This is a grim tale that has gained much notoriety due to its initial home video/DVD ban in the UK. This censorship has now been lifted and the DVD can now be purchased in the UK. As I'd read a lot about this project many moons ago and seen the documentary series "Banned in the UK", I knew how things were going to pan out which reduced the tension somewhat. Despite this, it's quite a gripping and unpleasant experience that leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

I found the audio frustratingly unclear in places, annoying as this is a dialogue driven film. The more over-the-top violence is suggested rather than explicit but this works in its favor as it is not let down by cheap effects.

Tim Poole is great as the victim, Tevin. However, it's Margot Steinberg and Danielle Sanderson who really leave an impact on the viewer. This movie is enough to make you think twice about going back to a stranger's house for a night of no-ties passion. Its use of female protagonists is effective and deeply chilling.

3 stars. A lot of talking and psychological games fill out the running time but the experience is not as powerful as that of "Scrapbook". Some viewers will hate this movie as it's a slow paced affair but connoisseurs of modern horror may feel obliged to check it out.

That's it... the whole storyline to director/producer/writer Ray Brady's low budget and controversial thriller. The point of a film like Boy Meets Girl is not so much to tell a story but to address an issue - that of violence and the portrayal of violence. What, in effect, becomes a movie monologue for writers Brady and Jim Crosbie is broken down into many short vignettes, each with its own introductory title card; beginning with "New Experiences", through "I Lied" and "Blind Date" then onto "People in Real Life Don't Walk Around With Bullet Holes in Them". Each has its own message, each adding weight to the argument as a whole. The argument is a complex one and one which is directed at you, as a viewer. Can you identify with the attitudes the male character stands for? Are you as guilty as he? He is used and abused by his two dominant female captors, held up as an example of the worst kind of tabloid mentality; he is made to pay for (accepted) social attitudes and behaviour that his captors (and the film makers) believe is wrong.

Boy Meets Girl is a bold and important film. It is full of subtle but controversial arguments. To dismiss it because of its bondage/sadistic trappings (as some have already done) is to miss the point entirely. How else could the director have approached the subject matter? Possibly as a documentary, but then that would loose the frisson of making the viewer an active participant in the debate. It is a film of violent ideas but it is not a barrage of graphic images. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has passed countless numbers of films more violent than Boy Meets Girl, yet refuses to give it a certificate. As the director of the BBFC, James Ferman must take the responsibility for denying you, the public, the chance to see a film which, for once, has a totally violent subject matter but does not glamorise it. Which is more than can be said of so many Hollywood studio pictures Mr Ferman has gladly issued with certificates. Explicit violence has always been a contentious issue in cinema, but never, in a so-called democracy, should honesty about violence be treated like the glorification of violence. Shame on you Mr Ferman. For all its minor faults (most often due to the low budget) a film like Boy Meets Girl does not deserve to be treated in the manner it has been in Britain. What it does deserve is the wide distribution a certificated theatrical release would get and respect for its viewpoint. At least this film attempts to broach a controversial subject responsibly. It's just a sad statement about the double standards that exist in the British film classification system that it could take a long time before many of the public get to see it.

The film was all set to dwindle away into obscurity but the British Board of Film Classification decided not to give it a certificate for video and TV release in 1994, partly because of the violence and torture, but mainly because the film was so hideously bad they wanted to protect the British public from a potential wave of mass suicides by unsuspecting viewers watching it and suddenly losing the will to live. The film was duly seized upon by the anti censorship lobby, who used it as a battleground for the fight against censorship in the UK. Because of this several critics decided that it must a bold brilliant work, so it got some great reviews from critics who didn't have anything else to write about. The film played dozens of film festivals and became the cinematic equivalent of the emperors new clothes. Everyone thought it was the worst film they'd ever seen, but said to themselves that there must be something in it if all those critics raved about it and they'd tried to ban it, so the myth that the film was a powerful masterpiece was propagated. The downside of this has meant that Brady now believes that he is a genius and has gone on to make four more truly terrible films, and has earned himself the nickname in the British Film Making community as "The Ed Wood of Bethnal Green". If there's one thing that can actually make the film somehow worse, it's the directors commentary. Made in the spirit of the film: incoherent, rambling and meaningless - listening to it makes you want to reach for the nearest bottle of sleeping pills, pack of razorblades or noose. This film is actually worth getting so you can see exactly how badly films can be made. Make you appreciate the good ones so much more.