The storyline, settings and production values of this film are all strangely similar to the notoriously sick horror classic "Last House on Dead End Street". Could it possibly be that pure grim grindhouse exploitation is back from the dead?!? Well, not really, but the least you can say about "Snuff-Movie" is that it's a reasonably good attempt to revive the misogynous shock-cinema from the 70's. Even more surprising is that the film is a one-man project of Bernard Rose, a director whose older films "Candyman" and "Paperhouse" are still regarded as stylish and prominent horror classics. The underrated Dutch actor Jeroen Krabbé stars as the embittered filmmaker Boris Arkadim who lost his beautiful wife and a share of close friends because they were killed by a bunch of violent maniacs who videotaped their crimes. Fourteen years later, Boris decides to make a new movie that tells the story of that night and thus four actors are lured to his isolated mansion full of cameras. It takes quite a while before anyone notices, but Boris plans to slaughter his guests on camera for real. Bernard Rose's script tries to be a little TOO intelligent (especially near the end) and the tension-level lowers with every plot twist. The gore is incontestably NASTY and there's plenty of authentic sleaze (there's a blond Playboy model in the cast, people!), so fans of underground-trash horror will love those moments! Despite the promising title, however, "Snuff-Movie" isn't half as disturbing, offensive or controversial as it wants to be and the film definitely needed a better climax. The acting performances are more than adequate and the cinematography with a Sony hand-camera is fairly well-handled. Worth a look if you're into semi-extreme cinema.
21 Reviews
Awful or Genius? or Awfully genius? ...or just awful?
Dangermartin1 September 2008
"From the Director of Candyman" was what convinced me to buy this film, and also the fact that it stars Jeroen "Georgi Koskov" Krabbé. I'm not sure what I expected from this film and I'm still unsure as to what it was that I actually saw. Throughout the entire film I was confused as to whether I was watching a work of pure genius or the worst pile of excrement that I have ever seen.
The film had promise but was let down by poor acting and would have benefited from a larger budget. The plot twists and turns, and stumbles and falls... However there was something about this film that I liked, I just can't put my finger on what it was. Maybe i'm just not of high enough intelligence to fully understand it, or maybe it actually was just a terrible movie... I don't know. But I like not knowing. I wouldn't recommend this film to fans of 'Candyman' but i'd say its worth a watch if your into low-budget horror movies.
5/10 - purely because I watched it 3 days ago and i'm still thinking about it. So it can't be that bad, right???
The film had promise but was let down by poor acting and would have benefited from a larger budget. The plot twists and turns, and stumbles and falls... However there was something about this film that I liked, I just can't put my finger on what it was. Maybe i'm just not of high enough intelligence to fully understand it, or maybe it actually was just a terrible movie... I don't know. But I like not knowing. I wouldn't recommend this film to fans of 'Candyman' but i'd say its worth a watch if your into low-budget horror movies.
5/10 - purely because I watched it 3 days ago and i'm still thinking about it. So it can't be that bad, right???
Disappointing
Napoleon Wilson27 August 2005
Being somewhat a fan of Candyman, I was happy and looking forward to see Snuff here at the Edinbourgh Film Festival. The subject matter looked very interesting and me and my friends thought the time is right for another Grindhouse film. I was absolutely shocked to see what I can only describe as a bad Amateur Film then. Badly edited, shot on cheap looking video, this was something you might expect from a first time filmmaker, trying to break into the business (and failing at that) and not from an experienced horror aficionado. The story is boring throughout and telegraphing the plot points 20 minutes before they occur. It also makes no sense whatsoever. It is exploitive without any justification. I might even like that, if I'd been scared or shocked at any time other than about how bad it is. Avoid!
Confused script, editing and actors. Very poor movie.
PyrolyticCarbon31 August 2005
The title of this movie gives the impression of something dark, tight, psychological and on the very edge of acceptable cinema. I'd say the last statement is most definitely true, it is on the edge of acceptable cinema, because it contains mediocre acting, a confused and torn script, and no conviction.
It's a shame because there is a message in there, and the lead character does manage to say it in no uncertain terms during the movie, and that's because he has to. There's really no other way to get to the moral of this tale through the confusion.
The second of the opening scenes remind me of the British Television advertisement for a certain directory assistance number, cheesy 70's outfits, hairstyles and moustaches. The section is supposed to portray events in the past, and from the beginning you can see the poor acting. There is much overplaying to the camera, and scenes of actors looking as though they're trying to find something to do to fill the time until the Director yells cut.
The first of the scenes is equally as bad and amusing, but then we are expected to see that as it is supposed to be an old cheesy horror movie. Some grounding an basis for the entire movie, but also to show us the level of gore that we're going to be seeing. There's nothing slick or costly about the effects, they are cheap and cheerful, and although some might be deemed shocking, there's nothing really off-putting in the movie.
From these opening segments we return to the present day to find the ex-laird of Glenbogle (another British Television event) is indulging in some rather frisky behaviour, obviously in a desperate attempt to try and shed his previous TV nice guy image. It fails though, and throughout this movie he sticks out like a sore thumb.
