Violation

This was the absolutely most annoyingly too-long and too-slow film I've ever seen. Someone forgot to get the reel to the editor, because each and every scene was between 25-95% too long and dragged out. I lost count how many times we all yelled at the screen "omg get on with it already" or "someone please fast forward this already". This film is the epitome of "too much filler and very little substance". I've never been and seen a more annoyed audience.

The ridiculously too-long-for-this-film 107 mins felt like over 3 hours. The useless and unnecessary Nat. Geo nature shots were utterly annoying and pointless, so let's take 15 mins off for that nonsense. Now cut out an average 70% from every single scene. Now you're left with a 28 min short film, that will hold every viewers attention, eyes glued to the screen, with them sitting on the edge of their seat, with their heart racing and blood pressure elevating. THAT, is what makes a great film, not endless useless fluff and filler that makes you angry and lose interest - constantly.

Just for fun, I will use a basic editing program and cut this film down to a short myself, just to watch it again and actually enjoy it, as well as recommend only my version for viewing to my friends and family. Otherwise if you really hate someone, have them watch this full dragged out long and boring annoying nonsense.

Clearly the problem here was that collab'd writers and directors Dusty Mancinelli and Madeleine Sims-Fewer have only written and directed short films, this being their first full length feature - that should've also been a short. Aside from some plot and technical issues, the core concept and guts of their story was excellent, especially taking some gambles with gore and borderline soft-p0rn nudity. Unfortunately, transferring that concept into a full length screenplay, ended up a muddled melodramatic mess beyond belief. Had more writing been invested in the characters relationships and dynamics, this may have worked as a full length film.

The cinematography was horrible with the worst decision for color filters and contrast. The shaky cam was bearable, but the close-ups were unrecognizable for the most part. You'll squint, get closer, go farther, rewind and relook, and you still won't be able to make out what the heck you're supposed to be looking at. And then out of nowhere, for no reason, a bug is in the frame lol. The score was very fitting, although it was also too loud, too frequent, and overbearing in some parts. Performances were on point and convincing, especially Sims-Fewer.

Although this was a low budget indie film, it still had serious contention to be great - had it been edited/cut down to a short, of which I am determined to do myself, and/or had more substance and much less filler. It's a very generous 5/10 from me, more so for the efforts invested.

How do you deal with grey areas? Now the main incident that kicks our main character ... out of her "comfort zone" I reckon you could call it ... is something that a lot of people will have a debate over. The movie almost dares you to talk about it ... make a judgement ... give your take on what you think happened or rather who is to blame - maybe even both individuals.

I personally think it is clear whose fault it is - having said that, it does not mean I agree with what follows - what is being done to the guilty party. Now you can interpret that any way you want. And the movie makes it easy to get triggered ... it shows a situation that could and does unfortunately happen. But again, there are grey areas ... so there is room for some debate - or is there? Even that is up for debate ... a movie that dares and does handle a subject matter that has been exploited in a different fashion ... while ultimately also exploiting it ... differently and in some forms the same ways ... it is tough to actually go into certain crazy things that happen ... and if you are squeamish you probably shouldn't even watch this ... everyone else prepare yourself to feel very uncomfortable ...

I don't really what to make of this film, it's a slow starter and often confusing what with the strange and possibly unnecessary shots of wildlife. This is probably a great film for someone who has a higher IQ than me but I found it 'all hype and no bite'. The very beginning you get a warning of the graphic content and this doesn't disappoint, for me, there's some very uncomfortable scenes but they were done with tact and thought. I think it could've been better if the random scenes were cut and it didn't try to be so clever and stylish. On the whole, the premise is great, just wish it wasn't executed so arty, I'd of liked it more in a 'I spit on your grave' kinda fashion but that's just my opinion as a child of the video nasty era.

If you're still interested and think it's one for you, give it go, I'm not being negative about it, I'm just saying it's not one of the best films I've seen.

It's wholly different from any other rape-revenge movie out there, and has so much to say about the genre and an audience's thirst for revenge. Not strictly a horror film. I'd call it more of a Haneke type drama with some truly grotesque moments.

If you go down to the woods today and you're a rabbit or a predatory opportunist, there's a good chance you'll get your big surprise and it won't be a pleasant picnic. Refreshing and brave, original and relevant, reflective and increasingly expansive, just as progressive and contemporary filmmaking should be.