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!

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.

Snuff 102 is a poor-quality attempt at a shocking, brutal thriller, but I cannot bring myself to hate it or even really dislike it. It is one of the few films with a relentless, oppressively grungy atmosphere that manages to be surprisingly disturbing. It is not as full of maiming and torture as you may think, sometimes dragging out long scenes of conversation and philosophy, yet it is much more disturbing than garbage like the sorry excuses of filmmaking August Underground.

Low on plot, yes, but high in its atmosphere and and aesthetic. The camera lens is grainy and dark, the gore effects are realistic, the film is soaked in a sickening brown-reddish lighting, but easily the best aspect of the film, which largely contributes to its disturbing nature, is the sound design. It's loud, overbearing, and clanging. We are blasted with loud industrial metal beats, synth and drums. There are gruesome sounds of wailing, screaming, and gory squishing, all while we are presented gruesome scenes of torture. Snuff 102 uses its low quality \cheap filmmaking to provide an outstandingly atmospheric film, one that leaves you feeling like you just need to take a long shower afterwards. Even without all the brutality, the grimy grittiness is almost sickening in this film, and it is the main reason I did not rate this film lower.

Additionally, Snuff 102 is more thought-provoking than I expected it would be. I would be hesitant to say this is not torture porn, but I also would not say it's a completely pointless film. The goal of the film is clear: to make a disturbing film with a message against human exploitation. The film makes its comparisons of pornography with snuff, as both are rely on abuse of the human body for personal enjoyment, all at the cost of the victim. It additionally argues that lack of restriction and privacy of pornography results in people willing to fall into total degeneracy; when you no one to stop you or discover you, why should you not fall into utter hedonism? It's a similar point made by Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (albeit a lot more effectively), but it uses snuff as an example to argue against pornography's perversion and evil.

Now, given my few praises of the film, why did I rate it so low? Truthfully, it's a bad film. It has earnest and respectable intentions, and it has some redeeming things about it, but it's technically atrocious. The camera quality is horrid, the cinematography is poor, the acting is stilted, the plot is practically non-existent, it's dragged out far too long in many scenes, and the editing is generally terrible. Though there are some interesting editing tricks using acceleration (visually reminiscent of Tetsuo: The Iron Man) the film's pasting of images on the screen, transitions and slow-motion outweigh the few decent cases of acceptable editing. Seriously, it sometimes looks like it was put in any old video editor, and random effects were just dragged onto the editing timeline. I have little to say here, as the technical quality is sloppy in quite literally every way, but it's honestly hard to blame the filmmakers, as it's clearly low-budget, and it isn't completely pointless, mindless exploitation (looking at you, August Underground).

Watch the film if you wish for a disturbing, gritty, and legitimately harrowing experience. Do not watch it if you are expecting a film of decent quality. Its brutal reputation is well-warranted, and it's far better and more disturbing than August Underground or Slaughtered Vomit Dolls. Still, it is hard to recommend unless you want some shocks.

Now to start with, I would never recommend this film to anyone, with a clear conscience. This is the work of utter evil and sheer cruelty of the highest order. Even if you are familiar with the works of Extreme Cinema, this one rises to an even higher level than that. Upon watching this film, I got the impression that it was a work of hatred towards humanity and without a shred of apologetic or good intentions. This is an exercise in sheer depravity. It depicts acts of violence from characters without a shred of redeemable qualities. Mind you, the film never pretends to be anything that its not and it promises on what it delivers. Sheer torture, not only for the characters, but the viewer as well. We are thrust into a very very dirty atmosphere with a low budget that is evident in every scene, but the director takes advantage of this, making it even dirtier, if that were possible. Having said all of this, does this film serve a purpose? Yes, I think it does. Unlike August Underground, which was just based purely on shock value, this film attempts to explain the meaning of snuff films and the types of people who are into it. So, it separates itself from the usual Pseudo Snuff Film, by at least attempting to give us an insight into the psychology behind these sorts of films in the sub genre. However, this isn't much of a redeeming quality, and although it is of a higher standard in the Pseudo Snuff sub genre that in itself is a sub genre thats lacking in real movie quality talent, that is not saying much. Viewer, definitely beware!

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.