The script is so confused that scenes just seem to happen out of nowhere. For instance suddenly we're all outside and there's a huge audience of onlookers watching events. This from the previous premise where we were all in a house being filmed by webcams. This is probably the best example of the confusion we were shown and felt.
It attempts, from an early stage, to address some issues on the Internet, freedom of speech, the fact that anyone can broadcast anything online. Yet it stumbles over them, readdresses them through the script, and doesn't really say much about them by the end of the movie. In fact at the end it seems to take a totally different tract altogether, and doesn't seem to have been about anything at all. Very confusing.
Add to all this that it's filmed poorly and seems to have been thrown together editing wise, and it's an altogether awful movie. IMDb lists this as still in Post Production, and perhaps we were treated to an early cut at the Edinburgh Film Festival 2005, who knows. It was just bad.
There were two moments though that actually got my feelings moving. One was when the ex-laird Alistair Mackenzie sits down at a computer while his girlfriend is away for the evening, starts a can of lager, and pulls up Google with a search for some porn. By the time he's on his third can you can see the searches getting worse. This actually raised a good laugh from the audience, and was something you could instantly connect to.
The second was a stabbing scene late on in the movie, a man is stabbed in the stomach, all the time you see his muscles moving and there doesn't look to be a special effect in sight. That was unnerving and is probably the only scene where you would consider the possibility that it was living up to its title.
There it ends though. The female lead Lisa Enos is weak and unconvincing, and what the hell has happened to Jeroen Krabbé, his role is awful.
I won't go on. There's nothing to redeem this movie bar a laugh and an awkward moment. I'd avoid like the title should have suggested.
It's a shame because there is a message in there, and the lead character does manage to say it in no uncertain terms during the movie, and that's because he has to. There's really no other way to get to the moral of this tale through the confusion.
The second of the opening scenes remind me of the British Television advertisement for a certain directory assistance number, cheesy 70's outfits, hairstyles and moustaches. The section is supposed to portray events in the past, and from the beginning you can see the poor acting. There is much overplaying to the camera, and scenes of actors looking as though they're trying to find something to do to fill the time until the Director yells cut.
The first of the scenes is equally as bad and amusing, but then we are expected to see that as it is supposed to be an old cheesy horror movie. Some grounding an basis for the entire movie, but also to show us the level of gore that we're going to be seeing. There's nothing slick or costly about the effects, they are cheap and cheerful, and although some might be deemed shocking, there's nothing really off-putting in the movie.
From these opening segments we return to the present day to find the ex-laird of Glenbogle (another British Television event) is indulging in some rather frisky behaviour, obviously in a desperate attempt to try and shed his previous TV nice guy image. It fails though, and throughout this movie he sticks out like a sore thumb.
The script is so confused that scenes just seem to happen out of nowhere. For instance suddenly we're all outside and there's a huge audience of onlookers watching events. This from the previous premise where we were all in a house being filmed by webcams. This is probably the best example of the confusion we were shown and felt.
It attempts, from an early stage, to address some issues on the Internet, freedom of speech, the fact that anyone can broadcast anything online. Yet it stumbles over them, readdresses them through the script, and doesn't really say much about them by the end of the movie. In fact at the end it seems to take a totally different tract altogether, and doesn't seem to have been about anything at all. Very confusing.
Add to all this that it's filmed poorly and seems to have been thrown together editing wise, and it's an altogether awful movie. IMDb lists this as still in Post Production, and perhaps we were treated to an early cut at the Edinburgh Film Festival 2005, who knows. It was just bad.
There were two moments though that actually got my feelings moving. One was when the ex-laird Alistair Mackenzie sits down at a computer while his girlfriend is away for the evening, starts a can of lager, and pulls up Google with a search for some porn. By the time he's on his third can you can see the searches getting worse. This actually raised a good laugh from the audience, and was something you could instantly connect to.
The second was a stabbing scene late on in the movie, a man is stabbed in the stomach, all the time you see his muscles moving and there doesn't look to be a special effect in sight. That was unnerving and is probably the only scene where you would consider the possibility that it was living up to its title.
There it ends though. The female lead Lisa Enos is weak and unconvincing, and what the hell has happened to Jeroen Krabbé, his role is awful.
I won't go on. There's nothing to redeem this movie bar a laugh and an awkward moment. I'd avoid like the title should have suggested.
Hell no...
pc-loch12 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen some terrible movies, but this definitely ranks in my top 10. Multiple award nominee, and winning actor, Jeroen Krabbé (presumably one of Hollands best ???) really outdid himself with bad acting and the most hideous "dutch-english" accent ever. Krabbé is said to be a great actor...well..I have to see his first good role yet! When the film starts we are warned that this is a REAL and GENUINE snuff movie (yeah...right...with mainstream actors...duh...) but nevertheless I thought giving it the benefit of my doubt. I wish I never did. The start of this monstrosity is very loosely based on the Tate murder by the "Manson-family" with writing on the walls etc., but if they tried to give a kind of a Mason like twist to this "movie" well, they didn't succeed...
