Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

david "The book of revelation" is one of those films that make you feel you had a great loss. It has a very interesting & original story, the right mood and some brilliant actors. However, one can not escape the feeling that something went completely wrong with the entire piece.The film tells the bizarre story of Daniel, a dancer that's been kidnapped by 3 women and has been sexually abused by them for 12 days. well, I must say that for some men this is a dream rather than a nightmare... but on the serious side, I was quite disappointed by the kidnappers and the director, Ana Kokinnos. because as long as I remember, they were trying to make a thriller here, so where's the thrill?? the abusement scenes are not that terrible, but much more on the erotic side, what makes this film look as a cheap sexploitation based movie. Sexual provocacy was probably much more important for the director than a real delve into the humiliated man position thing. That goes for both male and female characters and scenes. I am not against nudity, but a film like that has got to have another dimension to it, except the sexual and kinky one, and this dimension lacks from the entire movie. plus, add the very expressionist lighting and photography, and the result is just another artsy fartsy film that has the appeal of a more serious one.We don't really know anything about Daniel. when I think about the movie now, I dare to ask: was this all a dream? what about his relationship with one of the dancers from the group? they live together, but are they married? did he have a romantic or sexual relationship with his dancing coach, the beautiful and mature Isabelle? was he suffering a mental disorder prior to the kidnapping? we don't have answers to these questions in the film. you could say it's OK, and in a way it is OK, but not really...But not everything is wrong here. actor Tom Long gives a monumental performance, both as a dancer and the tormented Daniel, who tries to reveal the identity of his lady kidnappers, and to restore his own mental life. and of course the wonderful Greta Scacchi, in a great supporting role.To sum things up: if you're looking for a good thriller for your weekly DVD night, get something else. if you've already taken this film be prepared for some hot nudity, expressionist misery and mental torment scenes, fake provocacy and an unsuccessful attempt to create a Michael Haneke like thriller, where the hero is not the mystery itself, but the main character's way to deal with what happened to him. and believe me, there are better films than this one. for instance, "Cache", by the original Haneke himself, or "Swimming pool", by Francois Ozon.

jeni allenby Apologies to other reviewers here who find terms like "brave" and "courageous" unhelpful - Book of Revelation was all of those things to me, and much more.This film took perhaps the most difficult subject I have seen raised in cinema - male rape and torture by a group of women - and confronted it. From its original source material to its script to its director to its casting - to say nothing of its final audience - it was never going to please everyone. Nor was it going to be perfect. But it sure as hell raised the profile of its subject matter and made its audience think.It is not easy to review in detail, but it certainly is easy to say: seek it out and watch it. Its difficult to watch in places, but it is important both for its subject and as an example of film making. It's director is innovative and always interesting. It's cast is great. It's score ... despite some comments here ... is excellent.I won't provide plot details, there are enough of them in the surrounding reviews. I would like, though, to point out that the original novel was extraordinarily powerful, the technique of a first person narrative with the exception of the section about his captivity (which reverts to third person and so takes us outside the victim's mind) working very well. While this could not be transferred to a screenplay I think the remnants of it are responsible (for some reviewers) for patches of seemingly stilted dialogue where the internal monologue was removed.In regard to the issues of Daniel and his abductors, the book differed somewhat. Although little was given from their point of view, I found the relationships Daniel built with them very important. I regret not only that these were hardly touched upon in the screenplay but that the length of his captivity (which created a longer environment for those relationships to form) was significantly reduced. I would have liked to have seen more of what he experienced in captivity and his dialogues with his abductors utilized, although I can understand why this would have been very tricky. To show the further tortures and sexual assaults he endured - and upped the sensual nature of his captors - may well have made the film unbearable for many, as well as increased the "pornographic" element for those who have sadly seen the film in those terms.But these are small issues in a very powerful film. I found his psychological damage - and the ways (both negative and positive) he dealt with that damage - very realistically portrayed. Why reviewers worldwide have sought - and criticized the film for not revealing - the motives of his abductors amazes me. When are the motives for sexual assault ever given? You get along with your life without knowing them. To me the gender element became almost irrelevant: it was Daniel's journey during and after his captivity which captured, and continues to haunt, me.Sincere congratulations and commendations to all involved.

garver_dave Many questions arise about the making of this film. The first of which is: Why make a film that plays out as little more than an awkward female fantasy? It's one thing to leave an audience with issues to discuss about a film's intent, it's something entirely different to go into the process of writing a script which fails to adequately address real human issues before they are rendered on the screen.Why the outrageously melodramatic and often comical soundtrack? Why the excessive and frequently clunky dialogue? Why is the lead character's girlfriend one of the hooded abductors? What purpose is there to turning the lead character's freedom from abduction into a joke by having him complete his "mission"? (This is a classic Little Aussie Film moment. Resort to quirky comedy at the most inappropriate moment.) Why so many scenes where absolutely nothing happens? (This accounts for approximately 15 minutes of the film, which is at least 30 minutes too long.) Why, if a man is imprisoned for so many days, does he not endeavor to make a serious attempt at escape?The Director, who co-wrote the script, has failed on many counts to deliver a satisfactory story. Dave Garver, Australia.

annie-186 A locally famous male dancer gets abducted by three hooded women and kept prisoner for 12 days. He is subjected to sexual, emotional and physical abuse during this time before being dumped on waste ground when they are done with him. Whilst he never sees their faces during his ordeal, each women has an unusual identifying mark. He then begins an unusual quest to find the women responsible.I had expected to hate this film, as I had read so many mixed reviews about it. Instead, I found this film intriguing, having a pet interest in psychology. I was surprised at Daniel's mechanism for coping: I found it a stretch to believe that he told no-one, although on reflection he did try to tell both the police and his girlfriend who were not sufficiently open minded to probe him for more information. The expression of his trauma through his dance was very moving.The acting, on the most part, was first rate. I loved Colin Friels as the empathetic detective. Tom Long showed great courage in accepting this role, which he delivered without it being seedy or sleazy. The girl who played Daniel's first girlfriend came across brilliantly as a selfish, shallow bitch.There were a few unanswered questions, but on the whole it was a well paced film, well acted, well directed.7/10