Snuff-Movie

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 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.

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.

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.

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.