Does the acting don't make you feel sick yet, then the "killing" will absolutely do so. One of the characters is killed in a van by 3 young girls ("Teeth" (with vampire shaped teeth...all of 'em...) "X" (coz she has an X carved between her eyes) and "Young" (coz she's young), original er ??)...don't ask me where the blood comes from...it's just THERE !!
So even if you have 93 minutes of your precious time to spare, don't, no really DON'T waste 'em on this piece of rubbish !!!
Does the acting don't make you feel sick yet, then the "killing" will absolutely do so. One of the characters is killed in a van by 3 young girls ("Teeth" (with vampire shaped teeth...all of 'em...) "X" (coz she has an X carved between her eyes) and "Young" (coz she's young), original er ??)...don't ask me where the blood comes from...it's just THERE !!
So even if you have 93 minutes of your precious time to spare, don't, no really DON'T waste 'em on this piece of rubbish !!!
Beyond trailer trash....pathetic...disgusting...can go on
sg279028 June 2007
This film has to be the worst i have ever seen in my whole entire life time. I started watching it open minded as i knew it was a low budget film. It was absolute crap.
I can't understand how people can comment on how it was good. It really is NOT. I wasted 3.50 on watching this on Virgin Media, I;m even considering writing in saying how rubbish this film was and they shouldn't have it on demand.
The plot is misleading- has no guidance or directing. As for the sex and nudity - there was no point to it at all, it just didn't fit into the film and i thought it was perverted.
Also as the film went on the quality of the cameras seemed to go down and down and down and it was just weird. I began to feel slightly disturbed as the cameras were such poor quality, yet the make-up and gore was still very convincing and i actually started to question whether this was real.
Basically really DO NOT WATCH THIS, i am outraged that such a crap film was made and it was actually funded - when there are people out there who could make such a better film with more meaning. Livid
I can't understand how people can comment on how it was good. It really is NOT. I wasted 3.50 on watching this on Virgin Media, I;m even considering writing in saying how rubbish this film was and they shouldn't have it on demand.
The plot is misleading- has no guidance or directing. As for the sex and nudity - there was no point to it at all, it just didn't fit into the film and i thought it was perverted.
Also as the film went on the quality of the cameras seemed to go down and down and down and it was just weird. I began to feel slightly disturbed as the cameras were such poor quality, yet the make-up and gore was still very convincing and i actually started to question whether this was real.
Basically really DO NOT WATCH THIS, i am outraged that such a crap film was made and it was actually funded - when there are people out there who could make such a better film with more meaning. Livid
Thank you, Mr. Rose.
mizzlemonizzle27 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Mr. Bernard Rose. I wasted 92 minutes of my precious time on your drivel. First off, the title is completely misleading. Look "snuff" up in the dictionary. You might be surprised at the actual meaning of the word. I do not appreciate lies. Secondly, I was confused. And not in a good way. The story line was not clever, and I doubt any person with a normal intelligence was impressed.
The acting was terrible. The "special effects" were awful. The blasphemy was not a witty touch.
I cheapened my mind. I made my purse that little bit lighted. Thanks Bernard. Thanks a bunch.
So, to anyone who actually looks films up on this before watching them, I advise you to not waste your time or money or life on this.
Absolutely mind numbing.
The acting was terrible. The "special effects" were awful. The blasphemy was not a witty touch.
I cheapened my mind. I made my purse that little bit lighted. Thanks Bernard. Thanks a bunch.
So, to anyone who actually looks films up on this before watching them, I advise you to not waste your time or money or life on this.
Absolutely mind numbing.
Marmite Movie
Poptart_Psycho6 November 2015
Im not a fan of English horror movies I always find they lack something, but not to be biased I gave Snuff Movie a watch as on title alone I could imagine it being very graphical but indeed I was wrong...
So the movie centres around Boris Adkin, a film director. In the 60s his pregnant wife was brutally murdered by a Manson cult style gang or was she? decades later Boris is making a directorial comeback and invites a group of English actors to his mansion for an audition. Unbeknown to them its for a live snuff site...
This is one to avoid if you just watch movies for gore, for the avid horror fan its a love hate movie you'll either love the cleaver and twisting of the movie or will find it a bore, confusing and drags on for too long
So the movie centres around Boris Adkin, a film director. In the 60s his pregnant wife was brutally murdered by a Manson cult style gang or was she? decades later Boris is making a directorial comeback and invites a group of English actors to his mansion for an audition. Unbeknown to them its for a live snuff site...
