Snuff: A Documentary About Killing on Camera

A pretty good documentary. I had a few problems with it. I had trouble remembering who some of the interviewees were, as they are only captioned once. It's said The Skeptical Inquirer called King Kong vs. Godzilla and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre "snuff movies." Not true: the article says there were urban legends about these movies; that two endings of the former were shot, one with King Kong winning and the other with Godzilla winning, and that The Texas Chainsaw was really based on a true story. It also gives the impression Lake and Ng murdered their victims on camera: they did not. The case of Dmitri is discussed using a single article from The Observer, and the case sounds pretty fishy. Then, the longer of the two trailers included in the special features has Jennifer Bahe saying the filmmakers received a tape in the mail that appeared to be a snuff film, which they turned over to authorities. That sounds pretty fishy too: it's not mentioned in the documentary at all, it's not discussed further anywhere on the DVD. It sounds like something they made up to help sell their movie.

The commentary track is worth listening to, though it's not really a commentary on the movie, it's just further discussion of snuff. The filmmakers and some of the interviewees are gathered panel style. There are some microphone problems at one point.

Viewers of this film might like to check out The Dark Side of Porn: Does Snuff Exist? and J.T. Petty's S&MAN.

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.

...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.

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.

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.