Other reviews seem to be suggesting that the movie is 100% about the extreme violence/gore of the tribe, with the 'other' info (the UN, the use of barely informed/trending social media, the corporations, and, though a liberal academic myself, yes-liberal/left-leaning education and progressivism, etc.) being merely plot vehicles to get us there and therefore easy to ignore, rather than seeing Eli Roth's efforts to hold the extreme gore and violence (and its mundaneness to the tribe) as a hard-to-watch 'mirror up to nature' for the surrounding story.

In case you ARE considering watching this film, please go into it recognizing its efforts to both satirize and struggle with western-style activism/economic colonialism. Like someone taking the Onion seriously, or angrily disagreeing with some conservative talking point on the old Colbert Report, do people 'not getting it' and therefore proving its point work as victories or defeat? IF art is art (rather than straight propaganda), where is the line between something that works and doesn't when it comes to satire, juxtaposition, and commentary? When it's CLEARLY the director's fault (like Kubrick cutting the all-important final chapter of Burgess's A Clockwork Orange), that's one thing - but, like an early audience rejecting Andy Kauffman for being 'too weird,' at what point does a film just 'need a niche audience' versus 'not work?' Reading the other interviews here makes me think of people who criticize Starship Troopers or Fight Club for being 'too fascist.' On one hand, both films are designed to satirically criticize fascism, not embrace it - on the other hand, it seems like the majority of the audience didn't understand and, especially in Fight Club's case, it seems to have encouraged rather than dismantled the enemy it was criticizing.

The green inferno torrent available