59 reviews
Saw a preview of this last night. Still not completely sure what I made of it to be honest. It's a very short film at only 1 hour and twenty minutes and despite this it still feels a little padded as though there wasn't enough story to make it long enough to be a feature film. The key scenes are graphic and harrowing enough and I definitely left with a bad taste in my mouth. Gillian Anderson was probably the best thing about the film but I don't really buy Danny Dyer playing opposite her and there were certain scenes that were unintentionally humorous because of this. Dyer has definitely been a little miscast here and it does make you wonder whether it could have been better with a different leading man. The other problem I have with a film of this type is that in order for you to care about the plight of characters I believe you need at least a little insight into their lives prior to what we are seeing on screen, we need to know about who they are in order to root for them and I never really felt this film gave us the big picture in this regard. Despite it's flaws it's still a watchable drama/thriller but with a few more original ideas and a little added characterisation it could have been a whole lot better.
Quite a short feature film, although you do not actually notice this when watching. Great to see Gillian Anderson on screen again, and to be honest i would not have predicted this role for her however she was well cast.
Personally i quite enjoyed the slightly comedic satire that ran through some of the scenes, and i think Danny Dyer helped with this. It is hard to tell if the film would have maybe been stronger with a different leading male, but then Dyer plays the 'male struggling with his emasculation.
Definitely lacking depth, i left wishing i had known exactly what happens with Anderson's character and her father, along with simply wishing i knew Dyer's character better.
Some uncomfortable scenes which i felt were not always necessary, although they do help to give the film an edginess that i liked. Basically it was brutally real and honest, very un-Hollywood. I would maybe say rent instead of watching at the cinema.
Personally i quite enjoyed the slightly comedic satire that ran through some of the scenes, and i think Danny Dyer helped with this. It is hard to tell if the film would have maybe been stronger with a different leading male, but then Dyer plays the 'male struggling with his emasculation.
Definitely lacking depth, i left wishing i had known exactly what happens with Anderson's character and her father, along with simply wishing i knew Dyer's character better.
Some uncomfortable scenes which i felt were not always necessary, although they do help to give the film an edginess that i liked. Basically it was brutally real and honest, very un-Hollywood. I would maybe say rent instead of watching at the cinema.
To call Straightheads the best Danny Dyer film I've seen is to damn with faint praise. In my humble opinion, the guy cannot act. He just stands there and growls his lines, and you think: how the hell does this guy get plum roles in so many British films? Photogenic he may be, but when it comes to performing, he is never less than completely pants. At least Gillian Anderson is on hand to lend proceedings a touch of class, but the guy is still a millstone hanging around the neck of this thriller/drama.
Alice is a thirty-something worker who is having a security system fitted in her house. She decides to take the 23 year old installer Adam out to a party she is attending, and while there she makes out with him against a tree. On the return journey however, our loving couple make the mistake of angering a van full of psychos in an extreme case of road rage. This ends up in Adam being grievously injured, and Alice being raped. A month later, they are still recovering from the events of the day. But then, Alice finds out the identity of one of the attackers. Adam is quite happy to let sleeping dogs lie, but Alice, armed with this new information wants revenge. And being the daughter of an ex-soldier has distinct advantages...
You'll probably go into this 18 rated film with hopes of experiencing a few nice gory and brutal scenes. In which case, it won't disappoint... their are beating with huge spanners, dogs being shot and unspeakable acts done utilising the point of a huge rifle. OUCH! It doesn't outstay its welcome either, at a meagre running time of just 76 minutes. Hmm, wonder what the deleted scenes were like? However, due to the lack of any sympathetic characters, unbelievable plot developments and the usual Dyer (ha ha) acting by you-know-who I can't quite recommend it. 5/10 it is then. Never mind mate, you'll only improve. Maybe...
