Snuff 102

Like almost all (horror) films, Snuff 102 requires a minimum of open-mindedness, and above all trying to understand what it is: like what is this work? (this is a clichéd remark, but I insist and I will explain).

In my opinion, snuff 102 is first and foremost an excellent survival movie. We follow characters involved in bizarre events, we see them suffer, look for solutions to escape, communicate, etc. There are some ultra-thrilling scenes and I love survival! Especially when survival appears realistic within the ecosystem of the film.

So: 1st point: a great survival.

Then, Snuff 102 is a very gripping snuff movie, with a careful, glossy atmosphere, AND it is a formally very original film, on the border between reality and fiction.

Mariano Peralta wrote and directed a work that mixes genres: we follow a journalist, the film is like a documentary of her work. There are videos of real violence, real-fake snuff passages created by the director, and flashbacks to the daily lives of the tortured characters. I really try not to spoil anything, so it's not easy to tell the story. The mix is perfect, it really feels like it's a real doc and a real snuff (both at the same time). The structure is therefore quite complex, even if the narration is very refined.

So: 2nd: an extraordinary found-footage.

Finally, there are the directing choices: Mariano Peralta did not want to make a classic torture-porn (a genre that I really like). Above all, he wanted to cover important subjects with his film, to make himself think and make the viewer think. This film is from 2007, and poses very interesting questions about our relationships with image, bodies, violence, private life, etc. Far from being a film that wants to shock or delight in violence (and there are plenty of them that are cool), we are almost faced with a social chronicle approach (which requires fans of splatters to move on, the goal is not to push the limits of gore). It also shows a very critical view of society (and many other things), while letting the viewer form their own opinion about the events (there is no over-commenting on what we are told ; just food for thought). In short, it is this accumulation of elements which makes it so striking, which blurs the boundaries between myth and reality. Snuff 102 is therefore astonishing, glib, sticky, intelligent and the young director has produced a committed film with mature writing. The two main characters are brilliantly written.

I would add that the actors are great (the pregnant woman was actually pregnant: everyone was very involved) and you never feel a lack of budget.

So, 3rd: rich content that will work with you long after, if you accept the journey

Needless to say, I love the ending, perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the film.

Here are my impressions of this remarkable first film. We have excellent entertainment and a great horror film (which offers its share of strong sensations and cold scenes - one of the true extremes movies), which also allows itself to be exciting. I've seen it 3 or 4 times, it's a sure/solide thing!

This movie isn't rubbish because it's extreme, hardcore, brutal, or any of that. This movie is rubbish because it failed an attempt at a plot, it failed attempts of shock with unoriginal filmography, just drop the quality of other shock films by around 95% and you have snuff 102.

Gore 4/10 Camera 1/10 Music 1/10 Acting 3/10 Overall 3/10, feeing generous.

Just go watch Atroz.

Once again... very good reviews, bad rating. Now which should you trust on this movie?? In my case I should have trusted the vote... like expected "Snuff 102" is another take on the Snuff-Genre with DV-Cameras and low production value, much reminding of course of August Underground. But in contrary to the other reviewers I found this one much less shocking. Mainly because it tries to be intelligent by incorporating psychological statements, dialog thats as endless as the sequences of screaming girls and some artsy shots of meaningless pictures... which by the way look rather cheap to me. I was about to end the movie after the bleached out opening sequence. The movie is roughly about the snuff genre and a woman investigating on it.. wasn't Tesis a similar plot, don't remember for sure. Anyway ... you got her talking to a psychologist, surfing the web and looking at strange sites all mixing with the sequence of 3 girls bound and gagged and tortured while stumbling into the chaos of course. Now there is some plot and they even tried a kind of twist in the end but basically of course its about seeing girls bashed and tortured and even cheaper ... they regularly mix in stupid pictures from Rotten.com which gives the movie a real cheap and stupid feel. The mixture just doesn't work although the gore FX looks pretty realistic... anyway, with such bad picture quality its not such a big deal. So if you mix movies like August Underground, Scrapbook and the style of Slaughtered Vomit dolls and add some try of being intelligent on it you can watch this since you already know what kind of production value is awaiting. After all I found this one extremely boring and by far not as sick as Slaughered Vomit Dolls which had a very similar noisy and artsy collage style or as realistic as August Underground which was boring anyway.