This is one to avoid if you just watch movies for gore, for the avid horror fan its a love hate movie you'll either love the cleaver and twisting of the movie or will find it a bore, confusing and drags on for too long
Clever script but never scary
phillamg28 August 2005
This film kept every guessing until the very final seconds of the film to try to understand it. The plot is very twisted and you often feel split as to what is actually happening and that's were the problem lies. Because you are detached trying to think about the (not especially graphic) scenes you are seeing you never feel engrossed in the movie or empathise with any of the characters. You always expect that you'll be fooled any second now. For the final 10 minutes I think I figured out what the medium sized plot was all about (either that or there was a prop goof) but while I was 99% sure, I had no idea how to explain it or how it fitted in with the entire film. That may sound complicated and convoluted but believe me, the script really is. Well shot and well acted, but just not scary, even on a simple gore level (watch Haute Tension for that).
me thinks the script was written in crayon.
joshuagreen118 August 2007
A particularly awful example of a 'gritty' slasher flick, certainly one for the less discerning viewer. Any attempt to justify or defend its poor direction, production, script, acting, camera work, costume design (note the black rag perched upon the strippers' head), obvious plot holes etc. on the grounds of originality should seek help immediately.
The only thing more prevalent than the bad acting was breasts. Obviously written for the adult channel, but be warned... frequent exposures are usually juxtaposed with unintentional hilarity or unnecessary cesarean sections.
Definitely one for the blind or deaf; preferably both.
"Not quite as much fun as a frottis...and more uncomfortable to watch" - My mother
The only thing more prevalent than the bad acting was breasts. Obviously written for the adult channel, but be warned... frequent exposures are usually juxtaposed with unintentional hilarity or unnecessary cesarean sections.
Definitely one for the blind or deaf; preferably both.
"Not quite as much fun as a frottis...and more uncomfortable to watch" - My mother
Strange but fascinating!
johannes2000-115 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very strange movie and I find it hard to decide whether it's just over-pretentious, or a truly intelligent, maybe even brilliant attempt to unravel the mysteries of the dark corners in the human mind. Nothing in this movie is what it appears to be, you're surprised again and again, even till the very last minutes of the movie. I have to admit that this kept me fascinated and watching, although at the same time I had the uncanny feeling that I was made a fool of, and someone was trying to find out how long you can serve bad food and still make someone eat it.
Part of the problem is the almost overall mediocre acting. The only one that stands out is Jeroen Krabbé, he is excellent as the sinister, perverted, probably psychopathic but also very charming director. Lisa Enos is a feast for the eyes (with and without clothes), but it unnerved me a bit that she let herself be so extremely exploited by appearing for (over)long takes in full frontal nude.
But maybe that unnerving feeling was all part of the plan. Some goings-on go totally over the top, like the irritating hysteria of the group of weird killer-girls, or the deranged and invalid son stumbling into Krabbé's bedroom to kill him, they seem to be meant to create bewilderment and disbelief. There's gore, albeit not always as graphically displayed as you may emotionally experience it, there's also a lot of suggestion, which of course adds up to the main theme of "real or not-real".
This movie is obviously about exploitation, about people abusing other people (and let themselves be abused) out of purely opportunistic motives. But ultimately it's about the very game of fooling. We, the viewers, are tricked again and again, and although we know that in a horror movie it's all fake, (even in a movie that's called "Snuff movie"), here we are forced to make time and again a total mind-switch and re-adjust our convictions. It results in a feeling that you never fully get into control of what is presented to you. We are not helped by any coherent plot, it's as if the director wants us to step backwards and just look at things unfold from a distance. As a consequence you never get involved with the persons at all, but it does enhance the awkward feeling of estrangement.
The end of the movie - the surprising bow of Krabbé (to us?) - reminded me of the ending of Verdi's Falstaff: stepping out of the role back into the real life and saying (or suggesting) to the public: "really, the whole world is nothing but a sham!". Which feeling gets enhanced when watching the closing credits of the cast roll by: there you see that almost every actor played two or more different roles!
Part of the problem is the almost overall mediocre acting. The only one that stands out is Jeroen Krabbé, he is excellent as the sinister, perverted, probably psychopathic but also very charming director. Lisa Enos is a feast for the eyes (with and without clothes), but it unnerved me a bit that she let herself be so extremely exploited by appearing for (over)long takes in full frontal nude.
But maybe that unnerving feeling was all part of the plan. Some goings-on go totally over the top, like the irritating hysteria of the group of weird killer-girls, or the deranged and invalid son stumbling into Krabbé's bedroom to kill him, they seem to be meant to create bewilderment and disbelief. There's gore, albeit not always as graphically displayed as you may emotionally experience it, there's also a lot of suggestion, which of course adds up to the main theme of "real or not-real".
This movie is obviously about exploitation, about people abusing other people (and let themselves be abused) out of purely opportunistic motives. But ultimately it's about the very game of fooling. We, the viewers, are tricked again and again, and although we know that in a horror movie it's all fake, (even in a movie that's called "Snuff movie"), here we are forced to make time and again a total mind-switch and re-adjust our convictions. It results in a feeling that you never fully get into control of what is presented to you. We are not helped by any coherent plot, it's as if the director wants us to step backwards and just look at things unfold from a distance. As a consequence you never get involved with the persons at all, but it does enhance the awkward feeling of estrangement.
The end of the movie - the surprising bow of Krabbé (to us?) - reminded me of the ending of Verdi's Falstaff: stepping out of the role back into the real life and saying (or suggesting) to the public: "really, the whole world is nothing but a sham!". Which feeling gets enhanced when watching the closing credits of the cast roll by: there you see that almost every actor played two or more different roles!
