odochartaighllc I just watched this film last night with another filmmaker and we both seem to be on the same page in our opinion of this film.Matt Eskandari & Michael Antony Pierce had in their hands an opportunity to make a really good independent film that could have lived on as a memorable cult film. Stephen Weigand and Bob Bancroft each gave what this film needed to be believable. Stephen most certainly gave his heart and soul to the unnamed character, making some serious transitions as the film progressed. Even the art direction and cinematography offered an exceptional product for the budget.So where does the film fail? The directors, producers and the editors failed in the most basic ways. Continuity and "in your face" visual bloopers.The first obvious goof that I noticed was Weigand's shoes. He is seen in the bar and parking lot with shoes. OK... that was acceptable. But then he is seen in the basement barefoot. That also was acceptable. And then suddenly from one cut to another Weigand is wearing a pair of shoes that appeared magically out of nowhere... not just a pair of shoes... but not the same pair that he was kidnapped in. Was the editor working on 72 hours of no sleep when he edited this scene? Was the continuity or script supervisor taking a day off on the day they filmed that scene? Was the first director or production assistants not paying attention? Or was the filmmakers committing a basic film school no no by not paying attention to detail? Even on short films, I have always used Polaroids to keep track of what the actors were wearing in a scene, and I assure you that magic shoes would not find their way into a scene. The dirty soles of an actor that suddenly seems to clean themselves up is forgivable... but magic shoes should have been caught at so many different points is a filmmaking sin.The second obvious goof was after Weigand was stripped of his clothes. It's perfectly acceptable that an actor on a set would be wearing a "sock" to conceal his penis. However, the filmmaker and editors need to make sure that it's never obvious on camera. In this case... the sock is "in your face". In a scene that is suppose to make the audience feel for Weigand's character... my buddy and I found ourselves cracking up when the white sock suddenly makes an unexpected appearance on nearly full screen. Now please explain how any editor or filmmaker or producer could miss that in the editing room? Especially when they would be reviewing this footage frame by frame looking for the right cuts? That sock would be in their faces for at least an hour as they edited the film and color corrected it. So HOW did that sock become part of the cast? It could have easily been edited out of the scene.Mr George has a bandage on his neck for much of the film. However, no one would have a bandage like that for 4 months, unless their neck was developing gangrene.Stephen Weigand and Bob Bancroft both showed that they took the film seriously. It was the filmmakers who allowed such obvious mistakes to reduce this film down to amateur. That is sad considering that 90% of the film was good, but the obvious mistakes are so distracting they they become laughable... which is disappointing since had we not been subjected to these goofs... I was actually impressed with what I was seeing.Is it worth watching... yes... but regrettably, it won't be as memorable as The Passion of Darkly Noon or Dare was for me. Or even Boot Camp. We have watched so many incredible independent films lately and this one promised to be one of them. But instead of being memorable as an outstanding film... it has become an example for filmmakers on how the simplest mistakes can ruin a film.

birdieleigh ...the content is pretty horrific, but you can't look away. I knew very little about this film going into it, and I think that's the best way to approach it. So I won't tell you too many details. It's better if you find it all out for yourself.I will tell you that I don't consider this to be a "good film" because I necessarily enjoyed watching it. In fact, it was almost painful. "Victim" is probably one of the most vicious films I've ever seen. But there's something about it, so much purpose in its cruelty, that I believe it was well worth watching.I will also tell you who this movie isn't for. First off, gore-hounds might be disappointed with it unless they're armed with the right information going in: There is definite violence, but this isn't Hostel. Although, I have to say I was surprised (impressed, actually) that a movie could be this dark and sadistic without excessive gore. So people who are into dark films in general will probably get a kick out of it. On that same note, this film is not for the faint of heart. It throws some pretty hefty stuff at you.All that being said, like I mentioned previously, this is a film that is disturbing, but effective. And I believe it is most effective if you don't know the details going in--but prepare yourself for something quite a bit out of the ordinary. My vote is: take a chance with this movie. If you don't like it, you don't have to complete it. But especially for those of us who love a good detour into the dark side of Psychology, "Victim" is a well-made (and very thought-provoking) way to spend a couple hours.

sddavis63 I find it very hard to rate this movie. It's in many ways a hard movie to watch. A man (Stephen Weigand) is kidnapped, imprisoned and subjected to a rather gruesome fate (which I'll not give away) at the hands of his kidnappers - a surgeon (Bob Bancroft) and the surgeon's sidekick (Brendan Kelly.) It's a sort of mad scientist movie, except that Dr. Volk isn't really "mad." He's definitely in control and has clear-cut reasoning behind what he's doing, the reasoning becoming apparent as the movie progresses. It isn't a particularly bloody or gory movie; it's more an unsettling movie; something of a psychological study as the prisoner is increasingly pressured to give in to his captors, with torture porn, rape and snuff movies serving as the background to the whole story. From about the halfway point it's somewhat clear what Volk is up to, although the last few scenes (as he seems to be getting his revenge) took me completely by surpriseGenerally speaking the performances from the three leads were passable. I wouldn't say anyone was outstanding in this, but they were passable. This isn't an outstanding film by any means, and it's not a movie I'd want to watch over again. If you're into mind game movies, though, it might be worth taking a look at. (6/10)

barbie800 Wow. When I saw the previews for this on my cable companies on demand I just had to rent it. I love horror films and will watch just about anything. I must say this was a very good movie. There was very little gore in it which is why I also thought it was so good. Basically this mad surgeon captures this man and turns him into his dead daughter. We watch how he is tortured and transformed into a woman. Now, I kept wondering throughout the film as to why he just wouldn't have captured a woman to replace his daughter. This is is the twist of the film which is answered at the end. I thought overall this is one creepy movie that keeps you interested the entire time.