Having now read the full synopsis for Cannibal Holocaust, I think it's a bit much for me. "Let's go to a South American island full of cannibals" - A lot of people go to Majorca, but fair enough. "Oh no, the aforementioned cannibals are eating us" - Well, that was probably always on the cards. "Let's gang-rape one of the female cannibals, that'll show her" - Look, I understand that you're angry with her because of the cannibalism, but where did that come from. A film like Zombi is more my pace but I don't know if that counts as exploitation, it's just a zombie film that's old and trashy and isn't Romero. It has a scene of someone getting a huge splinter through their eye, and a scene of a zombie fighting a shark underwater. It's confusing trying to make sense of that franchise because the films all have different titles and different directors kept marketing films as sequels of other director's films, it was a bit of a free-for-all. I think intent is a lot of what makes some violence okay and other violence not. Like in a zombie film the zombie doesn't know what it's doing, it's just eating like an animal. So we can watch a zombie tear someone up and we might watch through our fingers but it shouldn't be psychologically disturbing. Whereas when it's a fully conscious human inflicting horrendous abuse that's when it gets unsettling. Especially if the film is from the point of view of the abuser.