Snuff: A Documentary About Killing on Camera

rosen, who probably was in charge of coffee runs on several film sets, reads a news article and describes something that probably never happened.

they include a crime-scene photo of sharon tate and jay sebring. i can understand why- the whole myth of manson family movies.

video store clerks as experts and old A&E American justice footage doesn't make this a documentary.

it is an interesting movie though.

work harder next time.

also, when someone proclaims that hard that something really happened, it probably didn't happen.

Man, were my hopes crushed after watching this 'documentary.' It's supposed to be discussing the existence of actual snuff films (films of murders produced for profit), but it fails so miserably at this that it basically turns into a group of random people talking about gory movies (like Flowers of Flesh and Blood, Cannibal Holocaust, Henry, Trouble Every Day, etc.). Also, the 'professional' views seem more like they're just fa group of friends hanging around talking in front of the camera. I mean, their key 'witness' is a 'cinephile and filmmaker' with no real credentials other than he's watched some movies. His role as a filmmaker? He wrote one movie 10 years ago that has 74 votes on this site. So, literally, a single-film maker, I suppose.

Anyway, it could've been an in-depth and intelligent look at the snuff film 'industry,' but ends up being just a bunch of people without real reason talking about gory movies, war, and serial killers. Interesting subjects turned boring by uninteresting speakers on them.

Oh, also, I don't think I could get more annoyed than I do when I hear someone say, "It is very unlikely that ever in the history of cinema was a person killed on a camera for the purpose of profit." Really? Unlikely? Of the billions of people in the world and the many million that could've afforded to pay someone to do that, you have to assume that at no point did some rich guy have a murder fetish and paid someone, say, $100,000 (or more) to film someone getting killed? The odds that that NEVER happened are extremely slim just by the fact that EVERYTHING is done. Rant over.

Final Verdict: 5/10. Simply for the gore scenes and occasional bit of info.

-AP3-

...But to all of you doubters out there regarding the authenticity of the pedophile 'snuff' movies, it is hard to argue that the events didn't happen. A couple of reviewers even cite the articles as being referenced by an obscure source. The source is "The Observer". I don't know how to say this delicately but..."The Observer" is the UK's "New York Times". It is one of the most reputable sources in England. As for the reviewer that mentions crop circles...what are you talking about? Are you claiming that "The Observer" is printing the article as a matter of conspiracy? You do know that you can't just throw someone's name out there and associate him with a pedophile ring if it's not true right...? That would be libelous and would cost the newspaper hundreds of thousands of dollars if it was proved to be untrue. I know none of us want to admit that these types of horrific occurrences could happen in the world, but it's another thing to dismiss it entirely. I'm not saying that they do. And, I'm not saying that they don't.

It has to be said from the get-go that this is no proper documentary as it's circumstantial and somewhat manipulative (maybe even insufficiently documented for all I know). But while the case studies it brings about certainly have this feeling of tabloid garbage fed to the masses by the teaspoonful, what it all boils down to at the end of it all is that it manages to raise the question of whether or not snuff cinematography is more than an urban myth (again). The answer it seems to convey is a definitive yes and, knowing human nature as I do, I tend to agree.

Sadly though there's just too much beating about the bush. Snuff and mainstream cinematography ('Cannibal Holocaust')? Snuff and war footage? You're missing the point here and stretching the concept way past the rupture point.

That said, if you happen to have a chance to watch this and can put up with its violent content, do not hesitate. And I mean really, really violent 'Saw'-has-nothing-on-this kind of content.

When someone describes 'Bowling for Columbine' as a snuff movie to 'all intents and purposes' you are dealing with something that grazes the top of a subject that deserves more honest and in depth inspection. Ironically, the same contributor sings the praises of the book 'Killing For Culture'. Start with Kerekes' book and see the worthlessness of this opinion piece.