My quick rating - 2,4/10. Ok, first an explanation. These are NOT horror movies. This is its own category, Shocksploitation. The whole point of these movies is to look so poor quality, and shocking you question it being real. If you think this is new, it is not. Guinea Pig started this 40 years ago with underground torture movies that got government attention when they thought it was real. And yes, they graduated to fake snuff. This movie mixes the grainy, fake torture but tries to incorporate a plot of a man being interviewed about the existence of "snuff" movies, all the while the viewer is bearing witness to it supposedly happening in what we assume the man is a part of. The interviewer preps for this by searching the web and finding some well known BS snuff that you may have seen before and the ever popular "beheading" video that was from a terrorist executing "someone." Blah Blah, so they showed something real, but one big rule of these movies, if you are trying to fool people into believing this nonsense, first off, don't tell them at the beginning "all the torture and violence in this film is real" Immediately you know it isn't. Second, what guinea pig did right was shoot in single camera long straight cuts. Made it far more difficult to tell it was fake. These movie has camera angles shifting and moving all the time. Who has time for editing film while torturing someone they kidnapped, am I right? LOL. The atypical camera angles hiding the most depraved scenes forcing you to figure them out or imagine it is also used. My point is, don't let crap such as this make you believe This is not horror, this is a filmed stunt to fool and shock you. I watch this because I am interested in the lengths people go to achieve this but in reality, it is just plain boring. This actually tried so it wasn't as bad as Guinea Pig was. That was a straight 1.5 hours of fake torture, no slim plot. And since American Guinea Pig has come and shifted into making plot driven gorefests now, and August Underground has been shocking in the USA for a while as well, this falls into just another attempt. It fails. Not a single part grossed me out, it has all been done before, and I have seen far WORSE. I give the little points it got on merit of some of the dialogue as it was an educated opinion about snuff at times. Do I think snuff films exist? YES, people are inherently evil and to think none of the sickos haven't filmed their murders before would be hard to believe. I am sure they have, but is their an underground market for it? Hard to say, if there is, I don't care to see it. I get nothing out of watching women get slapped around, and raped with various objects (which is always up to you to figure out since they make sure it is dark or camera is just off enough so you can't see, luckily). Long winded but lots to say on the subject. Long story short, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, AVOID UNLESS YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE IT.

An investigative reporter, researching the phenomenon known as 'snuff', gets some first-hand experience in the subject after she is abducted by a psycho, taken to a blood spattered basement, and filmed whilst tortured (along with a couple of other unfortunate victims).

If you are a fan of extreme underground horror, then you have probably heard at least some of the controversy and hoopla surrounding this film (about the realistic gore, which led people to believe that the on-screen carnage they were seeing was real, or how the director was beaten up by an irate member of the audience after one particularly nasty sequence). However, any extreme underground horror fan worth his (or her) salt knows that it's never wise to believe the hype: more often than not, the rumour-mill isn't exactly providing accurate information.

For starters, I've seen this film described as 'faux-snuff', which it most certainly isn't: with its multiple camera angles, distinct narrative, creative editing, and an effective thumping industrial soundtrack, it could never be mistaken for 'the real McCoy' (and I don't believe that was ever the director's intention). Also, the gore in this film isn't really that graphic: sure... a LOT of nasty things happen to the women in the basement, but Snuff 102 manages to suggest a lot more than it actually shows.

The quality of the footage is grainy and has been treated with filters to achieve a distressed look; much of the action occurs in shadowy conditions, making it hard to discern what is happening; and clever editing deceives the viewer into believing that they have seen much more than they actually have. So, the 'chiselled teeth' scene, although certainly nasty, isn't as stomach-churning as it might've been, and the 'stomping' of the pregnant woman (the killer crushes her head and her distended belly), which is admittedly nauseating in concept, doesn't really warrant attacking the film-maker.

Much more disturbing, in my mind, is the inclusion of genuine images of pain and suffering taken from the internet (the sort of thing to be found on dubious sites such as Ogrish or Rotten), and a couple of scenes of animals being killed and mistreated (I always find real gore difficult to stomach).

Director Mariano Peralta has certainly delivered a gutsy, taboo-busting film which is genuinely unsettling, but is it the last word in gruelling snuff-themed cinema, as some might claim? Definitely not. Snuff 102 has far too many moments that drag (a very dull beginning and lots of talking throughout), is a little repetitive, and features much too much in the way of artistic pretension for it to walk away with that accolade.