In the last scene, what is the meaning of closing the bunker door?

I think that Tim Roth did not make this movie right. The book is far more better. I don't want any philosophy of the director. I want the book!

Does that bunker stop the police from breaching in ? I don't think so.

Nothing like a nighttime stroll to give you ideas.

I believe that they became lovers in that scene when Jess is taking brother to her frinds. When her friend fails to make love to her brother Jess is actaly stoping them from making love, next what we see is him sleeping and Jess naked in armschair, drinking, It sure imply that teo OF THEM made love.

Forgot to add that after filming the rape, the boy confronted his sister, and again, just like when he found the Polaroids, he blamed her for "letting him do it."

Quite a few viewers apparently felt the same way, judging from the comments here, with some even arguing about whether the father or his daughter "initiated" the incest.

Anyway, she then asked, "Do you want to hurt me so you can feel better?" Although he stopped eventually, it's another sign that he's not just putting his sister's interests in mind.

Correction: In my previous comment, I meant "mother-like figure." It's not the mother.

What I'm curious about is, why does the film only show female nudity of all kind, but not male? I find it a real irony with this story/film.

>>>It's pretty obvious to me that through the film you see a progression of a flawed boy's character.

I don't think that's the case at all; the story loses part of its power if you see it that way - because for all his alienation we are supposed to empathise with Tom. Most of us, happily, will not empathise with the abused sister, but we might find it easier to imagine the creeping horror of Tom's suspicions and discovery, and ask ourselves what we would do. And indeed, how confused and angry we would feel if a loved and caring father turned out to be an abusive monster.

>>>When he caught his father in the bunker with his sister, he watched and filmed the whole thing instead of intervening once he's got evidence

Yes, but come on! There is no easy way to intervene in something like that! His reaction to the scene is ambivalent, but contains as much horror as it does arousal. And you'll notice, he destroys the recording afterwards simply because he cannot bear to have it, and cannot bear the implications of what he's witnessed, i.e. the complete extermination of his family for the rest of his life. If he were that sick he'd have kept it to view again.

>>>Later, he tortured his sister

Yes, because he was angry at her, and because he blames her. He wouldn't be the first person to have blamed somebody like that. For example, it's far from uncommon for husbands to find themselves blaming their wives for being raped, as illogical as that maybe. Tom's behaviour towards his sister is actually a pretty normal reaction to an abnormal situation - and of course it's easier for him to blame and confront his sister, and take his pain out on her, than it would be to confront his father. Remember, confronting his father is the last straw - that's the end of his family, and of his Dad. As soon as he says that to another person, he's lost his father forever, and has to see every single positive memory of his caring father as a poisonous lie. Tom has a LOT to lose by admitting the truth to himself and to others, even though he's seen it with his own eyes. Frankly, he could stand to lose his mother too - that also happens, where a mother sides with the father in face of that kind of accusation, and the child is blamed or treated as ill or abnormal. Tom only speaks up because of the baby, but if he'd done that before the baby was hospitalised, do you think he'd have the force of personality to convince his mother over his father's denial? Or do we think it would have been seen as disturbed, attention-seeking behaviour from an alienated teenager?

>>>and then was seduced by the mother - he didn't go through with it only because they were caught.

That's also a misreading of the scene (if you're talking about the scene I think you are). They don't go through with it because Jess actively intervenes, despite having set up the situation. She told Tom that she was going to help him lose his virginity, hence the extremely awkward and cold scene with Jess' flatmate. But Jess then intervenes because she recognises that in her own way she's abusing Tom by putting him in that situation. Though frankly, the idea that a teenage boy not fighting off an attractive older woman constitutes abnormality is a bizarre one (not to suggest such a relationship couldn't be abusive, just that not all boys that age would be aware of that at the time).

Moreover - the original screenplay had a different scene in which Tom is more or less blindfolded, and a woman has sex with him - he assumes that to be the older woman, but we understand it to be his sister. This scene was one of those Tim Roth wanted changed, because he felt it depicted the cyclical nature of abuse too strongly, implying that it HAS to be cyclical. That's the thinking that lies behind the ambiguity of the end (again, less ambiguous in the book).

>>>And then, at the end, he closed the door to the bunker *after* his sister asked, "What do we do now?"

Yes; and that implies that he has become as damaged as his sister, and that they now find they can connect in a way that brothers and sisters shouldn't. Ironically there would actually be emotion in their incest, however destructive it might be - they have several moments of physical contact throughout the film, suggesting a mutual desperation and a lack of anybody else to cling to. So, whether it takes the form of incest or not, that is what is happening at the end - those two kids only have each other, in that nobody else quite shares the experience, or can possibly understand them. Perhaps they have sex; perhaps they just collapse and cling to each other in the cold. One is very much like the other, under the circumstances.