Territoires

The film tells the story of five friends who are stopped by two border guards. Typical border questions turns into humiliation. They are then kidnapped, held in cages and tortured. Turns out they are ex-soldiers and they think the innocent friends are terrorists.

The first 50 mins or so of the film is a decent horror film. But then it turns into a moral story about Guantanamo Bay and torture and the film loses the plot. I lost interest and have no idea what the private detective had to do with the plot. I also flicked to the end and have no idea what happened to the friends.

Its a shame as the film does start out as a decent horror torture film but it feels like they changed direction and tried to justify the film. I think this ruined it as it was very well acted and had good suspension and effects.

It's always interesting when one takes a genre like horror, or horror-porn and uses it to address larger themes and social issues. It doesn't always work, but when it does, as it does here (and even better in Aleksey Balabanov's far more horrific, but also more complex "Cargo 200") it can be a potent use of cinema.

A group of young Americans returning from Canada are kidnapped by a pair of ex-soldiers dressed as border guards. These men were in Iraq and at Guantanimo and want to continue the torture and 'information gathering' they were part of as soldiers. So in the name of protecting the country, they lock up and torture these kids, largely because the driver of the kids' 4x4 has an Arab name.

And soon you realize, given the number of innocents it's now acknowledged were (and probably still are) locked up among the 'real bad guys' in the war against terror, that this nightmare isn't very far from real ones that real people are going through right now in the name of national security.

Surprisingly well acted for the budget and genre, as well as nicely shot, this certainly has moments where it shows its roots as low budget horror. There are awkward scenes, and forced bits of exposition. Logic gets stretched (but not too absurdly) at times. But it's not really all that gory (despite the allusions to 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' on the video box), and it's most effective terror is caused by tension and fear about what might happen, rather than any blood and guts you see.

Among other things, this is an interesting examination of what happens to borderline personalities who are given permission by their country to torture in the name of good. Will these people be able to let go of the monsters we willingly unleashed inside them?

When I read the synopsis of this movie I was so excited to see it. The concept just seemed so interesting and original.

It starts off with a kick, within minutes I was feeling the uneasiness that this movie is meant to inflict.

Most of the actors are phenomenal, it's when I see movies like this that I don't understand how Hollywood can't cast better actors 90% of the time.

The movie keeps a good steady pace, I wasn't bored at any point. Which is a feat considering my minuscule attention span.

It was such a great movie until there was about 20 minutes left in the film. It takes a strange turn. I can't say much without giving it away. But when you see it you'll understand what I mean.

I completely suggest it because other than that it's great. And who knows? You may like the ending more than me.

How this has a score of 5.0 on here is beyond a joke. The first 25 mins or so were quite good with an interesting premise but then it just went completely downhill. Everything just seemed completely pointless and is never really explained. And the ending was, well, I don't know what is was but it made no sense whatsoever. The acting, music and camera-work were competent enough but the whole film seemed like it had just been made up as they went along. If you're going to make a film, at least start by having a point to it, this one didn't. So if you are looking for something interesting or exciting then avoid this one like the plague. It left me feeling cheated and quite depressed.

Oddly enough, the bad reviews on this site were what enticed me to actually watch the film. Besides the first review by Coventry, which had some constructive criticism and actually compared this film with others within its genre, the reviews all took issue with the episodic quality of the films plot. It seems that they haven't been introduced to the concept of art cinema - a mode of film practice which subverts and breaks from classical filmic conventions like continuity editing, and strict causal relations between narrative events, instead focusing on the psychological depth of its characters and the "everyday" realism of disjointed, unrelated events. This film definitely shows various qualities of the art cinema, especially its episodic structure and focus on character psychology. I found the plot intriguing and despite what some of the other reviewers said, I think that the introduction of the private detective was not arbitrary but actually contributed to the creation of the expectation that the tortured would be rescued. By building this character who can sympathize with the families of the missing, as he has ostensibly lost his own daughter, the director effectively takes the audience out of the roll of victim-by-proxy and into rescuer-by-proxy. This is clever because by the time this plot line is introduced, the viewer has become frustrated with the course of events (as trapped in them as the tortured) and the detective becomes the voice for the audience, while also giving them a view onto the other side of the tragedy of kidnapping/forcible confinement.

As for the ending ... I cannot believe that one of the previous reviewers complained about the fact that the ending did not gesture to a sequel. I'm sorry bud, but sequels did not exist before the late 80s early 90s and the dawn of the multiplex theater. I also disagree with the suggestion that the film doesn't allow the audience to interpret the final events in any way that they wish - because that is exactly what the ambiguous ending does. The lack of closure makes it the viewers responsibility to interpret the ending in whatever way that they can.

Overall, the film was esthetically pleasing and definitely generated the reactions thrillers are supposed to. Maybe for Coventry the film is just another in a long line of psychopath/kidnapping/torture stories, but I have seen few which are as dedicated to the art of film and not very tangibly grasping at demographics in hopes of being successful. Also I would say that Territories fell well within the range of the independent film mode, and far from that of the B-film - despite its low budget and virtually unknown cast. Definitely a film worth watching - at least for those who can appreciate films which reveal their artifice by making the viewer think.