Bofsensai I watched this after a recommendation in a triple bill with 'Martyrs' and 'Blue Velvet' (and in which context it - most uncomfortably! -worked) .. but since I would like to believe that I am a proud 'product' of 70's further / higher education feminism awareness and thus irrefutably believe in feminine rights and most assuredly, empowerment - as such, it would be difficult to countenance this film if it were not for the knowledge that the astonishing - in effect, literally (painfully!) 'method acting' - portrayal delivery by the lead role actress Getsic* was actually (co)written - thus with that role for - herself, so to challenge portray to us viewers what we accept as 'entertainment'; if so, just what is she (with co-writer director, too) trying to get across to us who tolerate, let alone may also cathartically 'enjoy', this latter 'torture porn' genre? I can only think to lengthily quote from a female feminist writer who assessed this on stronger (pornographic) renderings of women portrayed suffering in sadomasochistic scenarios by which you may then assess not only is this worth investing your time to see, but then, whether its purpose is to challenge the viewer (yes, like 'Irreversible') precisely NOT to enjoy the experience, since - surely? - that has to be Ms Getsic's and co's purpose in getting this written and up on screen: "It is important to distinguish between pornographies that construct fantasies of control, power and mastery, accompanied by defences against losing the self .. and those that construct fantasies of abandoning the self, to merger with a more powerful 'other' (read: the opposite player/sex.) "But it is also important to realise that the mere presence of violence does not mean that the fantasy is essentially sadistic. (Thereby) Feminists must, I believe, recognise that (cinematic portrayed) violence against women that has generated so much heated discussion in debates .. is enjoyed by male and female spectators alike who, for different reasons .. find both power and pleasure in identification not only with the sadist's control but also with the masochist's abandon .. " Thus despite at first sight "Sadomasochistic fantasy is certainly regressive to feminism in its obsessive repetition of hierarchical, non mutual forms of power and pleasure – the very same hierarchically based notions that have traditionally prevented women from actively seeking their own pleasure .. but sadomasochistic fantasy recognises the role of power in the woman's often circuitous route to pleasure." Hmm: I see: or do I? As further "Reworking of Freud's 'A child is being beaten' to show that identification with any one of the three roles posited by the sadomasochistic scenario – beater, beaten or onlooker – is not dependent on fixed masculine or feminine identification" and by connection "Parveen Adams in 'Per Os (cillation) Camera Obscura: A journal of feminism and film theory' conceived of this identification as an oscillation between male and female subject positions held simultaneously in a play .. Thus, one answer to the question of how the female spectator identifies with the masochistic scenario is .. that she does not necessarily identify only and exclusively with the woman who is beaten: she may also simultaneously identify with the beater or with the less involved spectator, who simply looks on. And even if she does identify only with the tortured woman she might identify alternately or simultaneously with her pleasure and/or her pain" .. So, note, if earlier anti this type of stuff A. Dworkin et al accusation of a form of 'Concentration camp orgasm' "means the pure pleasure of victimisation, then such pleasure cannot exist. For we have seen without a modicum of power, without some leeway for play within assigned sexual roles, and without the possibility of some inter-subjective give-and-take, there can be no pleasure for either the victim or the totally identified viewer. There can be no pleasure, in other words, without some power." From Linda Williams in her 1990 book 'Hard Core', whose subtitle perhaps takes into account this 21st century development: "A daring .. analysis of what hard core film pornography is and does."Thus presumably, this is Gestic's (along with director) taking back her power: with which, possibly one can go and watch and still, er, well, 'enjoy'! *by which, one might wonder: is that a literal naming for this offering?

emfgds I actually believe this movie to be a little better than many other reviewers have given it credit to be. Maybe most people haven't dredged through the cesspool of horrible movies that I have. This film really brought to mind a death metal video; a death metal video that had been shot and never edited down to the five minutes of really pertinent material. Imagine splices of Cannibal Corpse bobbing their heads during certain parts of the flick and you'll totally get what I'm laying down. As far as this movie being classified in the torture porn genre, it's is a far cry from being exceptionally graphic. Most of the violence is implied and cleverly by the end of the movie, you're tricked into thinking you just watched something a lot more visceral. I thought the acting was believable, contrary to many reviews. Not a lot of dialogue, but Renfro came off as pretty creepy. The biggest problem I had with this movie (other than the fact that it got a little tedious)was the two or three minutes of graphic material that actually qualified as graphic. There was no point in it. It added absolutely nothing to the film, except for some shock value that left me scratching my head. Why the hell even bother putting that in? I won't spoil it for all of you kids out there, but I almost think they were making two movies and got some cuts mixed up.This movie isn't bad, just a little artsy and dull. It's also two minutes of cutting away from being an easy R rating.

Sorpse its not that i don't get this movie. I do, i totally get it, but its still a shite movie. For one its boring as hell. And two, its just nasty smut. I'm all for disturbing movies that try to push the limits but this was just crap. I'll save you some time, close your eyes, now picture a old fat dirty trucker raping and torturing a prostitute over and over again. There you go, that is this movie. If that sounds fun to you well unfortunately there is also no gore in this movie. The director also tries to come off as being smart and trying to include a message or a "point" to all the smut but when its all said and done its just a movie about a hooker who gets kidnapped and raped. The beginning was alright and i thought it might go somewhere near the ending but it never does. They just drag out scene after scene until they are bored and end it. I really don't see what all the hype is about and its a shame because more people are going to be tricked into watching this for the shock factor which doesn't exist, its just repulsive in all the wrong ways. The only people who will like this movie are people who get off on seeing women beat up.

eric-pudalov The entire reason that I wanted to see The Bunny Game was that I'd heard so much hype about it being incredibly disturbing and realistic.Without giving too much away, I will say that it is profoundly intense, and not for the average movie viewer. Ironically, it is much less gory than films from the "splatter" genre, such as "Hostel" and "Saw." Instead, the focus is centered around the main character, Bunny, and her tortured experiences as a prostitute.Perhaps I'm not like some horror fans who feel that more gore = better. Rather, I prefer a good story, even if accompanied by violence. I suppose the most "shocking" scene in the film is the much-talked-about branding scene, because that (and the other violent acts) are not simulated. Yet even that scene is shown in a few edits.The most disturbing part, for me, is that Bunny (and another character named Martyr) look as though they're genuinely suffering, and not acting. That, in my opinion, is far more disturbing than anything the "torture porn" films have displayed. In this, The Bunny Game succeeds wholeheartedly.Whether or not the film has a "message" is debatable; I'd say try to go into it with an open mind, and you will not be disappointed.