I enjoyed it.
rogerwalkertwo-16 September 2005
This isn't a horror film as much as it is a film about horror.
In a Don Quixote-ian attempt to create features outside of the "Holywood" norm, Bernard Rose has created another horror film..but this time, it seems, with no restrictions whatsoever. This has all the feel of the classical "content" driven horror films of the seventies. Don't Look Now - comes to mind as well as other low budget thrillers that have achieved cult status. The director takes us from Hammer Horror to online snuff footage in just a couple reels. Rose has proved himself very capable of handling the genre of horror films with his extensive catalogue, including Candyman and Paperhouse.
Rose is attempting to showing us the unreality of the horror genre and all media in general. The ultimate lies that are inherent in film making...from framing a camera shot to editing to sound design they can all be manipulated to create any response desired. Our response is utter shock at the depravity of the action in this film.
At times the film becomes deprecating and so self referential that I had to laugh. Even the characters laugh at themselves at some of the references. For instance one "actor" is told he, "is the care taker." At that point he realizes the reference himself.
There is a cavalcade of characters from recent history that the film refers to; from Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski (Boris Arkadin Character) to Private Lyndie England, It seems Rose has addressed more in this movie and he's creating more questions than he's answering. Which is fine because, quite frankly, I already forgot what happened in the last "Chucky" movie.
I am glad to see a director let loose and have total control of the production. I would like to see more of it. This isn't mindless or passive theatre and it is definitely worth a more than one viewing.
It is most certainly going to be either loved or hated.
In a Don Quixote-ian attempt to create features outside of the "Holywood" norm, Bernard Rose has created another horror film..but this time, it seems, with no restrictions whatsoever. This has all the feel of the classical "content" driven horror films of the seventies. Don't Look Now - comes to mind as well as other low budget thrillers that have achieved cult status. The director takes us from Hammer Horror to online snuff footage in just a couple reels. Rose has proved himself very capable of handling the genre of horror films with his extensive catalogue, including Candyman and Paperhouse.
Rose is attempting to showing us the unreality of the horror genre and all media in general. The ultimate lies that are inherent in film making...from framing a camera shot to editing to sound design they can all be manipulated to create any response desired. Our response is utter shock at the depravity of the action in this film.
At times the film becomes deprecating and so self referential that I had to laugh. Even the characters laugh at themselves at some of the references. For instance one "actor" is told he, "is the care taker." At that point he realizes the reference himself.
There is a cavalcade of characters from recent history that the film refers to; from Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski (Boris Arkadin Character) to Private Lyndie England, It seems Rose has addressed more in this movie and he's creating more questions than he's answering. Which is fine because, quite frankly, I already forgot what happened in the last "Chucky" movie.
I am glad to see a director let loose and have total control of the production. I would like to see more of it. This isn't mindless or passive theatre and it is definitely worth a more than one viewing.
It is most certainly going to be either loved or hated.
Pretentious horror. With a shower scene.
BA_Harrison2 November 2016
After a long hiatus following the brutal murder of his pregnant wife by a Manson-like gang, cult film-maker Boris Arkadin (played by Jeroen Krabbé) opens auditions for a new horror flick to be filmed at his large mansion. Unknown to his chosen cast, however, Arkadin is secretly recording the actors 24/7 on hidden cameras, broadcasting their every move on a website, including, so it seems, their untimely deaths.
I've an unhealthy fascination with the subject of snuff movies, and with Bernard Rose, director of the excellent Candyman, calling the shots, I had high hopes that Snuff Movie would be an insightful exploration into one of the most disturbing possible forms of film-making. Unfortunately, Rose's movie tries to be far too clever for its own good, with a twisty-turny plot that blurs reality and fantasy, featuring 'movies within movies' and a silly surprise ending that really isn't worth the wait.
3 out of 10: 1 point for the gore and another 2 for the female nudity (Rose's film might be aimed at the art-house/intelligentsia crowd, but at least the director seems to understand the importance of those horror fundamentals: a silicone enhanced bimbo having sex and a gratuitous shower scene).
I've an unhealthy fascination with the subject of snuff movies, and with Bernard Rose, director of the excellent Candyman, calling the shots, I had high hopes that Snuff Movie would be an insightful exploration into one of the most disturbing possible forms of film-making. Unfortunately, Rose's movie tries to be far too clever for its own good, with a twisty-turny plot that blurs reality and fantasy, featuring 'movies within movies' and a silly surprise ending that really isn't worth the wait.
3 out of 10: 1 point for the gore and another 2 for the female nudity (Rose's film might be aimed at the art-house/intelligentsia crowd, but at least the director seems to understand the importance of those horror fundamentals: a silicone enhanced bimbo having sex and a gratuitous shower scene).
