Review: Captivity
Filed under: Horror, New Releases, Lionsgate Films, Theatrical Reviews, New in Theaters
.jpg)
I'm so annoyed that I have to pan Captivity, the horror film we've been hearing about forever that's finally arrived in theaters. The reason I'm annoyed is because I'm a fan of horror, the more extreme the better, and I couldn't be less on the same page as the Nikki Finkes of the world, who think that even working for a publicity firm that does business on behalf of a film like Captivity makes one morally bankrupt. So let me reiterate: I'm not one of those critics who would slam a horror film for being horrifying. I could conceivably write a glowing review of a movie where the lead actress is gang-raped by a group of angry coal miners, gives birth to a two-headed rape baby, and then is forced to eat that baby moments after delivering it. What I can't get on board with is directorial incompetence, which Captivity is, sadly, overflowing with. A retarded gorilla with nervous bowel syndrome could have done a better job of directing this film than double Oscar-nominee Roland Joffe, it seems.
The film drops us into its situation with next to no foreplay: a popular actress/model named Jennifer Tree (Elisha Cuthbert) is kidnapped during a night out at a club. An unknown party slips something into her drink, she stumbles into an out of the way area, and the next thing we see is her waking up in a makeshift jail cell that's presumably located in the kidnapper's basement. A lot of torture follows -- editing-room torture. Someone was clearly worried that audiences would be bored by extended takes of a woman sitting alone in isolation, so the movie makes the most awkward jumps forward in time, going from having Cuthbert's character being alone in her cell to being suddenly strapped to a gurney while a hooded figure walks around her in circles, ominously. Important information is lost in the cuts, like where the kidnapper is coming from, and what avenues of escape that could present the heroine. The film is so devoid of establishing shots that we have to accept the torture scenes on a nightmare level.
The tortures inflicted on Cuthbert are elaborate, but never really life-threatening or injurious, except to the psyche. At one point, she is made to watch as the kidnapper drops severed ears and eyeballs into a blender, making a gore shake, which he then feeds to her through a funnel. Later, she's almost buried alive by a rain of sand from above -- almost. (In fairness, the non-lethal nature of the torture does make sense once the film's secrets are revealed) One thing that's never adequately explained, though, is why the tortures are so sexless -- why would anyone go to the trouble of capturing a gorgeous woman and then keep her fully-clothed? Still, my main complaint about the torture scenes is how poorly staged they are; the jarring cuts and non-existent pacing allow no opportunity for dread to build up in the audience and the whole thing telegraphs itself as the result of some bastard compromise with the MPAA -- "we'll shoot all this horrible stuff, but we'll shoot it so incompetently the audience won't really know what they're seeing."
The plot moves forward a bit when Cuthbert discovers that another cell adjoins hers, with another captive in it. A pane of crudded-up glass separates them, and they have to scratch away the crud the same way you'd scratch off a McDonald's game piece for a chance at free French fries. Once they are able to see into each other's rooms, this provides opportunities for 'boo moments' as the kidnapper suddenly appears in one or the other's cell, allowing one person to yell and scream while the other is menaced. It's during this part of the film that we get the biggest directorial screw-up: after one of the characters is strapped to a gurney and has a wisdom tooth forcibly removed, the film immediately -- immediately -- cuts to a scene of the two captives having sex. Huh? Did I miss about fifteen minutes of the film somewhere? Shouldn't one of these people be writhing in agony on the floor, spitting blood and cursing the day they were born? Could someone please go back and actually direct this movie?
The third act is a litany of yawn-worthy cliches, from the gun that doesn't work when it's inconvenient and then works when it needs to, to the one where a diminutive female physically kicks the ass of a muscular man who towers over her. I fear that particular one isn't going to go away anytime soon, even though it never gets any less ridiculous. Eventually, the movie ends and you're left to assess the damage. As far as Cuthbert goes, I've always thought she was an interesting actress and the movie doesn't really do anything to lessen my opinion of her, but no actress can overcome directorial sabotage, and it has to be said that for most of the film, she comes across as confused about exactly what's going on as we are. You can't blame her for that. As for Joffe, he should be demoted to production assistant. Captivity was interesting as a phenomenon -- the marketing gurus behind the film should have a long and interesting career ahead of them -- but as a film, it's borderline-unacceptable.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-14-2007 @ 10:31AM
John said...
"I could conceivably write a glowing review of a movie where the lead actress is gang-raped by a group of angry coal miners, gives birth to a two-headed rape baby, and then is forced to eat that baby moments after delivering it."
You are one sick bastard!
As to the coal miners, just because they work in a subterranean and dirty environment does not make them "mole people" or mutants. It's amazing how bigoted and condescending some critics can be to others while enjoying the the labors of those they deemed their social inferiors.
Reply
7-14-2007 @ 11:11AM
Sam G. said...
Mmmm ..... babies sure are tasty.
Reply
7-14-2007 @ 11:44AM
Gilbert Davis said...
