of Death" and it's many copycats, we must admit that we are fooling ourselves: the human character hasn't progressed all that much; only technology has.I consider it impossible to rate "Faces of Death". Sure, as a real documentary it's virtually worthless, yet as a documentary of the human psyche it is a telling, important – even though not very comfortable – piece of cinematic history.

nerdshighsociety This infamous nasty came into the British publics eye when it was banned by Mary Whitehouse and her merry men, due to the fact it had Breached the terms of the "obsence publications act", the tabloids described it (along with other nasties) as "destroying our youth", but I beg to differ. Granted this film is not for everyone, it is incredibly dark, disturbing and powerful. The audience of this film should be one of a high mental and physical age as some of the scenes will inevitably disturb a less mature audience. My current review may be siding with the people trying to ban this film, but rest ashore this is not my goal, though i do admit that this film is disturbing (very disturbing), but that does not stop it from being one of those films that most people should see. Freaks, One flew over the cuckoo's nest are examples of films which gave people a more insightful view upon the world, Faces Of Death pulls of the same massage. The clever thing that this film does is hiding its message underneath graphic imagery, whilst there is more than one message buried within this film, the most obvious is the classic message, who are the "savages" off the earth? Us city folk or the tribes the live in the depths of the jungles? Granted that this message has been done before (for example Cannibal Holocaust, of which portrayed the message in the same way Faces does), but this film portrays it in a way that effects all of the people living on this earth, they did it through our food. Faces of Death splices three clips together to form its first act, first a tribe preparing their meal, second some slaughterhouse footage and lastly a farmers wife cutting the head of a chicken. The film portrays it first message by showing how the tribes have a massive respect for their food (and they use all of the animal for something or other), then through a clever juxtaposition it shows our way of preparing a meal, we are shown with no respect for the animal and how we don't use a lot of the animal. There are more messages in this film but telling you them really destroys the main point of watching this film. It may seem like I love this film, but, I don't, I did not enjoy this film, I will never watch it again. But, that does not mean it was bad. No faces Of Death is not bad, its an important watch and i recommend it in that retrospect, but its not for repeated viewing. I would give it a score but, personally, I find it hard to rate this film as its not bad but I did not enjoy it. I will leave with this; it deserves more than 3.7 stars.

lastliberal This video nasty was also released under the title The Original Faces of Death. It is a mondo film which guides viewers through explicit scenes depicting a variety of ways to die and violent acts. It was finally released in Britain in 2003 after they cut over 2 minutes from the film.In 1978 this might have been more than most people had experienced in their lives. Thirty years later, it has lost its shock value as we are exposed to some of the same faces of death from war. genocide, disease, and natural disasters like Katrina on our TV screens every night.It is not clear that most of the deaths we witnessed were real. Some may have been staged. If so, they certainly pale to what we see in films such as Saw or Hostel.There are a couple a scenes in the movie that were interesting, but certainly not worth the time spent watching the whole story.And to think that writer/director John Alan Schwartz has about six more of these for you to see, if you are so inclined.