Snapped

I got this thinking it was a movie but I was wrong. Someone borrowed their moms video camera and taped their friends running around. I want to go into detail about everything thats bad about this but I would be wasting my time. I have to admit the first 30 seconds or so had me believing this was a movie, but two minutes later I wasn't sure if they were joking or not when a fat goth chick starts kicking some guy for gambling debts(they're not joking, she's supposed to be tough). I feel stupid for not seeing it sooner, this is just a horrible attempt at making a movie. I looked up this movie on IMDb and saw "Michael Bien" and thought it was the bad-ass guy from "The Terminator" but thats "Michael Biehn", this movie has some fat guy instead. Bad "acting" is of course the most obvious issue but is't not even the pretend actors fault, the most talented actors couldn't make this stuff believable. Plot holes and no sense. It's not even good in a bad way, Hulk Hogan movies are more entertaining. I'm a fan of independent movies but this sucks, it tries to be a formulaic Hollywood thriller and is everything a independent movie should not be. This movie owes everyone who sees it an apology.

Where to start? The initial premise is clever enough-a girl who is hired to make, and kill for, art-but it is all downhill from there. The acting is foul, replete with over exaggerated eye-rolls and wooden monotones (to be fair, the lead actress isn't too bad), the camera work is worthy of Dad patrolling the camcorder for a backyard BBQ and the plot is both indecipherable and utterly predictable at the same time. This would all be fine if Sanpped were punctuated by some measure of camp value which made it one of those movies that are so bad that they're fun to watch. But no luck here-the dialogue is deadly boring, not howlingly bad, the death scenes, clichéd and tame, not farcically bloody and over the top. Even by the standards of low budget horror movies, this is utter dreck.

I am in no way attempting to troll here, but in the spirit of showing an opposing view, I must say that this movie, in no way, is any of the following: Unrelenting, Uncompromising nor Unforgettable." One of the problems with a movie that takes itself oh-so-seriously is the fact that the audience can too plainly see that fact. "Snapped," from the opening scenes up to the very end, just seemed to shout "Hey, this is a SERIOUS movie. Arty stuff here, dontcha know... You'd better appreciate it." Hey, let the audience think for themselves, OK? While this movie was not bad, it was not altogether good either. Just because a film looks polished doesn't mean that it's a good movie (unfortunately, U.S. audiences are prone to falling for Style over Substance....). The best looking movie in the world will still suffer if it is peopled with actors/actresses who can't act and/or not having a story worth telling or told in a way that makes it worth watching (i.e. no pretentious dialogue.. who speaks like this???).

Of course, it the filmmakers are just trying to make a buck...... well, never mind this post!

Bottom Line: In my opinion (and yes, we all have one), this was not "an experience!" It was merely a movie that tried too hard to come across as "an art film." No pun intended...

Most comments here are somewhat harsh. This is obviously not an award contending movie with an A-list cast. It's a very low budget thriller and for that standard it's quite good. The female cast is attractive and does a good job, especially the lead, Tiffany Amber Knight. Among the male cast Joe Costa, as the villain does a good job. Some of the other cast aren't as good. While Hollywood productions go for big visuals and little story, this movie, like most low budget films, make up for the lack of explosions and flashiness with a solid and intriguing script with several surprising twists. The story has been described in other commentaries so I won't repeat it here. There is some interesting sexual tension between the two main female characters, which unfortunately doesn't ever come to fruition. The gore effects are good, but this isn't an all out horror gore flick. The movie does look very good I must say. The coloring is perfect, not too flat, not too rich. The sound is good. So technically this crew did a fine job. The things I didn't like were perhaps the pace, at times things get slow and even though the movie is short, maybe a little bit more could action and outside filming could have helped. The main disappointment was the lack of nudity. The movie starts out great, right at the opening credits there's some nudity, but that's almost all there is. The opening credits are more flashy than the rest of the film and was clearly filmed at another time and perhaps even by someone else as there is no indication that the same cast was used.

This film has a nice look to it, especially for an indie and seemingly low budget film. The sound is good as well. I was quite impressed by both. Too often, indies/low budgets (not that they're necessarily the same) have problems technically that obscure the gems of the film. In Snapped's case, much the opposite is true.

While the acting isn't overall terrible (notably the two female leads...who seemed capable of acting on some level), no one is more than competent. The dialogue was terrible, unrealistic. Several times, I wondered why the director hadn't ordered more takes. Some things just came off as too amateurish.

Finally, a problem that plagues many low budget films was present. Without getting into the specifics, there are at least two physical altercations that are basically implausible to the point of stupidity. There are other scenes where the shift in tone between interacting characters is so sudden and unmotivated as to be wholly unbelievable.

Not the worst film out there by any stretch of the imagination and I'd love to see what the technical people from this film could do with a real script and actors, but hardly worth a look.