You said "The film drops us into its situation with next to no foreplay" - I don't need to say anything more to illustrate the nature of Torture Porn and the people like yourself who enjoy it. It's torture, it's porn. It's Torture porn! These things should receive a triple X rating and the police need to be at the door taking pictures of every pervert who goes in to see them so they have a place to start investigating the next time a young girl or young woman is missing in their towns. Here's hoping this thing and the people involved tank the same way Roth did.
Reply
7-14-2007 @ 2:29PM
Michael J said...
What ever happened to the OUTSTANDING Horror thrillers that DOnt need torture and rape to scare the hell out of you? The Japan made horror flicks are the Holy Grail of how WE should be making a horror movie. They can go on forever and scare the wits out of you by just showing a 5 year old in white make up and a young woman that just looks at you with them eyes and growls...YIKES !!! Hope we go in that direction soon... Enough with the cut em up and rape em movies. MAKE ME SCARED... BTW, I LOVE
Elisha Cuthbert , Wish she was put in with a director that cared about the outcome of a true horror movie... Maybe 1 day... Michael J
Reply
7-14-2007 @ 5:48PM
QuoterGal said...
"One thing that's never adequately explained, though, is why the tortures are so sexless -- why would anyone go to the trouble of capturing a gorgeous woman and then keep her fully-clothed?"
That must have been horrible for you.
And I think Gilbert Davies, who comments above, has got it right about how revealing this remark is - no matter how tongue-in-cheek or "ironic" you may think it is:
"The film drops us into its situation with next to no foreplay..."
The movie does indeed sound horribly written, and abysmally directed and cut, but that you are unable to grasp its essential misogyny and attempted torture-titillation as moral bankruptcy and yet one more expression of our culture's cycle of violence and misogyny makes me shiver for humankind.
Yet the fact that so far most of the comments above really GET that - and that those comments are written by men - makes me somewhat hopeful again. I just hope that there's more of them than there are of you.
Reply
7-15-2007 @ 2:53AM
Vern said...
Thanks for this review. I thought the movie looked crappy despite the weird Roland Joffe/Larry Cohen pedigree. But that Nikki Finke column and years of pent-up anti so-called torture porn hysteria like the comments above almost had me wanting to see it just as a fuck you to all these nitwits who don't watch or understand horror movies but feel the need to pen essays against the things they imagine happen in them based on the advertisements they see.
News flash: there really is such a thing as torture porn, but it is not a horror movie, it is a type of porn where people are tortured, available in the "bondage" section of every adult video store in the country. If people were really going to see, say, HOSTEL to get off on the torture, they would be SORELY disappointed since most of the movie is spent building up to and then escaping from and avenging the torture.
I assumed CAPTIVITY most likely was bad but that there would be no way of knowing based on the reviews, since even if it was the 2001 of horror movies most critics would have no idea and would say it was shit. WOLF CREEK is a pretty good precedent - one of the local critics admitted that she walked out half way through, and Roger Ebert (who I like) gave it zero stars, and then I saw it and it was one of the better horror movies of recent years, very well executed and completely tame compared to the nightmarish HENRY PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER times a thousand these people were describing. And of course what I thought were two major problems in the movie (the anti-climactic ending and the unnecessarily explanatory scene where she finds the killer's collection of camcorders) were never mentioned in any of the numerous outraged reviews I read, because they didn't even notice.
But your review, because of the first paragraph, I trust. I can see you're coming from where I am. So thank you.
Reply
7-15-2007 @ 12:25PM
Frankenfish said...
Michael J, there are plenty of good horror films being made that don't rely on torture. They aren't that hard to find really.
This movie looks like a piece of shit and the publicity given to the marketing campaign gives it more credit than it deserves. If people think this movie is sick and depraved then they haven't really watched any movies that are truly sick and depraved. This movie does not do anything that hasn't been done decades before and thousands of times over.
Reply
7-15-2007 @ 7:57PM
Alex said...
"...a diminutive female physically kicks the ass of a muscular man who towers over her. I fear that particular one isn't going to go away anytime soon, even though it never gets any less ridiculous."
No more ridiculous than Rambo, John McClane, or any of the other dozens of male heroes who do equally ridicluous feats of superhuman death-dealing. Get over it.
Reply
7-16-2007 @ 3:17AM
Sumara said...
"I could conceivably write a glowing review of a movie where the lead actress is gang-raped by a group of angry coal miners, gives birth to a two-headed rape baby, and then is forced to eat that baby moments after delivering it. "
What a disgustingly unnecessary thing to say. Are you writing a film review, or playing games with your own crazy plot ideas? I'm appalled.
And unfortunately I'm becoming more and more disappointed by the day at the quality of the writing on here. Cinematical used to be a great site.
Reply
7-16-2007 @ 12:58PM
Derek said...
Bravo, Ryan. Your first paragraph makes an excellent point. The people who automatically hate a movie based on its content, rather than its quality, need to grow up. There were a lot of horrific things in Schindler's List. That didn't stop it from being a great film. I'm sure somewhere out there a woman has been raped by a group of angry coal miners, and maybe someday there will be a great movie about it. No story should be "off limits" in a free country.
Reply