Not watchable
HeroCritic24 September 2014
Not looking like a really professionally done movie. Everything was bad. Bad acting, bad music, meaningless plot, stupid procession of the plot, if we can call that a plot. Waste of my time and disappointment i would say is my final verdict. Stay away if you value your given time on this earth, you ain't getting it back! Too many things are wrong with this movie. I can't think of one good aspect of it. You don't get it in the end. At least i didn't. And it is also a kind of a copycat of several other related movies, but in a way that does not make any sense at all! I guess it is a talent to do that. I would say do not waste your time like i did, there are many other things a human can do with free time than watch this thing.
Huge disappointment
mistoppi17 June 2016
This film is a huge disappointed. It's like Bernard Rose tried to make something disgusting yet weirdly artistic and failed. The film had so much potential, but the execution was poor. It could've been thrilling, but it feels too distant for the audience to actually fear for the characters. It leaves you with the kind of confusion that doesn't feel as good as an amazing plot twist that just comes out of nowhere and changes everything. It's the kind of confusion that just leaves you wondering, what did I just see, and not in a good way.
I just expected something a lot different. It's kind of like with Natural Born Killers - a simple plot that could be a great movie, but the filmmakers make it too artistic and deep and ruining the simplicity.
I just expected something a lot different. It's kind of like with Natural Born Killers - a simple plot that could be a great movie, but the filmmakers make it too artistic and deep and ruining the simplicity.
crap don't believe the hype
kakoilija9 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
after seeing a real dead child live, and watching traces of death collection, basically seen all the REAL terrors of humanity, i've been quite skeptic about these kinds of movies.
this was not surprisingly utter crap. if you haven't seen any other movie that contains lots of gore, then this movie probably scares you.
otherwise... i was immediately struck when the so so terrible synth violins and quire started playing... get some real music... i've always thought that bad synth music just makes film a cheap one.
the name snuff has nothing to do with this one... watch guinea pig (and read the aftermath) series those are more snuff (even though they are complete crap as well). i don't know what so special was about this movie.
if i hadn't seen all the horrors that i have seen, and hadn't listened to a lot of good MUSIC (well produced too like Arcturus, Ulver, Navicon Torture Technologies, Cold Meat Industries, Mayhem, Horrorcore, some Evol Intent and other intense stuff...) maybe then you'll like this... which makes you anyways pretty ordinary person. (I would NOT recommend the Traces of Death collection to anybody who doesn't want to be traumatized for life =D)...
You won't miss a thing. Don't get this to your DVD collection. Rather get Belgian Man Bites Dog, Human Porc Chop, Irreversible, The Uninvited, Tell Me Something or even Happy End?.
The sex scene is pointless. Manson ripoff =D. This one lacked the feeling, and intensity it claimed. If the title had been boring people with some mild nudity and little gore then I would have given it 5 =D...
And yes... I will make a better film than this in the future (I think then people can bitch about my film if I fail =D=D=D). I got pain, and I can give pain on FILM! HAIL Satan!
this was not surprisingly utter crap. if you haven't seen any other movie that contains lots of gore, then this movie probably scares you.
otherwise... i was immediately struck when the so so terrible synth violins and quire started playing... get some real music... i've always thought that bad synth music just makes film a cheap one.
the name snuff has nothing to do with this one... watch guinea pig (and read the aftermath) series those are more snuff (even though they are complete crap as well). i don't know what so special was about this movie.
if i hadn't seen all the horrors that i have seen, and hadn't listened to a lot of good MUSIC (well produced too like Arcturus, Ulver, Navicon Torture Technologies, Cold Meat Industries, Mayhem, Horrorcore, some Evol Intent and other intense stuff...) maybe then you'll like this... which makes you anyways pretty ordinary person. (I would NOT recommend the Traces of Death collection to anybody who doesn't want to be traumatized for life =D)...
You won't miss a thing. Don't get this to your DVD collection. Rather get Belgian Man Bites Dog, Human Porc Chop, Irreversible, The Uninvited, Tell Me Something or even Happy End?.
The sex scene is pointless. Manson ripoff =D. This one lacked the feeling, and intensity it claimed. If the title had been boring people with some mild nudity and little gore then I would have given it 5 =D...
And yes... I will make a better film than this in the future (I think then people can bitch about my film if I fail =D=D=D). I got pain, and I can give pain on FILM! HAIL Satan!
Weirdly brilliant..
xatticus-mushx24 July 2007
Not What i expected... but...
This film is weirdly brilliant, nothing to what i thought it was going to be, to be honest, i never review films, and especially i never ever write them, but after watching this film..then reading the bad reviews i felt i had to step in..!! This film isn't bad, it isn't a failure, if you think that you obviously don't understand the point of the director, I'm 18 and i understand it fully, to understand it you need to loose the whole negativity attitude.
It started out a nightmare of a film, with cheap crappy camera shots, poor lighting, poor acting, then i realised that it is ALL THERE FOR A REASON.
You wont understand the film until you watch the last scene a few times over, but when you do you will feel satisfied with the knowledge that you actually understand what a genius director is trying to say..if you don't then it doesn't make it a bad film..
