dwoolfe99 Just finished watching this movie about 10 minutes ago on Netflix, and I want to write this out while it's fresh in my mind. It wasn't until a few minutes after the credits rolled that I began to consider what it was that I disliked about it.The movie is well made. The photography, lighting, pacing, editing, and acting are all above average. This is a film maker who could make a stunning film with the right material.The plot has been described by other reviews. A "businessman" with unspecified ties to the US government is kidnapped while in Europe on business. He is held in an unspecified place, charged with unspecified crimes, and tortured in a progressively brutal fashion. Whoever wrote this screenplay is obviously a devotee of Kafka.The problem lies in the thematic content of the film, or actually, how the thematic content is expressed. The film embraces more or less three interlocking themes. They are: First, the idea that everything is theater and entertainment to the masses, not just including the suffering of others, but *especially* the suffering of others. This theme is not original in an of itself. It's echoed in films embracing such diverse settings as the Roman Coliseum in Gladiator, or the tortured rantings of Howard Beal in Network.Second, the observation that people will go to the worst, most barbaric extremes in service of an ideology or belief system to which they fanatically adhere. In his mind, the extremist believes he is morally justified in what he does. So what if he takes a man's eyes out with a spoon. His Enemy has done a million fold worse than this. This too is not entirely original but it is certainly a theme worth exploring.Third, we have the theme of sin, penance, and redemption, either in a religious or secular humanistic sense (the two are depicted as parallel). This is where the trouble lies. By the end of this movie, this man has had practically everything taken away from him, his body being taken apart piece by piece. At this point, no one cares what the man has or hasn't done, whether he was truly sincere when he read his scripted apology to his neighbors when he stole from them as a child, whether his business dealings were black, white or grey. None of this matters because the over the top cruelty of his tormentors has rendered him a pure, unmitigated victim. We are horrified and sympathize with him entirely. His kidnappers are are psychopaths with no redeeming qualities.This kind of simplistic emotional reaction from the viewer is less than a movie of this apparent thematic complexity suggests. This unending torture acts as a thematic bulldozer, causing everything else hinted at which may have been interesting about the movie to recede into the background. At the end, that's what you get, to feel pathos and nothing more.Creating a good thematic mix in a film is like cooking. All ingredients in their proper portion. Overdo one ingredient and it overpowers the rest and produces an unsatisfying brew.I recommend this to people who appreciate film-making for its craft, especially that done on a limited budget. For all others, well, you just read the review. Make up your own mind.

LordMittensXXIII This is definitely worth seeing. Aside from the violence, and the manner in which the writer chooses to write the viewer into the participation of the violence, this is a movie about ethical choices, and about the man being tortured. Flashes of his back story are interspersed with his imprisonment and torture, and you get the feeling that, regardless of the unfairness of his predicament, he is actually thinking about, and regretting, the choices he's made.True to a great many indie stories, this might not turn out the way you want, but it is a satisfying story.Fleshing out the movie are a couple of vocal antagonists, a man and a woman, who seem to play a "good cop, bad cop" game with the victim. The bearded man seems to know he is doing right because he is doing what most of the viewers want him to do, and he believes he has morality on his side. The moral overtones start to wear off, and it becomes clear that he is there because he is enjoying his role. The woman appears to want to help the victim. It's worth it if you have 90mins to kill.

pointblankprods A shocking and thought provoking film, Senseless is a low budget thriller from the talented, Bafta award winning, Scottish director Simon Hynd and starring American TV star Jason Behr. A moral maze, the film tells the story of Elliot Gaast, an American executive of dubious ethical standards who is captured by a mysterious group and tortured live on the internet with the systematic removal of his 5 senses.A clever, subtle script works both as a straightforward and gruesome body horror film and a driven, satirical stab at American globalisation and consumer culture. Reality TV is also a target, with the sporadic use of Big Brother-esquire CCTV footage to underpin the implication that maybe these events aren't so far removed from our current reality or future. At a time when middle eastern terrorists are using video footage to show bombings and be-headings, the film seems remarkably current and prescient. Never an easy watch, the torture scenes themselves are disturbing and unpleasant but help to reinforce the mood, tone and structure of the piece. You will almost certainly struggle to look at a cheese grater in the same way again. Jason Bher, who belies his status as a former teenage TV sex symbol throughout, is particularly effective in these scenes and gives his character a humanity and empathy that the audience can cling to in the more grizzly moments. A serious and interesting film, Senseless demands attention and rewards it with a challenging and contemplative look at our troubled society.**A point of warning to anyone watching the German DVD version of this film - it is a total mess, cut to shreds by the distribution company to avoid a costly censorship battle. My advice is to skip this version entirely as it makes no sense.**

therefdotcom i found the plot synopsis for this movie pretty interesting and for sure the basic ideas could have been easily transformed into an excellent movie, so i found it very promising to check out this flick. usually i try to stay neutral and don't get my hopes too high upfront and would for sure have been satisfied with an at least mediocre thrill ride.it all starts with our main protagonist captured and been held captivated by a group of people that claim that he is a guest and is about to change. to archive that they want to take away what means the most to him. as soon as he gets tortured for the first time and they take his sense of taste away the viewer instantly knows what that is: his senses. since there aren't too many of those we it becomes clear very early in the movie what will happen within the next 90 minutes. as a movie buff it always worries me when they reveal most of the next events so early in a movie. there are very few directors to either manage to dig themselves outta that hole use that to their advance. Hitchcock would be one of those rare examples that even used this as a stylistic element. unfortunately we don't see such brilliance here.we further get explained that his sufferings are being broad casted. by that they can only mean an internet stream as TV would be way too off. people can contribute money, write letters and vote his sufferings to stop. the main goal according to the kidnappers is to get together money for their operations.our protagonist also gets some time with a seemingly innocent female that claims that she doesn't support the ways of the group she's in. this might have been believable in 1960 when this genre wasn't as overused as it uses to be, but nowadays this is simply not plausible.to justify that exactly this guy has been picked for the operation we see some flashbacks and some explanations by the protagonist himself into the camera, showing that he has been a ruthless idiot without morals in his life. not, necessarily evil, but just not a good guy. i have no idea why that should be a justification for keeping him captivated, torture him for weeks and then cripple him for life, but alright.all of this counted together makes what we see completely random. the main character is not sympathetic and not evil. the evildoers are simply villains without a reasonable justification. after 45 minutes it just gets mighty boring as it is completely random and pointless. as the graphic violence shown has no real meaning but to shock and disgust the viewer it gets extremely boring. i don't enjoy watching someone getting tortured for 90 minutes. there is no thrill in that, it's just stupid.nevertheless i was hoping for a clever conclusion AND twist at the end to make up for my lost time. disappointingly this doesn't happen and the movie simply ends.don't get me wrong, i am a horror movie fan, but this is not a horror movie. there is no thrill in it. i enjoy getting scared and i have seen quite a few Japanese extreme horror movies, but without justification there is no thrill. if this would have been an action movie it would have been transfered to this: i guy drives around in a car and just kicks the heck out of random people and shoots some other, without no reason or background story behind it.also this genre of movie is not new. if it were there would at least been the justification of going beyond everything else that has been done in other movies just to prove a point. i know for a fact that this has been done much more extreme to prove those points. if you take a look at the guinea pig series then even in the genre of wannabe-snuff-movies this example is just a very lame attempt to even reach those limits.overall this has been a very disappointing experience.