Alice is a thirty-something worker who is having a security system fitted in her house. She decides to take the 23 year old installer Adam out to a party she is attending, and while there she makes out with him against a tree. On the return journey however, our loving couple make the mistake of angering a van full of psychos in an extreme case of road rage. This ends up in Adam being grievously injured, and Alice being raped. A month later, they are still recovering from the events of the day. But then, Alice finds out the identity of one of the attackers. Adam is quite happy to let sleeping dogs lie, but Alice, armed with this new information wants revenge. And being the daughter of an ex-soldier has distinct advantages...
You'll probably go into this 18 rated film with hopes of experiencing a few nice gory and brutal scenes. In which case, it won't disappoint... their are beating with huge spanners, dogs being shot and unspeakable acts done utilising the point of a huge rifle. OUCH! It doesn't outstay its welcome either, at a meagre running time of just 76 minutes. Hmm, wonder what the deleted scenes were like? However, due to the lack of any sympathetic characters, unbelievable plot developments and the usual Dyer (ha ha) acting by you-know-who I can't quite recommend it. 5/10 it is then. Never mind mate, you'll only improve. Maybe...
- anxietyresister
- Jan 18, 2008
- Permalink
A wealthy businesswoman (Gillian Anderson) and her newly acquired working class lover (Danny Dyer) are viciously attacked while on a drive the woods. Afterwards, the only thing the woman can think of is revenge, and she calculates a plan to fulfill that. This is an intriguing modern-day "rape/revenge" thriller that focuses more on psychology and gender (as well as other social constructs) instead of the violence and action sequences that typically go hand-in-hand with the subgenre. That said, rape/revenge fans most likely won't be disappointed with this one, as it's fairly brutal and shocking. It's a little short, clocking in just over 70 minutes, so by the end I thought to myself, "is that all there is?" Yet the film did have something of an impact on me, because I found myself thinking about it all the next day and recommending it to friends. Gillian Anderson is excellent and does things you would never in a million years think you'd see Gillian Anderson do on-screen. I'll leave it at that. Danny Dyer also gives a fantastic dramatic performance. I'm not sure why he gets such a bad rap in the UK. He isn't quite famous in the States yet, but he's great in the few films I've seen him in. Thumbs up on this thought-provoking thriller, though I can't help feeling there's a chunk of the film missing.
- ThrownMuse
- Sep 29, 2007
- Permalink
I love these types of film. Where a man or woman gets horrifically abused and goes on a bloody warpath of revenge! I know the plot is usually thin, but it's often exciting and engrossing enough to carry a film. Just the anticipation of seeing the evil b******s get exactly what they deserve. It's often a feeling of satisfaction. But, it certainly isn't the case with "Straightheads". A film the lottery decided to fund for some bizarre reason! I mean I've written a film and I think it's way better than some of the things I've seen, but do I get any lottery funding? NO!
Rape, revenge is usually quite difficult to get wrong. Even if it does go a bit belly-up it's usually fun and entertaining at least. Actually, the majority of "Straightheads" is quite dull, slow and tedious which is unexpected for its surprisingly short running time of 75 minutes or so. That's about the length of "Inside" and "REC" just think about how much incredible excitement is experienced in those minutes! "Straightheads" sort of failed immediately by being not in the least bit plausible. Would you really ask your slacker camera fitter to go to a party with you? And why would the camera fitter not even question the idea? It starts off weirdly to say the least. When the nasty abuse occurs it's shot in the least effective way with too many clumsy close-ups and basically zero lighting to see what's going on! It also feels quite nasty for the sake of it and doesn't have anywhere near of the directional flair that say, "The Ordeal" expressed during a similar scene.
After this event, you might think that the characters would become a little more likable? They don't, in fact they become even less likable and don't get developed any further either. Am I supposed to like a man who's stoned out of his mind on the sofa, playing weird chav music with porn on his telly? It also doesn't help that Danny Dyer and Gillian Anderson's acting are more wooden than the forest. I felt zero chemistry between the two characters as well, the whole relationship thing was completely unbelievable. Though it wasn't as unbelievable as the pathetic reason given to why the rape occurred!
