if only...then I would've given it 4/5 (spoilers)

I liked this film. A lot. Of course, it bears remarkable similarities to "Man Bites Dog" and "Henry: POASK." Nevertheless, I liked it because the film confronted why I watch horror, over and over again.

For example: the segment where the camera is locked on the man while Max kills the woman, and then vice versa, is brilliant. After killing both, Max asks, "Did you want to see what I was doing there?" And I'm like, "Uh, gosh, I guess I did." Then he showed it to me, and I was like, "Uh, gee, I guess I didn't really want to see that after all." It confronts my curiosity about horrible images/events and throws it back in my face. I thought it was brilliant.

So why can I only rate it 3/5? Well, simply because I didn't really believe the murders. Due to budget constraints, it never felt like the killings were brutal/real enough. And the victims appeared very loosely bound and didn't seem to struggle enough, knowing they were facing brutal death. So some of the impact is lost on me. If you could take this same story, juice it up with some grade-A violence (I'm thinking about the fire extinguisher scene in Irreversible, or scenes from Martyrs, for example; the burning scene herein would've been better if it had captured the essence of the burning scene in Eden Lake), it would be incredible.

He simply bears up and he does it...because he's a man. - Breaking Bad