A few days ago I received this film in the mail,and I must admit that I was expecting this to be something special,at least according to reviews that have praised this as something dark and unsettling.Well,I can tell you that's not the case at all,I'm afraid to say.First of all;I'm well aware of the fact that this is director Ray Brady's cinematic statement about the general portrayal of on screen violence.And I also realize that Brady had to choose an angle that didn't blur his message,meaning that he couldn't exactly revel in blood and gore.The result he would have got then,is that people would have perceived it as a sadistic gorefest,and ultimately failed in grasping his overall message.But then the question is;is it still possible to make it unsettling and dark,and at the same time let the message come across?Of course it is.Two examples that come to mind are "A Clockwork Orange",and "Man Bites Dog".Regarding the latter,it is stated on the cover that "Boy meets Girl" is "the English answer to Man Bites Dog".Well,sadly it is a far cry from this gem,and should not be compared at all!!My main objection to BMG is that the whole affair comes off as a amateurish attempt to make the viewers emphathize with the victim,and perhaps also with the perpetrator.My point is that this isn't accomplished at all,this mainly due to the apparent lack of really convincing actors,lack of top-notch dialogue,and the lack of realism that is acquired in order to make it look like a snuffpiece.To sum up;I have not watched a horrifying and unsettling film which is shaking one's foundation,I have instead watched a first-year's film student's idea of a innocent,masochistic wet dream.Mediocre at best.Definitely hardly anything that's worth banning,that's for sure!!Oh so many squeamish people out there,the reviews this one has got is a crystalclear proof of that!!

Excuse me, but some of the previous reviewers have lost the plot totally here. I watched this film with an open mind expecting somewhat more than was delivered. NO, this film is not provocative, disturbing, well-acted, shocking, "artsy", or in any way entertaining.*spoilers follow* - what do we actually have here? Well a movie were obviously the main actress had had enough and made the perfect choice to abandon this film half way through. We have a man meet a girl in a bar. Then, in her appartment, he is drugged and subjected to some ridiculous torture and killed. And that's it, (if someone can point me in a more formulaic structure to this movie then I would be truly obliged). Because I saw nothing more in it than this.The acting is appalling (especially from the lead actor). As I said the "torturer" changes half way through - and this is when it starts to get really bad. Did I feel disturbed by any of the scenes shown? No. If the director/producer/writer/make-up girl/best grip had in anyway meant this then they have some serious learning to do about shock, and I'd suggest some real research. I'll forgive them the year of making - 1994 and their possible naivety, but come on - I was more shocked by the "squeal pig" scene in The Deliverance than any of this nonsense.Avoid this film: it's cheap, nasty, not shocking, terribly acted....oh yeah he dies in the end , and umm so what I don't give a s**t either as I wanted him to from the beginning anyway.Baaaaad 0/10

Having heard of the darker appetites being indulged here and the possible repercussions if someone decided to make the events of this film a reality, I thought to always steer clear of this film, due to the subject matter but after it was released in the US on the Unearthed label I thought now it's finally on region 1 it's time to check it out.I then read that Danielle Sanderson was fantastic in it, and I decided to bite the bullet and give it a watch. It was screened at so many festivals and received such mixed reviews from damming hateful ones to being a brave and astounding work of art.It is an amazing film. I still did not care for the (generally perceived) subject matter, but found myself, as a writer, viewing it in the larger context of censorship. And like all writers, I'd fight for the right for a colleague's work to be read, even if I hated it.The acting is unbelievably good.Sanderson was perfection as the corrupt Julia (I can't even envision anyone else in that role) yet, she is perfection. That takes a prodigious talent to pull off. I think she could have even handled the lead role in "Alien". I hope that she has a long and happy career.Tim Poole has great range as an actor, and this role proves it beyond a doubt he manages to portray a disturbed nasty individual but still manages to evoke my sympathy before the end.This isn't a film I'd want to watch often, (I can't stomach the reading of Sade's prose, that was read out in an early scene, for long) but it is a film which is much better than expected and after watching the DVD extra's and listening to the Director's explanatory commentary on who the film was shot on a micro-budget and made as an argument within a film to challenge the way the then UK censors were desensitizing audiences to violence in the mistaken belief that they were protecting them, with the budgetary restraints it is an incredible film and I'm amazed they managed to pull it off. Ten

Very nice not to be humoured or patronized for a change, a real grown up movie with real issues, bad language and fast and wild dialogue. This film, recommended by a colleague was a revelation; a reminder of what cinema should be about, intellectually stimulating and provocative, challenging at every moment, compulsory and essential viewing, nine out of ten.