i must have seen a different film!!

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

After a long hiatus following the brutal murder of his pregnant wife by a Manson-like gang, cult film-maker Boris Arkadin (played by Jeroen Krabbé) opens auditions for a new horror flick to be filmed at his large mansion. Unknown to his chosen cast, however, Arkadin is secretly recording the actors 24/7 on hidden cameras, broadcasting their every move on a website, including, so it seems, their untimely deaths.I've an unhealthy fascination with the subject of snuff movies, and with Bernard Rose, director of the excellent Candyman, calling the shots, I had high hopes that Snuff Movie would be an insightful exploration into one of the most disturbing possible forms of film-making. Unfortunately, Rose's movie tries to be far too clever for its own good, with a twisty-turny plot that blurs reality and fantasy, featuring 'movies within movies' and a silly surprise ending that really isn't worth the wait.3 out of 10: 1 point for the gore and another 2 for the female nudity (Rose's film might be aimed at the art-house/intelligentsia crowd, but at least the director seems to understand the importance of those horror fundamentals: a silicone enhanced bimbo having sex and a gratuitous shower scene).

after seeing a real dead child live, and watching traces of death collection, basically seen all the REAL terrors of humanity, i've been quite skeptic about these kinds of movies.this was not surprisingly utter crap. if you haven't seen any other movie that contains lots of gore, then this movie probably scares you.otherwise... i was immediately struck when the so so terrible synth violins and quire started playing... get some real music... i've always thought that bad synth music just makes film a cheap one.the name snuff has nothing to do with this one... watch guinea pig (and read the aftermath) series those are more snuff (even though they are complete crap as well). i don't know what so special was about this movie.if i hadn't seen all the horrors that i have seen, and hadn't listened to a lot of good MUSIC (well produced too like Arcturus, Ulver, Navicon Torture Technologies, Cold Meat Industries, Mayhem, Horrorcore, some Evol Intent and other intense stuff...) maybe then you'll like this... which makes you anyways pretty ordinary person. (I would NOT recommend the Traces of Death collection to anybody who doesn't want to be traumatized for life =D)...You won't miss a thing. Don't get this to your DVD collection. Rather get Belgian Man Bites Dog, Human Porc Chop, Irreversible, The Uninvited, Tell Me Something or even Happy End?.The sex scene is pointless. Manson ripoff =D. This one lacked the feeling, and intensity it claimed. If the title had been boring people with some mild nudity and little gore then I would have given it 5 =D...And yes... I will make a better film than this in the future (I think then people can bitch about my film if I fail =D=D=D). I got pain, and I can give pain on FILM! HAIL Satan!

This film has to be the worst i have ever seen in my whole entire life time. I started watching it open minded as i knew it was a low budget film. It was absolute crap.I can't understand how people can comment on how it was good. It really is NOT. I wasted 3.50 on watching this on Virgin Media, I;m even considering writing in saying how rubbish this film was and they shouldn't have it on demand.The plot is misleading- has no guidance or directing. As for the sex and nudity - there was no point to it at all, it just didn't fit into the film and i thought it was perverted.Also as the film went on the quality of the cameras seemed to go down and down and down and it was just weird. I began to feel slightly disturbed as the cameras were such poor quality, yet the make-up and gore was still very convincing and i actually started to question whether this was real.Basically really DO NOT WATCH THIS, i am outraged that such a crap film was made and it was actually funded - when there are people out there who could make such a better film with more meaning. Livid

This isn't a horror film as much as it is a film about horror.In a Don Quixote-ian attempt to create features outside of the "Holywood" norm, Bernard Rose has created another horror film..but this time, it seems, with no restrictions whatsoever. This has all the feel of the classical "content" driven horror films of the seventies. Don't Look Now - comes to mind as well as other low budget thrillers that have achieved cult status. The director takes us from Hammer Horror to online snuff footage in just a couple reels. Rose has proved himself very capable of handling the genre of horror films with his extensive catalogue, including Candyman and Paperhouse.Rose is attempting to showing us the unreality of the horror genre and all media in general. The ultimate lies that are inherent in film making...from framing a camera shot to editing to sound design they can all be manipulated to create any response desired. Our response is utter shock at the depravity of the action in this film.At times the film becomes deprecating and so self referential that I had to laugh. Even the characters laugh at themselves at some of the references. For instance one "actor" is told he, "is the care taker." At that point he realizes the reference himself.There is a cavalcade of characters from recent history that the film refers to; from Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski (Boris Arkadin Character) to Private Lyndie England, It seems Rose has addressed more in this movie and he's creating more questions than he's answering. Which is fine because, quite frankly, I already forgot what happened in the last "Chucky" movie.I am glad to see a director let loose and have total control of the production. I would like to see more of it. This isn't mindless or passive theatre and it is definitely worth a more than one viewing. It is most certainly going to be either loved or hated.