Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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?

WittyMoniker WARNING - THIS REVIEW DOES CONTAIN A FEW SPOILERS! I apologize in advance if this review is more of a rant that a cohesive collection of my thoughts. I've been working nearly 24 hours straight but wanted to get this posted before finally turning in.When I decided to watch The Bunny Game I was in need of a visceral awakening. I had been watching so many 'common' movies that my brain was beginning to feel just a little bit numb. I wanted something that would shock my soul out of my stupor and back into reality.And that's just what I got from The Bunny Game.Since I hadn't read any reviews prior to watching I had no idea what to expect. That was a good thing. What I got was an ultra-realistic heart-pounding experience that was both shocking and suspenseful.I have to say that I found the female lead to be fantastic in her role. I believed her terror and felt compassion because of what she was enduring. I truly wanted to help.Equally impressive to me was the maniacal truck driver. The role felt as if it were being delivered naturally, which makes me believe there was probably little if any acting involved. He was probably just being himself. I say that admirably as this resulted in what I feel was a perfect portrayal of a sadistic opportunistic killer.These two characters, which appear in practically the entire running length of the film, were perfectly cast.Now, a word about some of the other comments here. There were a few that actually made me angry.Someone had the nerve to comment "so what" about the scenes where a plastic bag being is being placed over her head. I'd like to offer this: try having someone securely hold a thick plastic bag over your head until all the oxygen is gone, till you can no longer take even the smallest breath to fill you lungs and see if you don't freak out. Just try it. In fact, if you live in the Southeast shoot me an email. I'll be more than happy to assist you with the experience.Another reviewer made the comment that there was no character development and that there was no one to root for or empathize with. I'm willing to bet this person has never lived a day where they were down on their luck. Certainly not out on the streets. I have. Though a far cry from my life of today, in my younger years I hung out with girls and guys who were prostitutes. I know what they went through and dealt with on a daily basis, and what they had to be weary of. In fact one of the girls I knew would eventually be murdered by a serial killer. It's a hard life. So to say that there is no one to root for is just moronic. You root for the girl who is just trying to live her life, if only for one more day.To sum up, personally I thought The Bunny Game was a great film.I loved the realism, the artsy shots, the beauty of both the natural landscape and of the female actress. The film kept my attention piqued and the adrenaline pumping through my veins from beginning to end. It's just what I was looking for, and I thank and praise both the cast and crew. Well done.

graeme32 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.

kaimenkf 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.