Having heard so many divergent opinions about this film, I was expecting a powerful if not pleasant viewing experience. What I hadn't expected was a bad film much like the so-called 10BA films of yesteryear that only existed for the tax benefits they delivered investors. The 10BA hallmarks were all there -- a laughable script, wooden actors, a grotesque soundtrack and apparently directed by a property developer. There is hardly a second in the film, much less a scene, that is not cringe-worthy in the extreme, and for reasons entirely separate to the subject matter. Realistically, we have seen more accomplished efforts from film students, including Kokkinos herself, and that raises questions about the team that was assembled for this project. Were they all blind and deaf?

I thought the movie peaked artistically with the closing titles, and particularly the disclaimer about "any resemblance to persons living or dead is coincidental".

I was worried about seeing this film, but as it is Australian, and stars Tom Long, I thought I would give it a fair go.

I was worried about the potential cliches and predictability. However, I was very impressed with the way in which the sensitive issues were addressed. It was a very powerful and thought provoking movie. One of Australia's best. I give it top rating.

What are we to make of a film that seems to be a example of exploitation cinema and a brave attempt to bring female-male abuse into the light at the same time?

While there may be many areas of life that are male dominated, the media is not an obvious candidate: there are too many films and movies more or less hostilely "questioning" male identity to mention. You could see this work being written by the destructive fringe of feminism. But for a fact the original book was written by a man.

It's the "artistic", erotic and, to me, lingeringly sadistic, explicit treatment of the rape and abuse that sets me off thinking along this line. It's a film that asks a male audience to trust the integrity of the filmmaker to an extraordinary extent, to explore sensitive and vunerable sides of ourselves. Yet it is done in a climate where images of men in the media often seem disempowering and unbalanced to me. And this is a tale of a man being destroyed: what are expected to think? The whole hoods and cloaks bit, and lack of any clear idea of what is driving the attackers really doesn't help here.

On the other hand, what better way of demonstrating the harm that a pervasive disregard for men as people causes? That's part of the second half of the movie where Daniel is disbelived by the police, dumped by the girlfiriend, etc. I can't make these points as well as the film itself does.

Can you imagine the reaction to this film if we were presented with scenes of a woman being sexually abused as an "erotic thriller"? I would have said you could see the media reaction from orbit. Maybe I'm missing something here: have women had the same reaction to the work of, say Almodovar?

Finally, I wonder how real victims of rape, men and women, feel about having explicit rape scenes used as a subject for "art". The descriptions I've read of the film as erotic entertainment make my blood run cold. I don't see the line between exposing the dark side of our sexuality and indulging it. I can't decide if this film strikes a blow for men or against them, or both. And I've got no idea what it does for women: surely we all knew women where never solely the victims? There are plenty of other works with this point, from "Medea" to "Misery".

It certainly has raised a great desire in me to have my say in the portrayal of men on screen.

Firstly, kudos to Tom Long for having the "balls" to take on this role, and to the makers for creating an original, confronting, very different and extremely uncomfortable Austalian film.

"The Book" is all of interesting - for the change of gender roles and the police response to Dan's report; disturbing - for the content, obviously (particularly from a woman's point of view); and frustrating on may levels... Not only were questions left answered in this film, the questions were barely even asked.

*So who were those women and why did they sexually abuse Dan? He searched for three women, but their identity and motive did not seem of real interest in the film. *Why did his friends -particularly the girlfriend (of three years apparently), and Isabel who he's so close to- not probe and try to find out what happened? He may not have revealed the whole story, but it wasn't til the last frame of the movie that someone thought to ask. *As Dan spiralled downwards after "the incident" why didn't anyone think to seek professional help for him? He may have refused, but ...

Despite the positives of making "The Book Of Revelation", I have to say it left me very very frustrated.

This film tries hard, and it shows. It succeeds in making nudity, sex and entrapment dull, quite a feat. The characters are undeveloped and unbelievable, and consequently not worth caring about. After 80 minutes two of us could stand it no longer and walked out.

