Snuff Movie

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.

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!

"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???

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

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).