Newbie feature director Matt Brown clearly saw this as his "breakout" work.
Other IMDb reviewers have covered the basic story arc. Sort of an "I Spit on Your Grave" #45, with long stretches of zero dialog, lots of goofy lighting, editing so frenetic you might think you imbibed a forbidden substance before viewing -- even if you did not -- and lighting that favors the dark end of the spectrum, which simply adds to the mayhem that is this very forgettable film.
Not to mention that, if the film should bomb financially, it could be re-packaged as a Youtube how-to on male castration.
So, since we are already knee-deep into this review (or, at least, knee-deep into SOMETHING) let's go a bit deeper.
The core problem with this kind of film -- AND THIS IS IRONY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL -- is that, if you are a film-maker with artistic aspirations, globalization (where films made in one country are intended for distribution in another) has wiped out what used to be called, in decades past, the "art house" market.
Note that even Tarantino tried to point this out in his own work by trying to "bring back" the genre.
So -- here is the premise of the review, please work with me on this -- even as Modern Society has become so homogenized that opportunities for archetypal rituals of male bonding have been reduced or disappeared, the entertainment biz has similarly reduced or disappeared the opportunities for a film-maker to produce something done primarily to exhibit artistic expression.
To simplify: Limited male bonding opportunities in modern society (can't go to the nearest village ... and pillage) have left (sad to say) gang-rape as one of the few activities that can be attempted today. Even if the aforesaid participants did not really want to commit the act in the first place.
Limited genres of commercially accepted film have left the so-called horror film as one of the only remaining genres in which a director with artistic intent can unleash that intent with any expectation of commercial success ... even if he did not actually want to make a horror film in the first place.
So, the ultimate irony, you have men committing an act they did not actually want to commit (because of limited opportunities) and film-makers memorializing said act because there is no opportunity to make the film they really want to make.
Alternative point of view: if you consider the above to be overkill, let me simply say this is a terrible movie and if you want to see the same theme done correctly, find a copy of American MARY.
Other IMDb reviewers have covered the basic story arc. Sort of an "I Spit on Your Grave" #45, with long stretches of zero dialog, lots of goofy lighting, editing so frenetic you might think you imbibed a forbidden substance before viewing -- even if you did not -- and lighting that favors the dark end of the spectrum, which simply adds to the mayhem that is this very forgettable film.
Not to mention that, if the film should bomb financially, it could be re-packaged as a Youtube how-to on male castration.
So, since we are already knee-deep into this review (or, at least, knee-deep into SOMETHING) let's go a bit deeper.
The core problem with this kind of film -- AND THIS IS IRONY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL -- is that, if you are a film-maker with artistic aspirations, globalization (where films made in one country are intended for distribution in another) has wiped out what used to be called, in decades past, the "art house" market.
Note that even Tarantino tried to point this out in his own work by trying to "bring back" the genre.
So -- here is the premise of the review, please work with me on this -- even as Modern Society has become so homogenized that opportunities for archetypal rituals of male bonding have been reduced or disappeared, the entertainment biz has similarly reduced or disappeared the opportunities for a film-maker to produce something done primarily to exhibit artistic expression.
To simplify: Limited male bonding opportunities in modern society (can't go to the nearest village ... and pillage) have left (sad to say) gang-rape as one of the few activities that can be attempted today. Even if the aforesaid participants did not really want to commit the act in the first place.
Limited genres of commercially accepted film have left the so-called horror film as one of the only remaining genres in which a director with artistic intent can unleash that intent with any expectation of commercial success ... even if he did not actually want to make a horror film in the first place.
So, the ultimate irony, you have men committing an act they did not actually want to commit (because of limited opportunities) and film-makers memorializing said act because there is no opportunity to make the film they really want to make.
Alternative point of view: if you consider the above to be overkill, let me simply say this is a terrible movie and if you want to see the same theme done correctly, find a copy of American MARY.