K Pendo ...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.

Corpus_Vile Snuff films.The very term conjures up dark images of a shadowy cabal of depraved human beings, who torture, rape and murder on camera, purely for profit, to sell to a secret and presumably rich clientèle worldwide. A fascinating urban myth, any documentary on the topic is guaranteed my personal attention.The problem with Snuff: A Documentary About Killing On Camera, is that it isn't particularly informative, credible or ultimately very interesting. It covers a number of aspects of the Snuff mythology, from war (as in people getting killed for real, internet be headings, sniper attacks filmed etc), to horror films- yes, the director of Cannibal Holocaust was at one point arrested over fears he'd murdered his actors, and yes, people picketed the film Snuff back in the day, which was itself a cheap gimmick, and yes, every self respecting horror fan knows this anyway- to serial killers, such as Charles Ng and Leonard Lake; two survivalist degenerates who wished for sex slaves, and murdered whole families, tortured and raped the women, and filmed some of it (but not the actual killings) for their gratification.Only thing is... none of these things actually qualify as a bona fide snuff film. In fact, the people interviewed for this documentary- basically directors and "cinephiles" I've never heard of- seem to have an extremely broad generalized view on what precisely a snuff film is, and none of them are really correct in their views.Lake and Ng for example never attempted to sell their films, and didn't murder on camera anyway. An internet beheading is done for political reasons, repugnant as they may be, as are acts of war. Some producer cobbling all these images together for a DVD may be unscrupulous, or even morally dubious, but hardly a snuff film maker. One of the interviewed cinephiles, even tries to make out that Bowling For Columbine is a quasi snuff film, due to its decision to include CCTV footage of the Colombine shootings, which is a severe stretch to say the very least.As for so called "real" bona fide cases, we're treated to a rather dodgy story regarding a Russian Snuff paedophile ring, who supposedly killed kids on camera, only... nothing more is made of this, and from googling the incident, it seems pretty dubious to me.We're then treated to a producer in the adult film industry, who emotively tells of the time he really did see an honest to god snuff film in the bad old '70s, via some shadowy Fillipino distributors. Of course, nobody else was there with him when he saw it, the Fillipinos disappeared, and we only have his word that such an incident ever took place. Hearsay, in short- the backbone of the entire myth of the Snuff film.Then, after one of its interviewees trying to make out Bowling For Columbine is at least quasi snuff, the documentary goes the completely exploitative and absolutely tasteless route in showing some real internet be headings, which I personally found pretty contemptible.So overall, what do we make of this documentary about killing on camera?Eh, it's watchable, but doesn't give any particular useful or new insights into the Snuff legend, particularly to those interested or half-way knowledgeable on the topic.A generous 5/10, mainly for showing clips from Snuff, Cannibal Holocaust and Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer, but overall, there's nothing new or particularly insightful to see or learn here at all.

markusmcilwraith 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.

KineticSeoul This really isn't a good documentary about the topic of "Snuff" but is mostly about movies in the open market that has some realistic looking killings on camera. It's interesting though, for the most part but a lot of it seems to be over done. And I did enjoy it talking about real snuff films around the world, particularly about the Russian crime ring tale even if some claim it to be fake and if it is, it's a interesting lie. But as a whole this really isn't a good documentary and you will not gain that much info about snuff but more about realistic killing in certain films that is in the open market like I said, and I do agree with a lot of what the other reviewers are saying, some of the stories in this does sound a bit fishy. Cause they mention a interesting topic they can really get into, but after mentioning it, they never really get into it. The main flaw with this documentary is how it goes way past it's point and not in a good way either, it should of just stuck with the main topic at hand instead of stretching it. So not a good documentary, but interesting to say the least.4.6/10