Cheers for listening, Chris
This film is weirdly brilliant, nothing to what i thought it was going to be, to be honest, i never review films, and especially i never ever write them, but after watching this film..then reading the bad reviews i felt i had to step in..!! This film isn't bad, it isn't a failure, if you think that you obviously don't understand the point of the director, I'm 18 and i understand it fully, to understand it you need to loose the whole negativity attitude.
It started out a nightmare of a film, with cheap crappy camera shots, poor lighting, poor acting, then i realised that it is ALL THERE FOR A REASON.
You wont understand the film until you watch the last scene a few times over, but when you do you will feel satisfied with the knowledge that you actually understand what a genius director is trying to say..if you don't then it doesn't make it a bad film..
Cheers for listening, Chris
Great film.
dragonmaster030329 August 2007
I really hope these one/two star reviewers aren't confusing this with the film 'Snuff' (which really does deserve only one or two stars) because it'd be a shame if people were put off this film by a misunderstanding.
Or perhaps it's just too clever &/or confusing for them? It twists and turns all over the place, in fact I've never seen a movie do so many u-turns! Maybe it's just too much for some people to keep up with and understand - and again it'd also be a shame for anyone to be put off for that reason.
This may not be a Candyman type horror movie (and maybe that's the problem they have - it's not a high budget conventional horror film), but even with a lower budget, Bernard Rose shows he's a great director. I only wish he'd made more horror movies over the years.
Anyway, I love this film and I can honestly say it's got better with each viewing, which is something I can't say for many films and as of yet I have not lost the urge to watch it over and over - surely the sign of a great film. If you like horror, but don't have 'big budget Hollywood' hang-ups and aren't afraid to watch something a little bit different, give this a go.
Or perhaps it's just too clever &/or confusing for them? It twists and turns all over the place, in fact I've never seen a movie do so many u-turns! Maybe it's just too much for some people to keep up with and understand - and again it'd also be a shame for anyone to be put off for that reason.
This may not be a Candyman type horror movie (and maybe that's the problem they have - it's not a high budget conventional horror film), but even with a lower budget, Bernard Rose shows he's a great director. I only wish he'd made more horror movies over the years.
Anyway, I love this film and I can honestly say it's got better with each viewing, which is something I can't say for many films and as of yet I have not lost the urge to watch it over and over - surely the sign of a great film. If you like horror, but don't have 'big budget Hollywood' hang-ups and aren't afraid to watch something a little bit different, give this a go.
Surprisingly entertaining
DLuttinen-12 November 2015
Presented at a small movie house on Halloween Night, Snuff Movie engaged us from the beginning and kept us interested until the end. The ending was an unexpected twist that left us glad to have avoided trick-or-treaters and wanting to see it again. Think "The Usual Suspects" for that are-you-kidding-me response.
The camera work was varied with long shots and POV that kept your focus moving across the screen. The lighting afforded an appropriate ambiance, and the somber colors kept the mood in synchronization with the story. Knives and guns are primary weapons of choice, but the greatest implement of torture came from technology.
There is one scene where the tension is built to an extraordinary level where the boyfriend is going crazy, helpless, watching events unfold live through an online link on a computer and his girlfriend is in grave danger. Resolution is not to be had just yet as more action develops involving police (in)action.
I am surprised that the rating on IMDb is so low because this film is worthy of horror aficionados and should be seen with good friends.
The camera work was varied with long shots and POV that kept your focus moving across the screen. The lighting afforded an appropriate ambiance, and the somber colors kept the mood in synchronization with the story. Knives and guns are primary weapons of choice, but the greatest implement of torture came from technology.
There is one scene where the tension is built to an extraordinary level where the boyfriend is going crazy, helpless, watching events unfold live through an online link on a computer and his girlfriend is in grave danger. Resolution is not to be had just yet as more action develops involving police (in)action.
I am surprised that the rating on IMDb is so low because this film is worthy of horror aficionados and should be seen with good friends.
Awesome... Thought provoking and shocking
C_Karber2 September 2005
I just saw it at the Edinburgh Film Festival and I think this film is absolutely brilliant!
First, Thank god that a smart horror film has arrived in a genre long stagnated with mediocrity, slasher nonsense or "around the corner, haunted house" horror. If you are the someone who needs high budget Hollywood filler, then this might not be for you. This is what good film making should be...thought provoking and entertaining. It even has a bit of the old ultra violence thrown in for good measure!
Leave it to Bernard Rose (a real auteur - wrote and directed last several films) to create a thoughtful and complex horror film reminiscent of Ken Russell or Dario Angento. His commentary on the horror genre, violence, sex and voyeurism (in general) is outstanding and could only come from a master director of horror (Candyman - Paperhouse)
In Snuff-Movie, Rose has assembled movies on top of movies which all make up this movie. Sounds strange? Watch the film and you'll get it! Each movie is unique in its reference to a particular element of horror and constantly questions what horror truly is. Rose refers to these different elements and expands to even incorporate our fascination with voyeurism with TV's (Big Brother - Reality TV) and the internet (web cam sex etc). The film's narrative progresses forward through the use of these different "movies" and keeps us guessing as to what is next and what is real. It's constant changes are referential to the TV channel switching age we live which is fueled by violence and the viewers ever increasing need for it.
