tomq5p

First let me comment on the film's presentation. It was well-crafted from an editing/cinematography/graphics point of view. It looked far better than, for example, a Robert Greenwald documentary. It was woven together well and easy to watch.

The content was decent, but I felt that the reasons for invading Iraq were ignored while the film focused on individual people's mistakes as far as military strategy was concerned. If certain companies didn't have an economic interest in that region, the war never would have occurred in the first place, so motivations, to me, are a pretty important detail that many movies about the war seem to be leaving out.

While this film did provide an inside look at the lead-up to the war and Paul Bremer's atrocious handling of the occupation, I felt that it completely glossed over the massive profits that have been made in Iraq by U.S. companies (see the Iraq chapters in Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine").

Halliburton and a host of other U.S. companies have made a killing there while the Iraqi people continue to suffer. The true story of the war (and the hidden rationale for the war), which this movie hardly discussed, is the fact that it was a coordinated attempt to give U.S. companies access to a massive, untapped economic market. Oil reserves, reconstruction projects, and privatized warfare have the potential to be incredibly profitable.

In the past, U.S. companies had no access to these markets, due, in part, to the strict U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The companies that stood to benefit from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the destabilization of Iraq (a.k.a. the opening of an untouched new market) used their money and influence to produce think tank policy papers and talking heads that supported the invasion of Iraq. In fact, many members of the Bush administration, who are (or were) on the government's payroll, refused to divest themselves of their shares in the very companies that would go on to make outrageous profits in Iraq. They were well aware that this constituted a conflict of interest, but when asked to choose between their government posts and their money, they simply refused (or engaged in some "fuzzy math" shenanigans). So, the people who created the war directly benefited from it and it is in their interest to perpetuate it as long as there is money to be made.

From "The Shock Doctrine":

"The fact that Cheney still maintains such a quantity of Halliburton shares means that, throughout his term as vice president, he has collected millions every year in dividends from his stocks and has also been paid an annual deferred income by Halliburton of $211,000— roughly equivalent to his government salary. When he leaves office in 2009 and is able to cash in his Halliburton holdings, Cheney will have the opportunity to profit extravagantly from the stunning improvement in Halliburton's fortunes. The company's stock price rose from $10 before the war in Iraq to $41 three years later—a 300 percent jump, thanks to a combination of soaring energy prices and Iraq contracts, both of which flow directly from Cheney's steering the country into war with Iraq. "

Or, put more simply by Boots Riley of The Coup: "War ain't about one land against the next; it's poor people dying so the rich cash checks."

Let me start off by saying that there are definitely better horror films out there than "Captivity." "The Descent," "Vacancy," and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" all come to mind. "Captivity" isn't a brilliant re-definition of the genre (i.e. it doesn't achieve what "Scream" did). However, it's still enjoyable if you are a fan of horror—namely 21st century horror.

The acting in the movie is reasonably good, especially for a horror film. Elisha Cuthbert is adequate in her role as a successful model who suddenly finds herself captive. The other actors are also decent.

The plot is somewhat formulaic, including all the requisite corny horror movie moments, but there are some interesting twists as well. On thing that I liked was the long stretch of the movie, after the initial setup, which had no dialogue.

The editing and timeline of the film are strange. It is unclear how long Cuthbert's character is in captivity. Also, there are periodic fades to black that seem out of place (although they might be there to convey the passage of time).

I was able to predict many things in the movie long before they happened, but it was still fun to see them unfold. Of course, there are tons of unrealistic and logically questionable scenes. The one that sticks out in my memory is when Cuthbert's character scratches something on a window and it isn't backwards on the other side.

As some other users have said, if you can suspend your disbelief, you will probably have a good time, even if you slap your forehead once in a while. If you are like me, you will be wondering why Roland Joffé chose to make this movie as the end credits are rolling.

I wanted to like this movie, but I didn't. It was simply too low budget to be enjoyable. The acting was generally pretty bad and the story was relatively formulaic.

There was a smattering of funny one-liners (most of which involved the word "basically"), but not nearly enough to get me through the 70 minutes without checking my watch.

Of course, as a film geek, I appreciated the references to lesser known directors and films. In fact, I would have loved it if that aspect of the film was played up. Instead, we get to see a corny pseudo-romance unfold and watch countless "Napoleon Dynamite" wannabe jokes fall flat.

The film doesn't work because the acting and storyline are subpar and the protagonist is a caricature who is far too one-dimensional to be even remotely believable. However, the cinematography is decent for a movie that seems to have been made for about $1000. The music wasn't too bad either.

If someone edited this down to only the obscure film references (which would probably run about 10 minutes), it would be funnier and much more digestible.

I wouldn't even recommend this one to cinephiles.

3 out of 10