The film also seems as if it tries to divert from any possible exciting acting that could've actually been quite fun! There's a promising bit where Danny's hiding in the house and one of the men gets a glance at him on the top of the stairs, but nothing really that exciting comes from it! Similarly, there's a part where a daughter runs out the house shouting for her dog which is swiftly avoided with yet another embarrassing sex scene between Danny and Gillian, but don't worry the camera's so clumsy that you can't see a thing!
When the revenge finally does occur (after about an hour of no-suspense building up to it) it's so quick that it feels even more pointless. I don't know if that's what the director's trying to say, that revenge is pointless, but he did it in such a way that it made his whole film pointless! Has he not seen "7 Days" or "I Saw The Devil" which tries to convey the same message in such a gripping and emotional way? (well obviously not because this came out before those two but..) It's also done in a nasty way that just seems like it's trying to shock for the sake of it. It's cringe-worthy and not in a fun "Saw" way, but in a perverted and "why am I watching this?" way!
"Straightheads" does show effective use of direction in the very last minutes but by then it's far too late to care. "Straightheads" is a dull, nasty, implausible, badly written and atrociously directed thriller that thinks it's being way more effective than it is. If you're looking for rip-roaring, emotionally-charged revenge then I would suggest "Kill Bill", "Oldboy", "I Saw The Devil" and other Korean films. Even the remake of "I Spit On Your Grave" is much more intelligent and effective than this. I'd recommend giving this one a miss.
Rape, revenge is usually quite difficult to get wrong. Even if it does go a bit belly-up it's usually fun and entertaining at least. Actually, the majority of "Straightheads" is quite dull, slow and tedious which is unexpected for its surprisingly short running time of 75 minutes or so. That's about the length of "Inside" and "REC" just think about how much incredible excitement is experienced in those minutes! "Straightheads" sort of failed immediately by being not in the least bit plausible. Would you really ask your slacker camera fitter to go to a party with you? And why would the camera fitter not even question the idea? It starts off weirdly to say the least. When the nasty abuse occurs it's shot in the least effective way with too many clumsy close-ups and basically zero lighting to see what's going on! It also feels quite nasty for the sake of it and doesn't have anywhere near of the directional flair that say, "The Ordeal" expressed during a similar scene.
After this event, you might think that the characters would become a little more likable? They don't, in fact they become even less likable and don't get developed any further either. Am I supposed to like a man who's stoned out of his mind on the sofa, playing weird chav music with porn on his telly? It also doesn't help that Danny Dyer and Gillian Anderson's acting are more wooden than the forest. I felt zero chemistry between the two characters as well, the whole relationship thing was completely unbelievable. Though it wasn't as unbelievable as the pathetic reason given to why the rape occurred!
The film also seems as if it tries to divert from any possible exciting acting that could've actually been quite fun! There's a promising bit where Danny's hiding in the house and one of the men gets a glance at him on the top of the stairs, but nothing really that exciting comes from it! Similarly, there's a part where a daughter runs out the house shouting for her dog which is swiftly avoided with yet another embarrassing sex scene between Danny and Gillian, but don't worry the camera's so clumsy that you can't see a thing!
When the revenge finally does occur (after about an hour of no-suspense building up to it) it's so quick that it feels even more pointless. I don't know if that's what the director's trying to say, that revenge is pointless, but he did it in such a way that it made his whole film pointless! Has he not seen "7 Days" or "I Saw The Devil" which tries to convey the same message in such a gripping and emotional way? (well obviously not because this came out before those two but..) It's also done in a nasty way that just seems like it's trying to shock for the sake of it. It's cringe-worthy and not in a fun "Saw" way, but in a perverted and "why am I watching this?" way!
"Straightheads" does show effective use of direction in the very last minutes but by then it's far too late to care. "Straightheads" is a dull, nasty, implausible, badly written and atrociously directed thriller that thinks it's being way more effective than it is. If you're looking for rip-roaring, emotionally-charged revenge then I would suggest "Kill Bill", "Oldboy", "I Saw The Devil" and other Korean films. Even the remake of "I Spit On Your Grave" is much more intelligent and effective than this. I'd recommend giving this one a miss.