The only redeeming feature in this badly acted, appaulingly directed and stilted, cliched script was Debra Mailman's smile.

Dull, appallingly crass dialogue, hugely predictable, badly edited, poorly shot...boring, boring, boring.

I am not convinced it was the best portrayal of this story. I am glad that I watched it, however. It was provocative, erotic and disturbing. Certainly food for thought. And good food.

I was confused at the dancers' relationship and their limited dialogue which left me unconvinced of their three-year relationship, and that of the relationship with Austen, the director of the dance Co (Scacchi). Did the girlfriend arrange the abduction? Was it a one-off? The couple were mutually sexually attracted in the dance scene at the beginning - but their dialogue was near non-existent.

I enjoyed Long's performance but sometimes I felt him stilted and unreal. I don't reckon it would be a character one could just 'slip into'. I thought he did a brilliant job at showing the audience his body's betrayal - and the complete disbelief - at what he thought (about what was happening to him) and what his body wanted (being erect, ejaculating etc). This turmoil of emotions is captured and on occassion he even makes it work for himself (in the masturbating scene with one of the adbucters).

I thought the attack on the woman at the end was a clear portrayal of his bottled-up emotion and yearning to find some answers. I particularly enjoyed the two men bonding and hugging at the end of the film - as a clear indication of how confused and damaged Daniel had become in this ordeal.

Good food for thought.

There are a number of reasons why this film didn't work for me. And 'me' is the crucial factor. I don't understand why people get so upset when someone else gives a bad review of a film they liked. Film is subjective. That's a good thing. The fact that this film divides people is also good. However, for me, the film didn't work.

The first one is believability. I'm talking about actions taken in the film. The fact that he starts working in a bar at the dock in the hope of finding his tormentors. Does he think they will not recognise him? Also, what a coincidence three women of exact same stature and personality walk into the bar and all are up for a threesome. Of course it's not them as we discover as he inspects all three for tattoos.

The loss of power and degradation is unbelievable as well. I could see no similarity between his abduction and rape to that of what a woman's experience would be. He unnerved them with the line "We think of ourselves when we come" while masturbating. The abductor felt naked, ashamed and humiliated covering herself up. Probably more so then Daniel (Tom Long) at any point in his 12 days of being bathed and fed. They let him wet himself once. Wow.

The Deborah Mailman romance seemed over the top. A forced happiness, an obvious push for recovery and bliss so the impending downfall is all the more harsh. Also, the reoccurrence of the line "I won't be long". So forced. So unbelievable.

The other thing that ticked me off was the casting of Anna Torv as both the girlfriend Bridget and one of the abductors. At the Popcorn Taxi screening Ana Kokkinos was asked if there was any story link there. The answer: no. What? No? She insisted no story link within the film, even though it is obvious it is her. If there is no story link (even if the link may be the incident never happened, a manifestation of his mind and his coping with the pressures of dance, an unfulfilled relationship and dealing with the impending death of a close friend and colleague) then cast someone else for either role. The fact that she was 'perfect' for both is no excuse. That's simply clumsy catsting and directing because it instils audience confusion for absolutely no reason.

This film had a lot of potential. It's good at bringing up discussion but within the film does not deal with the issues at hand as deftly as the public can afterwards.

I'm really not sure if I buy the whole switching gender roles hook as something to build a film around. This movie was about a guy who is sexually abused, finds it difficult to come to terms with, is unable to talk about it and eventually allows it to almost destroy him. The fact that the victim is male and the purpertrators female doesn't add anything to the film whatsoever and struck me as slightly gimmicky. Should it really matter?

This was a long, very boring movie.

Just a note to people who gave the movie 1 star: Get a life! I thought that the movie was controversial enough, but it delivered striking perfomances by the likes of Tom Long, who brought me to the verge of tears with his dancing and Colin Friels, who gave the movie an extra sparkle. Casting Deborah Mailman for the part of woman who brings Tom Long's character to life couldn't have been a better choice.

The movie was a hit.

