VALUTAZIONE IMDb
2,8/10
2136
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Una storia misteriosa che coinvolge le imprese di un leader di una setta, che guida una banda di motociclisti in una serie di presunti omicidi reali su pellicola.Una storia misteriosa che coinvolge le imprese di un leader di una setta, che guida una banda di motociclisti in una serie di presunti omicidi reali su pellicola.Una storia misteriosa che coinvolge le imprese di un leader di una setta, che guida una banda di motociclisti in una serie di presunti omicidi reali su pellicola.
Margarita Amuchástegui
- Angelica
- (filmato d'archivio)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Tina Austin
- Script girl
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Brian Cary
- Director
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Liliana Fernández Blanco
- Susanna
- (filmato d'archivio)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Michael Findlay
- Detective
- (filmato d'archivio)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Roberta Findlay
- Carmela
- (filmato d'archivio)
- (voce)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Alfredo Iglesias
- Horst's father
- (filmato d'archivio)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Enrique Larratelli
- Satan
- (filmato d'archivio)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Mirtha Massa
- Terry London
- (filmato d'archivio)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Aldo Mayo
- Maximilian 'Max' Marsh
- (filmato d'archivio)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Ginger Snaps
- Murdered girl
- (filmato d'archivio)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Clao Villanueva
- Horst Frank
- (filmato d'archivio)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
This movie SUCKS big time, it is so bad as to cause brain damage. The ending is so fake, at times i couldn't stop laughing. a real snuff film with a simulated heart beat, multiple camera angles, and the fakest gore i've ever seen. And I've seen everything william shatner and ted v mikels has ever made. The actress's in the snuff part don't even match or even look remotely like the actress's in the first part of the film. I told my friend to find the morons responsible for this and demand his 22 dollars back. Even the bulk of the movie by the findlays is pretty bad, i think i liked their sex grindhouse works better. And he is right (the above poster), that you could show this to anyone of any motion picture era, and they could guess the end was fake. well, maybe a small child or learning disabled. Worse of all, a friend of mine wasted 20 bucks on this pile of steaming crap.
Any glutton who loves awful movies has sat through dozens of inherently unwatchable films in the hopes of finding the rare beast that is both completely un-viewable and completely awesome at the same time. While Snuff leans more ardently toward the former, the current DVD presentation of this film helps this deservedly obscure classic drift a bit toward the latter.
Let's clarify that this film wasn't intended to be passed off as an actual "snuff" film. If such a genre truly existed, which we won't debate here since we're clearly talking about a film that is NOT a "snuff" movie, chances are it would look a bit more like the footage hinted at in Mute Witness or 8mm than a carefully edited multi-camera affair with dubbed audio and generous arrays of stock Carnavale footage. If anyone ever truly believed that filmmakers murdered someone on camera and surrounded that footage with a pseudo-story about biker chicks who kill random people in surprisingly un-bloody ways, somehow found a way to bypass all of those dicey regulations concerning murder and its illegalites, and found a distributor to get a theatrical release for said footage... Seriously, no one did. I promise you.
Yes, this movie is tedious, far too long, and so ineptly made that I can not find a single reason to recommend it. To normal people, that is. However, if you actually know what this film is, and still have any interest in seeing it, then you kind of need to, because it is as wretched an example of film-making as you could ever hope to encounter. Scene after scene, it is a shining an example of crappy C-grade schlock. But, you know, some of us really love crappy C-grade schlock.
We don't want good dubbing, quality special effects, or actors who had heard of the phenomenon of "acting" before the cameras were turned on them. We aren't concerned with continuity, character development, or coherent story structure. We simply want to spend 80 minutes of our life watching something that vaguely resembles a film, yet ends up being an hour and twenty minute exercise in incredulity that forces us to question what's wrong with us for enjoying something that is clearly so un-enjoyable.
This film is a joke. And one would suspect that the film-makers knew this. Now, the reason that Snuff is awesome is that not only did a piece of unwatchable trash like this gain some level of infamy, but 30 years later, there is a reasonably intelligent person sitting at their computer typing this missive at 3:33 in the morning, and another one reading said missive because they have yet to view this film.
Ignore what you've heard about the grand guignol finale of this film, because it truly is a disturbing bit of nastiness. The fact that it follows such a laughably bad precursor is probably the point of this entire affair. And kudos to Blue Underground for presenting this film as they did, in a package without cover art, synopsis, or special features, which, contrary to the numerous criticisms of this I've read, captures this film perfectly. If you would really want a Criterion Collection pressing of Snuff, then you are clearly missing the point.
Fans of terrible movies won't find one much more primitive than this (although I'd also tip my hat to The Last Slumber Party). If that sounds appealing to you, then you will thoroughly enjoy Snuff. If not, I really have to question what you thought you were in store for when you popped in a non-existent-budget South American film from the '70s called "Snuff".
Do I recommend this? No, absolutely not. But do I own it and love the fact I own it? I kind of have to...
Let's clarify that this film wasn't intended to be passed off as an actual "snuff" film. If such a genre truly existed, which we won't debate here since we're clearly talking about a film that is NOT a "snuff" movie, chances are it would look a bit more like the footage hinted at in Mute Witness or 8mm than a carefully edited multi-camera affair with dubbed audio and generous arrays of stock Carnavale footage. If anyone ever truly believed that filmmakers murdered someone on camera and surrounded that footage with a pseudo-story about biker chicks who kill random people in surprisingly un-bloody ways, somehow found a way to bypass all of those dicey regulations concerning murder and its illegalites, and found a distributor to get a theatrical release for said footage... Seriously, no one did. I promise you.