You were never really sure of the exact relationship between Alice (Gillian Anderson), the cougar businesswoman, and Adam (Danny Dyer), the 23-year-old security installer. Initially, it appeared they just met, but after he was beaten and she was gang raped, he acted like he had known her forever.
After the attack, he is struggling with his masculinity, and she is bent on revenge. Armed with daddy's weapons, she sets out to make the men pay for what they did.
Adam has a real problem. he is no good to her in her quest for revenge, and he is no good to her lying on top of her luscious body.
When Alice went to take revenge, she used Daddy's gun, but not in the way you would think. An eye for an eye; a rape for a rape. Once Adam was turned on to vengeance, she couldn't turn him off.
Good acting by Anderson in a thin movie.
After the attack, he is struggling with his masculinity, and she is bent on revenge. Armed with daddy's weapons, she sets out to make the men pay for what they did.
Adam has a real problem. he is no good to her in her quest for revenge, and he is no good to her lying on top of her luscious body.
When Alice went to take revenge, she used Daddy's gun, but not in the way you would think. An eye for an eye; a rape for a rape. Once Adam was turned on to vengeance, she couldn't turn him off.
Good acting by Anderson in a thin movie.
- lastliberal
- Mar 13, 2009
- Permalink
- FlashCallahan
- May 2, 2012
- Permalink
- miles_brereton
- May 16, 2007
- Permalink
I thought this movie started out kind of slow because it was just random sex and nudity and then a brutal attack and nothing happened for like 30 minutes. But then it started to get better about 50 minutes into the movie because things start to happen that are relatively entertaining, but some of the scenes are really unnecessary at times. Altogether I give this a 6 out of 10 because it started slow but got a little better and it had a solid ending too. I wouldn't recommend it, but if u want to see a thriller and your bored, then go ahead and give it a chance because Gillian Anderson pulls off a pretty good performance as a victim out for revenge.
- dustinhunter707
- Sep 20, 2007
- Permalink
- poolandrews
- Jul 9, 2008
- Permalink
Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.
The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity.
The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity.
- steve-3567
- Jul 10, 2008
- Permalink
- Leofwine_draca
- Dec 31, 2016
- Permalink
An unpleasant woman and an equally unpleasant man are violently and horribly assaulted by a group of two-dimensional psycho thugs during a night-time encounter on a forest road in Shropshire, England. The man and woman who were assaulted plan and carry out a revenge attack on their attackers...
Utterly repellent piece of voyeuristic trash, somehow masquerading as 'thought-provoking' drama, whilst actually coming across as sub-Michael Winner cr*p (you just know that Oliver Reed and Susan George would have been cast had it so easily have been made in the 1970s). What happens to Alice (Gillian Anderson) and Adam (Danny Dyer) is appalling and devastating, yet Dan Reed somehow manages to rub the viewer's nose in every last glob of its sexual nastiness. His camera lingers hungrily on Anderson's naked body both during and after the assault, whilst the script leaves almost all the characters floundering in a turgid sea of two dimensional cliché. His script forces his characters to behave in such a way as to alienate the viewer further from the 'victims' by shoving more ghastly situations into their faces (Adams's attempted post-incident assaults on both Sophie and Alice; Alice's assault on Heffer AFTER his suicide-attempt confession).
The quandary comes from the central protagonists' performances - Dyer is a horrible actor, incapable of light and shade as the young male victim of the initial assault (he'll end up in Eastenders, mark my words), but Anderson is extraordinary. Even as the atrocious script forces her character to behave in depraved and ludicrous ways, she somehow delivers an extraordinarily compelling and complicated characterisation as a self-indulgent, arrogant hedonist who encounters such horrors and needs to retaliate.
A vile and pointless film then, almost but not quite rescued by a compelling central female performance.