Ironically, Rose is smart enough to understand horror and address it from alternate view points. He makes some wonderful references (to so many other horror films) throughout that I was thoroughly amused!
Conversely, There is so much outstanding social commentary you have to appreciate it. For instance the murderous tortures all looking like Private England dressed in Camouflage but with fangs. Then there is a comment on an internet porn search that reveals one characters girlfriend. Talk about playing on your fears in the modern age!
Like in most reality shows...I found the acting (across the board) stifled and contrived. I found the sets stifled and contrived. I thought the characters looked like they were wearing wigs....then it dawned on me that I was being taking for a "ride" by Rose and when the final scene takes place, it all made perfect sense! Brilliant. What a commentary!
Remember, this is a movie. Movies aren't real. At what level are you going to suspend your disbelief?
Must see!!
First, Thank god that a smart horror film has arrived in a genre long stagnated with mediocrity, slasher nonsense or "around the corner, haunted house" horror. If you are the someone who needs high budget Hollywood filler, then this might not be for you. This is what good film making should be...thought provoking and entertaining. It even has a bit of the old ultra violence thrown in for good measure!
Leave it to Bernard Rose (a real auteur - wrote and directed last several films) to create a thoughtful and complex horror film reminiscent of Ken Russell or Dario Angento. His commentary on the horror genre, violence, sex and voyeurism (in general) is outstanding and could only come from a master director of horror (Candyman - Paperhouse)
In Snuff-Movie, Rose has assembled movies on top of movies which all make up this movie. Sounds strange? Watch the film and you'll get it! Each movie is unique in its reference to a particular element of horror and constantly questions what horror truly is. Rose refers to these different elements and expands to even incorporate our fascination with voyeurism with TV's (Big Brother - Reality TV) and the internet (web cam sex etc). The film's narrative progresses forward through the use of these different "movies" and keeps us guessing as to what is next and what is real. It's constant changes are referential to the TV channel switching age we live which is fueled by violence and the viewers ever increasing need for it.
Ironically, Rose is smart enough to understand horror and address it from alternate view points. He makes some wonderful references (to so many other horror films) throughout that I was thoroughly amused!
Conversely, There is so much outstanding social commentary you have to appreciate it. For instance the murderous tortures all looking like Private England dressed in Camouflage but with fangs. Then there is a comment on an internet porn search that reveals one characters girlfriend. Talk about playing on your fears in the modern age!
Like in most reality shows...I found the acting (across the board) stifled and contrived. I found the sets stifled and contrived. I thought the characters looked like they were wearing wigs....then it dawned on me that I was being taking for a "ride" by Rose and when the final scene takes place, it all made perfect sense! Brilliant. What a commentary!
Remember, this is a movie. Movies aren't real. At what level are you going to suspend your disbelief?
Must see!!
Highly underrated... Only watch if you can take the confusion.
jamie_mactell7 January 2008
Just finished watching this with my girlfriend... And I was very, very impressed. This is not a good date movie (unless you are into gore cinema), and of the standard slasher fare. It is good if you like gory films, and can keep up with a fast twisting plot.
The premise is simple: four fame hungry actors go to live with an eccentric hermit director (that is a director who is a hermit, not a guy who directs hermits), and nasty stuff happens. So far, pretty standard. The thing which set the film apart for me was the interesting direction (a lot of unusual low budget camera angles), and the exceptional plot twists. I have read some comments on this site which seem to completely misunderstand the entire film. I guess the answer is if you aren't watching, don't comment.
I found the acting to be, while not incredible, of a high standard throughout (although some scenes were better than others)and the gore and violence very well done (if somewhat graphic for the uninitiated). There were some standout scenes where it was genuinely difficult to tell the action from real life.
I would definitely recommend this film to anyone interested in nasty or subversive cinema and, while not the most horrific, it contains enough gore and an interesting enough plot to keep even desensitised movie buffs happy. I will soon be adding this to my DVD shelf, and forcing it into the faces of many unsuspecting house guests. Excellent.
The premise is simple: four fame hungry actors go to live with an eccentric hermit director (that is a director who is a hermit, not a guy who directs hermits), and nasty stuff happens. So far, pretty standard. The thing which set the film apart for me was the interesting direction (a lot of unusual low budget camera angles), and the exceptional plot twists. I have read some comments on this site which seem to completely misunderstand the entire film. I guess the answer is if you aren't watching, don't comment.
I found the acting to be, while not incredible, of a high standard throughout (although some scenes were better than others)and the gore and violence very well done (if somewhat graphic for the uninitiated). There were some standout scenes where it was genuinely difficult to tell the action from real life.
I would definitely recommend this film to anyone interested in nasty or subversive cinema and, while not the most horrific, it contains enough gore and an interesting enough plot to keep even desensitised movie buffs happy. I will soon be adding this to my DVD shelf, and forcing it into the faces of many unsuspecting house guests. Excellent.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