In this age of bad sequels and flashy disaster movies, it's great to see an Australian film with some originality and integrity. It seems to me that people have forgotten how to watch well-made and original films. This movie is not purely for entertainment value, it's a film to engage with and immerse yourself in. I went in with very few expectations, and I found "The Book of Revelation" to be a truly satisfying experience. Plus, it has one of the best endings I've seen in a movie. I liked this film a lot!

"The Book of Revelation", the second feature from Australian director Ana Kokkinos was a truly painful cinematic experience that I wanted to walk out of some 20 minutes after it started, but forced myself to endure until the bitter end.

It's an erotic thriller that is neither erotic nor thrilling, laden with stilted performances, unconvincing characters, and a production design that served only to heighten the unbelievable nature of the story.

Perhaps most damningly, the so-called "brave performance" by lead actor Tom Long required a degree of nudity and sexual exploitation that has been required of female actors for years; while his physical presence was completely out of kilter with the character he was supposed to be playing: that of the lead male dancer of an internationally renowned company.

Save for the presence of Deborah Mailman in the final act, whose performance brings some much needed charisma to the screen, there is little to enjoy and even less to admire in this awkward, unenjoyable and frankly inept film.

I really disliked this movie. There was a vast array of flaws.

Firstly there was the lame dialogue coupled with overacting. The scenes of the robed women (who looked stupid in their costumes) were the perperators of the worst acting. However one must not be to scathing of actors working with the script of this sort.

Lines such as "I want you to masturbate...", were unimaginative reworking of tradtional gender relations. I personally feel presenting gender relations in such a binary obscures the complicated nature of everyday existence.

Generally, I thought this was convulated drivel.

Tom Long's performance is brilliant - he played the part to perfection.

Whilst I could not say I ENJOYED the film - it was challenging, disturbing but very slow-paced, however, I was fascinated by the audience reaction.

Comments such as "it wouldn't really happen", "how ridiculous", "not realistic", "it's not erotic at all" - all from male audience members. Whilst women just looked uncomfortable.

If for no other reason, this is a BRILLIANT film, because it really has turned our thinking about rape on its head. Why is it that the rape of a man is so disturbing, but the rape of a woman is unpleasant but accepted?

In summary, confronting, unpleasant - but extraordinarily well captured.

The pace of this film is not slow, it's measured. This is one of the most interesting Australian films for a long time. It has style, AND it has substance. The performances are carefully crafted, and intriguingly restrained. Ana Kokkinos has, in my opinion, successfully managed to convey the anguish and frustration of a man (Daniel) who finds himself unable to express his feelings about a painful experience. This is complicated by the fact that the usual power relationships have been subverted.

The craft of the filmmakers shines in this film. Every aspect of the film is carefully considered, and nothing is wasted - every nuance gives the film its meaning. Tom Long bares all (literally!) in an honest and agonising performace. The rest of cast are great too, especially Colin Friels, who gives the film some grounding as the sturdy policeman. Deborah Mailman is quiet and serene, her character is the only one who seems to be able to inject some hope into Daniel's broken world.

"The Book of Revelation" is a little cold to begin with, and Daniel isn't particularly likeable at the start of the film. However, by the end I really felt for him. It's a beautiful, well-made film, and one which stays with you long after you've left the cinema.

I found the ending profoundly satisfying.

I felt like the proverbial fly on the wall baring witness to this human soul being cast into his own shadow of confusion and anger. I know that torture and explicit sex themes are very controversial to a lot of people, but that is why the power of cinema is there: to escape, to become part of an experience and maybe even history. These are the movies that can define the culture and hopefully this film gets the release it deserves.

If you're watching it, and you feel like it's going FOREVER, don't worry, it just suddenly ends.

It's a shallow film behind the guise of some heavy concepts. It is sluggish and lame. The acting is stunted and unbelievable, except from Scaatchi, who plays Auster, a dance company director.

It touches on the surface of some interesting issues, so good for them, but all the premise ends up being is novel. If you read the book, it's not that interesting, and neither is the film.