Utterly repellent piece of voyeuristic trash, somehow masquerading as 'thought-provoking' drama, whilst actually coming across as sub-Michael Winner cr*p (you just know that Oliver Reed and Susan George would have been cast had it so easily have been made in the 1970s). What happens to Alice (Gillian Anderson) and Adam (Danny Dyer) is appalling and devastating, yet Dan Reed somehow manages to rub the viewer's nose in every last glob of its sexual nastiness. His camera lingers hungrily on Anderson's naked body both during and after the assault, whilst the script leaves almost all the characters floundering in a turgid sea of two dimensional cliché. His script forces his characters to behave in such a way as to alienate the viewer further from the 'victims' by shoving more ghastly situations into their faces (Adams's attempted post-incident assaults on both Sophie and Alice; Alice's assault on Heffer AFTER his suicide-attempt confession).
The quandary comes from the central protagonists' performances - Dyer is a horrible actor, incapable of light and shade as the young male victim of the initial assault (he'll end up in Eastenders, mark my words), but Anderson is extraordinary. Even as the atrocious script forces her character to behave in depraved and ludicrous ways, she somehow delivers an extraordinarily compelling and complicated characterisation as a self-indulgent, arrogant hedonist who encounters such horrors and needs to retaliate.
A vile and pointless film then, almost but not quite rescued by a compelling central female performance.
- robert-connor
- Sep 8, 2009
- Permalink
I watched this because i recently watched Gillian Anderson in Sex Education on Netflix & i thought she was an amazing actress & i wanted to check out more of her work. I was surprised to find out that she was in a film with Danny Dyer, as i thought they sounded like an odd pairing & i thought I've got to see this! It was weird seeing Scully from The X-Files & Mick from EastEnders making out lol, but they actually had very good chemistry & put in great performances in this film. My only gripe is that i wish the film had been longer, it's unusually short & feels a bit rushed. I feel like there needed to have been more time to get to know the characters of Alice & Adam & to explore their relationship more. But it's an enjoyable watch & a bit of a guilty pleasure.
- claudio_carvalho
- Jul 10, 2008
- Permalink
- 2BoZozz5178
- Jun 11, 2024
- Permalink
Straightheads wants to be a modern version of Straw Dogs but just ends up being low wattage, low grade muddled revenge tale.
Alice (Gillian Anderson) is a high powered businesswoman who enters into a relationship with young Adam (Danny Dyer) who only came round to install a security system in her flat.
Alice probably wants a bit of rough and asks Adam to attend a party in the countryside. On their way home, Adam is attacked by three men, Alice is raped.
A month later, still traumatised after the attack, Alice wants revenge and track the men down.
Even with its short running time, this is a slow tedious film and badly shot. I never bought the relationship between the two people. We initially see Adam spying on her in his monitor as Alice comes home from work. After the attack he feels impotent, smokes dope and watches porn.
Alice (Gillian Anderson) is a high powered businesswoman who enters into a relationship with young Adam (Danny Dyer) who only came round to install a security system in her flat.
Alice probably wants a bit of rough and asks Adam to attend a party in the countryside. On their way home, Adam is attacked by three men, Alice is raped.
A month later, still traumatised after the attack, Alice wants revenge and track the men down.
Even with its short running time, this is a slow tedious film and badly shot. I never bought the relationship between the two people. We initially see Adam spying on her in his monitor as Alice comes home from work. After the attack he feels impotent, smokes dope and watches porn.
- Prismark10
- May 30, 2018
- Permalink
Closure (2007)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Alice (Gillian Anderson) is a successful business woman who has to attend a dinner for her work. She asks Adam (Danny Dyer) to take her to this party even though they've only known each other for a few minutes. The two attend the party and then on the way home they are attacked by three men. Adam is severely beaten and Alice is raped. The two of them suffer the mental strain of what happened and soon Alice thinks it would be best to get revenge on the attackers.
CLOSURE was originally titled STRAIGHTHEADS when it was released in Britain but when it came to America it was given a new title and went straight-to-DVD, which is understandable because there's really nothing here that demands for it to have been shown in a theater. The quality of the picture is also lacking and with the rather graphic story it's doubtful too many people would have lined up on a Friday night to check this thing out. Part of me wanted to enjoy this movie more than I actually did but there's just no way to get around the fact that there were all sorts of problems here.
As you can tell, this is yet another rape/revenge tale and there have been countless ones made over the past few decades. You've got trash like THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE as well as masterpieces like DEATH WISH. This film here doesn't really know if it wants to be a serious look at rape and its aftermath or if it just wants to be some sort of graphic revenge tale ala the remake of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. The film doesn't know what it wants to do so the viewer is pretty much just sitting there waiting for something to unfold and there were just too many logical issues that I had with the picture.
For starters, not for a second did I buy the relationship between Alice and Adam. The problem I had is that after the rape we pretty much jump a month ahead and the two are emotionally distraught from the ordeal. That is fine but the screenplay makes Adam a real mess of a character. Crying. Can't perform sexually. He really becomes a broken nut case. I understand he got beaten but at the same time I have a hard time believing he would be so connected to Alice, a woman he knew for a matter of hours before the attack. I've read reviews where people called Adam a baby and a whiner but I don't mind seeing a "weak" guy on screen but the problem is the screenplay just doesn't do the character or the situation any favors.
There's a twist that happens and some graphic violence that finally comes up. Both of these are handles quite well but at the same time it pretty much goes against what came before it. The film clocks in at a very brief 80-minutes, which is very short for a film from this period. There are some good moments here including the performances by the two leads. This is especially true for Anderson who was very believable in the role of the rape victim and I really loved the little touches she brought to the scenes right after the rape as well as her mental state throughout the entire film.
CLOSURE is an okay film but the flaws keep it from being anything better. As it stands, fans of the rape/revenge genre might want to check it out but others should probably start somewhere else.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Alice (Gillian Anderson) is a successful business woman who has to attend a dinner for her work. She asks Adam (Danny Dyer) to take her to this party even though they've only known each other for a few minutes. The two attend the party and then on the way home they are attacked by three men. Adam is severely beaten and Alice is raped. The two of them suffer the mental strain of what happened and soon Alice thinks it would be best to get revenge on the attackers.
CLOSURE was originally titled STRAIGHTHEADS when it was released in Britain but when it came to America it was given a new title and went straight-to-DVD, which is understandable because there's really nothing here that demands for it to have been shown in a theater. The quality of the picture is also lacking and with the rather graphic story it's doubtful too many people would have lined up on a Friday night to check this thing out. Part of me wanted to enjoy this movie more than I actually did but there's just no way to get around the fact that there were all sorts of problems here.
As you can tell, this is yet another rape/revenge tale and there have been countless ones made over the past few decades. You've got trash like THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE as well as masterpieces like DEATH WISH. This film here doesn't really know if it wants to be a serious look at rape and its aftermath or if it just wants to be some sort of graphic revenge tale ala the remake of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. The film doesn't know what it wants to do so the viewer is pretty much just sitting there waiting for something to unfold and there were just too many logical issues that I had with the picture.
For starters, not for a second did I buy the relationship between Alice and Adam. The problem I had is that after the rape we pretty much jump a month ahead and the two are emotionally distraught from the ordeal. That is fine but the screenplay makes Adam a real mess of a character. Crying. Can't perform sexually. He really becomes a broken nut case. I understand he got beaten but at the same time I have a hard time believing he would be so connected to Alice, a woman he knew for a matter of hours before the attack. I've read reviews where people called Adam a baby and a whiner but I don't mind seeing a "weak" guy on screen but the problem is the screenplay just doesn't do the character or the situation any favors.
There's a twist that happens and some graphic violence that finally comes up. Both of these are handles quite well but at the same time it pretty much goes against what came before it. The film clocks in at a very brief 80-minutes, which is very short for a film from this period. There are some good moments here including the performances by the two leads. This is especially true for Anderson who was very believable in the role of the rape victim and I really loved the little touches she brought to the scenes right after the rape as well as her mental state throughout the entire film.
CLOSURE is an okay film but the flaws keep it from being anything better. As it stands, fans of the rape/revenge genre might want to check it out but others should probably start somewhere else.
- Michael_Elliott
- Jun 10, 2017
- Permalink