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?

If you have been able to sit through "A Serbian Film" or "Murder-Set- Pieces", this movie will be a waste of time. You know, its strange that I have found many lists online of supposedly the "most disturbing movies of all time," and every single one of them include "The Bunny Game." To this day, i have not been able to figure out why. The story is relatively simple and common: a deranged trucker kidnaps a prostitute, chains her up in the back of his rig for the purpose of torturing her. The only problem is he never really DOES anything to her. The girl yells and screams all during the movie, yet not ONE DROP OF BLOOD is drawn. He puts a bag over her head and she briefly smothers. Big deal, he removes it and she doesn't die. He cuts all her hair off. Big deal. Not exactly "life-threatening." Unless i'm missing something, the one and only thing he does to her in the way of inflicting any pain is, he heats up the steel head of a hatchet with a blow torch, then briefly touches her skin with it. Of course, that hurts, but its very brief. I still don't understand why this girl screams hysterically throughout the movie. At the end of the movie, I found myself saying, "she's lucky she didn't come across Ted Bundy, then she would be dead." All in all, this movie is a total waste of time if you are expecting to see something "HORRIFIC." From the reviews and lists i've seen online, you'd think this is the most shocking movie of all time. I don't see it.

I watched this film last night after reading the press coverage of the film being banned in the UK.Rodleen Gestic's performance was amazing. She was physically branded, and abused for real in front of the camera, so it is impossible to fault her commitment. Similarly at times Renfro was genuinely convincing as a lunatic.However, the film has many flaws. The editing is so quick that for whole sections of the film, individual scenes last 3-5 seconds. I have read reviews on here that praise this as creating an atmosphere where the viewer shares a sense of disorientation. I just found it distracting from an already weak story.The film is made on a low budget, and the added features on the DVD say there was not even a film crew present - just a handful of actors and the director / filmmaker. This lack of budget feeds through into limited sets, and few (none?)special effects. There's a lot of torture, but no blood (fake or real). The actresses are really branded, but this added nothing to the film compared to the use of prosthetics - it doesn't add to the story so why do it.In interviews Rehmeier states that they improvised large parts of the film. The reality seems to be that they didn't have money for a decent script so fall back on filling the film with bunny being abused over and over again for little real purpose in terms of plot development. Rapid cutting between the 2 main characters screaming at each other over and over again for 5 minutes is not an alternative to a script, and doesn't even build tension.The bunny game itself involves Renfor dragging Bunny around the desert in a straight jacket and a rabbit hat. This was more like a fetish film than a serious horror film. This is supposedly the highlight of the abuse, but compared to what came before it would have been a relief.The film ends with an anticlimax. Bunny has been abducted and tortured by what appears to be a psychopath, but he doesn't kill her, rape her, or free her. After a few days he transfers her to a friend, who takes her away. There is no explanation of why. I have read reviews here which state that this leaves it open for the viewer to interpret it in their own way (For example has he been breaking her as a human being in order to make it easier to sell her into white slavery, has he tired of her and passed her onto his friend to play with). Whatever. Its hard to praise the skill of the storyteller if he expects you to decide what his story actually is.I didn't find this film frightening / scary, and the plot was so weak that there really isn't much of a story. If you like seeing a young girl get hurt, in the knowledge that a lot of it is real, then this film is probably for you. If you want to watch a film that scares you and makes you think then you would be better off watching "irreversible" or "Oldboy" Gestics skill and commitment deserved a better vehicle than this.

Sincerely, no word in this language could help me to classify this piece of crap. I wonder why so many people in cinema industry tend to believe that showing a person suffering for two hours could be called "a story" and could end being a "script for a film"...Maybe we can discuss this question when we are talking about "The Texas chainsaw massacre" or even "Hostel"...but this is not the case. The director is pretty good. The scenes are strong. The acting is absolutely fantastic. The photography and sound are excellent. But...the story is absolutely inextistent. Just 90 minutes of boring action, repeated torments, repeated sadism...just so boring, so ... Make yourself a favor, don't loose your time watching a crazy man tormenting a young prostitute. It is useless.