Snuff 102 (2026)

In small doses, this is effective. The grimy texture creates an authentic sense of dread and voyeuristic guilt. However, over 102 minutes, the aesthetic becomes a slog. The lack of visual variety, combined with the repetitive structure (capture, torture, scream, repeat), turns what should be shocking into something monotonous. The film mistakes endurance for depth.

Peralta makes a deliberate aesthetic choice. The film is shot on what looks like a late-90s Handycam, with blown-out highlights, jarring jump cuts, and constant tape distortion. There are no sweeping scores, no cinematic lighting, and no artful framing. The goal is verisimilitude—to make you feel like you've found a discarded tape in a landfill.

The film follows a young journalist, a reporter for a women's magazine, who is researching a story on "urban violence and the media." Her investigation leads her to a seedy VHS rental store, where she purchases a tape simply labeled Snuff 102 . Upon viewing it, she discovers it is exactly what the title promises: a real (fictional) snuff film. Before she can react, she is abducted by the film's creator, a sadistic, unnamed director who intends to make her the star of his 102nd snuff production.

Watch only if you need to confirm that watching a 102-minute simulated torture session with no point is, in fact, boring.

There is no subtext, no metaphor, no exploration of trauma or power. The villains are not characters but functions—a fat, sweaty man and his hulking, silent accomplice. They are evil because the script says so. When compared to films like Martyrs (which uses suffering to question transcendence) or Salò (which uses depravity as political allegory), Snuff 102 feels intellectually bankrupt. It is violence for the sake of the running time.