Yes, this movie is tedious, far too long, and so ineptly made that I can not find a single reason to recommend it. To normal people, that is. However, if you actually know what this film is, and still have any interest in seeing it, then you kind of need to, because it is as wretched an example of film-making as you could ever hope to encounter. Scene after scene, it is a shining an example of crappy C-grade schlock. But, you know, some of us really love crappy C-grade schlock.
We don't want good dubbing, quality special effects, or actors who had heard of the phenomenon of "acting" before the cameras were turned on them. We aren't concerned with continuity, character development, or coherent story structure. We simply want to spend 80 minutes of our life watching something that vaguely resembles a film, yet ends up being an hour and twenty minute exercise in incredulity that forces us to question what's wrong with us for enjoying something that is clearly so un-enjoyable.
This film is a joke. And one would suspect that the film-makers knew this. Now, the reason that Snuff is awesome is that not only did a piece of unwatchable trash like this gain some level of infamy, but 30 years later, there is a reasonably intelligent person sitting at their computer typing this missive at 3:33 in the morning, and another one reading said missive because they have yet to view this film.
Ignore what you've heard about the grand guignol finale of this film, because it truly is a disturbing bit of nastiness. The fact that it follows such a laughably bad precursor is probably the point of this entire affair. And kudos to Blue Underground for presenting this film as they did, in a package without cover art, synopsis, or special features, which, contrary to the numerous criticisms of this I've read, captures this film perfectly. If you would really want a Criterion Collection pressing of Snuff, then you are clearly missing the point.
Fans of terrible movies won't find one much more primitive than this (although I'd also tip my hat to The Last Slumber Party). If that sounds appealing to you, then you will thoroughly enjoy Snuff. If not, I really have to question what you thought you were in store for when you popped in a non-existent-budget South American film from the '70s called "Snuff".
Do I recommend this? No, absolutely not. But do I own it and love the fact I own it? I kind of have to...
"Snuff" is actually a pretty notorious little film for propagating the snuff film myths.However it's also really bad,an amateurishly acted,written and dubbed Charlie Manson inspired story about a crazed hippy who controls pretty girls and makes them worship him and kill.The 5-minutes long pseudo-snuff segment added to the end of the film contains the sequence in which an actress in the movie is slashed,her fingers and hands chopped off and then disemboweled in unconvincing,prototypical Guinea Pig fashion.If you want to see the closest thing to snuff ever put on screen try to find Psychic TV's very graphic "First Transmission" video from 1982.
Crappy movie that leads to the infamous "snuff" scene. However, after the poor actress looses her one of her left fingers, the final scene of her innards being removed clearly shows all fingers on the same hand intact. Come on. Even if the gore appears fake, at least get the details right. It is actually kind of fun watching movies like this and noting the inaccurate video illustrating the true fakeness of it all.
Besides that, the movie itself is quite funny without trying to be. Not to mention it is not in English, so the voice-over only ads to the enjoyment of it all. If you can watch it for free or downoad it, go for it. However, save your money for something more believable. The "Guinea Pig" series would be a better place to start than this.
Besides that, the movie itself is quite funny without trying to be. Not to mention it is not in English, so the voice-over only ads to the enjoyment of it all. If you can watch it for free or downoad it, go for it. However, save your money for something more believable. The "Guinea Pig" series would be a better place to start than this.
OK first of all, if you watch this movie because you are expecting a real snuff film (or at least a realistic looking fake), you will be greatly disappointed.
First of all, there's no record of an actual snuff film being made. The fact that there is a DVD of this film available should tell you right away there's no way that it could be real snuff. If snuff exists, it is an extremely well kept secret.
Second, the snuff scene is so fake that I can't believe that anyone actually believed that it was real. You can see exactly how the gore was faked, not to mention the fact that the actress is not very good.
If you watch this film, watch it for the movie preceeding the snuff scene. It is extremely poorly written, directed and acted, but it is so bad that it will make you laugh. My friend and I think that this movie should be called SATAN'S B*TCHES, because it's kinda like CHARLIE'S ANGELS, but the women are evil and their master is Satan (pronounced Suh-TAWN). Rent this one if you just want to see a funny 70s movie.
First of all, there's no record of an actual snuff film being made. The fact that there is a DVD of this film available should tell you right away there's no way that it could be real snuff. If snuff exists, it is an extremely well kept secret.
Second, the snuff scene is so fake that I can't believe that anyone actually believed that it was real. You can see exactly how the gore was faked, not to mention the fact that the actress is not very good.
If you watch this film, watch it for the movie preceeding the snuff scene. It is extremely poorly written, directed and acted, but it is so bad that it will make you laugh. My friend and I think that this movie should be called SATAN'S B*TCHES, because it's kinda like CHARLIE'S ANGELS, but the women are evil and their master is Satan (pronounced Suh-TAWN). Rent this one if you just want to see a funny 70s movie.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe film's co-director, Michael Findlay, was later killed in a horrible accident on top of the Pan Am Building when a helicopter landed badly, tipped over on its side, and killed him and others when they were hit by the spinning helicopter propeller blades.
- BlooperWhen one of Satan's female followers is murdered at the general store, the man who shoots her fires three shots into her with a six-shot revolver, but the man had previously fired four shots into the air; thus, the woman would have been only shot twice.
- Citazioni
Angelica's Father: [after discovering a farmer in bed with Angelica] Pig! Filthiest of all animals! I will cut your heart from your body and feed it to the dogs!
- Versioni alternativeA numbered limited edition Region 0 DVD version of this film released by Blue Underground was once available, but is now out of print. Playing with the "Life is CHEAP" tagline of the film, the DVD case was made to look like a brown paper bag. There were also no menus, no chapter stops and no special features on it. This version was uncut.
- ConnessioniEdited from The Slaughter (1971)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti