I think attributing criticism of the basement torture scene to homophobia assumes that the criticism is focused on the specific act of torture. To call it homophobia is akin to referring to criticism of a rape scene as sexism. I do not object to the specifics of the scene; it seems to me that whether the tortured individuals are being sodomized or having their eyes gouged out is irrelevant to this issue. I considered the scene gratuitous because of its absurdity. Now I realize that this will elicit posts saying that the entire film is absurd, which in some ways is true, so I will defend the statement now. It is a graphic absurdity, an exploitation of the shop owner and security guard... these characters are not developed even minutely, their actions and personalities rely entirely on stereotypes. The images presented in the scene do not deepen the meaning of the film or the characters involved. It functions simply as an opportunity to place the boxer and crime boss in an awful horrifying situation. Perhaps it seems gratuitous because of the already overwhelming number of extraordinary coincidences leading up to it. It may be argued that this is the beauty of the film, but I think the beauty of the film lies more in its reality, in its logic, however twisted. In the current Rolling Stone, Tarantino states that he is interested in portraying real violence, not cartoon violence. He says this after a story is related regarding Wes Craven walking out of Reservoir Dogs because of the violence (a compliment, in Craven's words). The basement scene, especially due to "the gimp," seems to function as a novelty, a cheap trick to trigger the gag reflex. Maybe I'll change my mind. This analysis just springs from me imagining the film without that scene and liking my imagined version better. Though of course I thought the film was brilliant as it was. thanks denis hennelly