Presented at a small movie house on Halloween Night, Snuff Movie engaged us from the beginning and kept us interested until the end. The ending was an unexpected twist that left us glad to have avoided trick-or-treaters and wanting to see it again. Think "The Usual Suspects" for that are-you-kidding-me response.The camera work was varied with long shots and POV that kept your focus moving across the screen. The lighting afforded an appropriate ambiance, and the somber colors kept the mood in synchronization with the story. Knives and guns are primary weapons of choice, but the greatest implement of torture came from technology.There is one scene where the tension is built to an extraordinary level where the boyfriend is going crazy, helpless, watching events unfold live through an online link on a computer and his girlfriend is in grave danger. Resolution is not to be had just yet as more action develops involving police (in)action.I am surprised that the rating on IMDb is so low because this film is worthy of horror aficionados and should be seen with good friends.

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

This is a very strange movie and I find it hard to decide whether it's just over-pretentious or a truly intelligent, maybe even brilliant attempt to unravel the mysteries of the dark corners in the human mind. When the movie began, I thought: man, I got myself the wrong movie, this is some sixties' Hammer horror flick. Ten minutes later I thought: wait a minute, this turns out to be some seventies over the top reconstruction of the Sharon Tate murders. And again ten minutes later it suddenly turned into a movie taking place in the present. These changes were all unexpected and they sort of set the tone for the rest of the movie: nothing is what it appears to be, every time you think: okay, NOW I get it, you keep getting surprised and it turns out a totally different way, even till the very last minutes of the movie. I have to admit that this kept me fascinated and watching, although at the same time I had the uncanny feeling that I was made a fool of, and someone was trying to find out how long you can serve bad food and still make someone eat it. Part of the problem is the almost overall mediocre acting. The only one that stands out is Jeroen Krabbé, he certainly delivers an excellent and very chilling performance as the sinister, perverted, probably psychopathic but also very charming director. Although he's not really attractive, he does have a huge screen-presence and he sort of carries the whole project on his shoulders. Lisa Enos is a feast for the eyes (with and without clothes), but it unnerved me a bit that she let herself be so extremely exploited by appearing for (over)long takes in full frontal nude (like her audition-scene in the beginning and the grand scene in the garden almost at the end). But maybe that unnerving feeling was all part of the plan, it sticked by me during the whole movie. Some goings-on are totally over the top, like the irritating hysteria of the group of weird killer-girls. Other over the top moments (like the deranged and invalid son stumbling into Krabbé's bedroom to kill him), somehow seem to serve their own purpose in creating bewilderment and disbelief. There's lots of gore, albeit not always as graphically displayed as you may emotionally experience it, there's also a lot of suggestion, which of course adds up to the main theme of "real or not-real". This movie is obviously about exploitation, about people abusing other people (and let themselves be abused) out of purely opportunistic motives. But ultimately it's about the very game of fooling. We, the viewers, are tricked again and again, and although we know that in a horror movie it's all fake, (even in a movie that's called "Snuff movie"), here we are forced to make time and again a total mind-switch and re-adjust our convictions. It results in a feeling that you never fully get into control of what is presented to you. Different from that other excellent movie about the theme of snuff-movies, "Tesis", by Alejandro Amenabar, here we are not helped by any coherent plot, it's as if the director wants us to step backwards and just look at things unfold from a distance. As a consequence you never get involved with the persons at all, but it does enhance the awkward feeling of estrangement. The end of the movie – the surprising bow of Krabbé (to us?) – reminded me of the ending of Verdi's Falstaff: stepping out of the role back into the real life and saying (or suggesting) to the public: "really, the whole world is nothing but a sham!". Which feeling gets enhanced when watching the closing credits of the cast roll by: there you see that almost every actor had two or more different roles, and I hadn't even noticed half of them! So it definitely is a movie to watch twice.

The title of this movie gives the impression of something dark, tight, psychological and on the very edge of acceptable cinema. I'd say the last statement is most definitely true, it is on the edge of acceptable cinema, because it contains mediocre acting, a confused and torn script, and no conviction.It's a shame because there is a message in there, and the lead character does manage to say it in no uncertain terms during the movie, and that's because he has to. There's really no other way to get to the moral of this tale through the confusion.The second of the opening scenes remind me of the British Television advertisement for a certain directory assistance number, cheesy 70's outfits, hairstyles and moustaches. The section is supposed to portray events in the past, and from the beginning you can see the poor acting. There is much overplaying to the camera, and scenes of actors looking as though they're trying to find something to do to fill the time until the Director yells cut.The first of the scenes is equally as bad and amusing, but then we are expected to see that as it is supposed to be an old cheesy horror movie. Some grounding an basis for the entire movie, but also to show us the level of gore that we're going to be seeing. There's nothing slick or costly about the effects, they are cheap and cheerful, and although some might be deemed shocking, there's nothing really off-putting in the movie.From these opening segments we return to the present day to find the ex-laird of Glenbogle (another British Television event) is indulging in some rather frisky behaviour, obviously in a desperate attempt to try and shed his previous TV nice guy image. It fails though, and throughout this movie he sticks out like a sore thumb.The script is so confused that scenes just seem to happen out of nowhere. For instance suddenly we're all outside and there's a huge audience of onlookers watching events. This from the previous premise where we were all in a house being filmed by webcams. This is probably the best example of the confusion we were shown and felt.It attempts, from an early stage, to address some issues on the Internet, freedom of speech, the fact that anyone can broadcast anything online. Yet it stumbles over them, readdresses them through the script, and doesn't really say much about them by the end of the movie. In fact at the end it seems to take a totally different tract altogether, and doesn't seem to have been about anything at all. Very confusing.Add to all this that it's filmed poorly and seems to have been thrown together editing wise, and it's an altogether awful movie. IMDb lists this as still in Post Production, and perhaps we were treated to an early cut at the Edinburgh Film Festival 2005, who knows. It was just bad.There were two moments though that actually got my feelings moving. One was when the ex-laird Alistair Mackenzie sits down at a computer while his girlfriend is away for the evening, starts a can of lager, and pulls up Google with a search for some porn. By the time he's on his third can you can see the searches getting worse. This actually raised a good laugh from the audience, and was something you could instantly connect to.The second was a stabbing scene late on in the movie, a man is stabbed in the stomach, all the time you see his muscles moving and there doesn't look to be a special effect in sight. That was unnerving and is probably the only scene where you would consider the possibility that it was living up to its title.There it ends though. The female lead Lisa Enos is weak and unconvincing, and what the hell has happened to Jeroen Krabbé, his role is awful.I won't go on. There's nothing to redeem this movie bar a laugh and an awkward moment. I'd avoid like the title should have suggested.