The film has been the subject of criticism from numerous academics and film critics. Academic Claire henry posits that the film could have enjoyed more success had it been clearly represented as an erotic thriller rather than an examination of rape suffering. Notable film critic Mark Fisher in a review of the film published in Sight & Sound views the film as being “hyperbolic absurdity”. He additionally contends that the controlling logic of the film is distorted and therefore undermines its rape-revenge genre tag. For instance, it’s unclear whether it’s the male fantasy of being humiliated or the female fantasy to degrade a man . In a similar light, film critic Alexandra Heller-Nicholas proposes that despite her attempts to subvert the rape-revenge genre, Kokkinos fails to provide insight into “how the mechanics of gender, rape and revenge can intersect on film” due to “its bombastic construction and self-congratulatory air”. In another review by Fincina Hopgood the film is criticised as there is a lack of connection between character and audience. She argues that the audience has insufficient time to build rapport with Daniel prior to him being raped. Instead, the focus on the female characters makes it difficult to empathise with Daniel as the focus is thrust upon him. Furthermore, she claims that Daniels’ inability to articulate his feelings means the audience is reliant on his body language to express his emotional status and therefore deducts from the overall message of the film. Russell Edwards claims that the film struggled to deal with the topic of rape in an intellectual and emotional manner. He accordingly places blame on lead actor, Tom Long, claiming he is “A limited actor whose lethargic presence serves the post abduction scenes well, Long lacks the vitality in the opening reels to provide a basis for a character arc”. He however notes, the soundtrack composed by Cezary Biszewski in conjunction with Meryl Tankard's choreography contributes to the authenticity of the setting and poignant atmosphere.