IMDb RATING
6.2/10
2.6K
YOUR RATING
A beautiful young dentist working in a tough British prison starts to become attracted to a violent inmate after the break-up of her marriage, and embarks upon an illicit affair with him, wi... Read allA beautiful young dentist working in a tough British prison starts to become attracted to a violent inmate after the break-up of her marriage, and embarks upon an illicit affair with him, with terrible consequences for all.A beautiful young dentist working in a tough British prison starts to become attracted to a violent inmate after the break-up of her marriage, and embarks upon an illicit affair with him, with terrible consequences for all.
Anthony Keirnan
- Blackie
- (as Anthony Kernan)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Rachel Clifford is a teacher in a dentistry school who starts doing a few days a week in a local prison while breaking up with her husband. It is in this delicate state that she meets prisoner Philip Chaney in the chair. When she meets him again it is in a supermarket she is doing a shop while he is on day release to attend college. From this informal meeting they gain a natural, chatty air and, with neither really understanding why, they start to become close and meet up each time he gets out. However, in the vicious world of prison there are no real secrets and it is only a matter of time before other cons will see this as a chance to manipulate the situation to their advantage.
Although this sounds like it has a terrible plot, it actually works pretty well for the majority of the film. The core relationship that drives the film is convincingly developed and it is only really in the later stages of the film that the need for a dramatic narrative sees things turning away from the small scale and become slightly less convincing. Of course by then I was into the characters and could forgive it but it still didn't sit that easily with me. Of course for some viewers even the relationship side won't work and I can understand why; some will see it as clunky and obvious but for me it worked and it did so for two reasons.
The first reason is the acting. Ormond may have seemed to have dropped off the A-list that she was in during the mid-1990's but here she is great. Her character is just damaged and frail enough to be needy enough to fall in love in such a situation but not to the point where her love seems like a failing. It sounds simple but it isn't and yet Ormond manages to pull it off. Roth is always interesting and he is just as good here. He is dark, hurt, filled with regret and entirely unsure of how to exist in the two worlds (prison and love) at the same time. They go well together and make things a lot more natural than the plot summary would suggest. The second reason is Pope. Her direction is very good and makes the most out of what must have been a modest budget only occasionally does it show that it was a BBC film. She never overdoes stuff to draw emotion from the audience and she lets the actors work well.
Overall this was a good film but one that requires you to accept that you are watching a slow BBC drama rather than a Hollywood tearjerker. The story may not be totally convincing but it is not for the want of trying Pope, Ormond and Roth combine to make this much better than it could have been. Worth seeing for slow development and engaging performances although I wonder how well it sells outside of a UK market more suited to this sort of slow burn stuff.
Although this sounds like it has a terrible plot, it actually works pretty well for the majority of the film. The core relationship that drives the film is convincingly developed and it is only really in the later stages of the film that the need for a dramatic narrative sees things turning away from the small scale and become slightly less convincing. Of course by then I was into the characters and could forgive it but it still didn't sit that easily with me. Of course for some viewers even the relationship side won't work and I can understand why; some will see it as clunky and obvious but for me it worked and it did so for two reasons.
The first reason is the acting. Ormond may have seemed to have dropped off the A-list that she was in during the mid-1990's but here she is great. Her character is just damaged and frail enough to be needy enough to fall in love in such a situation but not to the point where her love seems like a failing. It sounds simple but it isn't and yet Ormond manages to pull it off. Roth is always interesting and he is just as good here. He is dark, hurt, filled with regret and entirely unsure of how to exist in the two worlds (prison and love) at the same time. They go well together and make things a lot more natural than the plot summary would suggest. The second reason is Pope. Her direction is very good and makes the most out of what must have been a modest budget only occasionally does it show that it was a BBC film. She never overdoes stuff to draw emotion from the audience and she lets the actors work well.
Overall this was a good film but one that requires you to accept that you are watching a slow BBC drama rather than a Hollywood tearjerker. The story may not be totally convincing but it is not for the want of trying Pope, Ormond and Roth combine to make this much better than it could have been. Worth seeing for slow development and engaging performances although I wonder how well it sells outside of a UK market more suited to this sort of slow burn stuff.
I saw this film when it came out on British TV in the 1990s and it's remained embedded in my memory ever since. All young Hollywood directors should be contractually obliged to see "Captives" to see what real on-screen chemistry is like: the heat and intensity generated between leads Tim Roth and Julia Ormond just isn't something you see in every modern film, so much so that there were moments when I almost wanted to look away, embarrassed for their intimacy and urgency, shout "get a room!" ah, but there's the rub they can't. He's in prison; she's the visiting prison dentist, and they're caught in an impossible position that there's no easy escape from.
Others here have described the story well, so I won't cover that ground again. But it's exactly the kind of "little" British film I love to watch: when they're good, you're rewarded with an unusually good cast, a decent script and a neat premise that draws you in and grips you. The slightly unconvincing conclusion doesn't detract from how very enjoyable and stirring this film is.
"Captives" illustrates why Tim Roth deserved his reputation as an actor; but I'm sorry not to have seen more of Julia Ormond on screen since the 90s. Is it that she's in that twilight zone of female actresses, who suffer from the lack of good parts for women who don't look twenty years younger than their age?
Others here have described the story well, so I won't cover that ground again. But it's exactly the kind of "little" British film I love to watch: when they're good, you're rewarded with an unusually good cast, a decent script and a neat premise that draws you in and grips you. The slightly unconvincing conclusion doesn't detract from how very enjoyable and stirring this film is.
"Captives" illustrates why Tim Roth deserved his reputation as an actor; but I'm sorry not to have seen more of Julia Ormond on screen since the 90s. Is it that she's in that twilight zone of female actresses, who suffer from the lack of good parts for women who don't look twenty years younger than their age?
Tim Roth never ceases to amaze me with the parts that he plays. He is an "actor's actor". Julia Ormond had some roles in which, I believe, she received unfair unfavorable reviews, here in the states. She is a very talented actress, capable of giving great depth to each performance. Without the experience of working in, and knowing prison systems, this story may seem improbable to some. Having spent some time working at an American prison during graduate schooling, I feel a need to say that it is not at all improbable. I feel that the short synopsis given for this film is not representative of the intention and depth of this creation. Both of the two main characters are in vulnerable personal positions. Their affair is one that is likely enhanced by the potential threat to her job and his upcoming parole. However, the actual relationship these two people establish, is so tender, touching and truly intimate. The trap that develops around them is frightening for them both. But it is this, that brings out each one's absolute need to protect one another, thereby cementing their bond and making them "captives", each to the other's heart. This is a film that I can watch over and over again, even in one evening. I highly recommend it.
I just got finished viewing Captives and I liked it A lot. I guess it was Tim Roth's interaction with Ormond that drew me in and stopped me from switching channels. A lot of dialogue was spoken not with words, but with expressions. And the more I think about it, the more I feel the movie kept a constant level of tension throughout. As for believability, I know love can be blind, having been in love myself and that thought, for me, kept the movie alive. I give it a big thumb's up.
Even if you're not a fan of the great Tim Roth, "Captives" is a must see film. The story draws you in, along with the strong believable performances by Roth and Julia Ormond. The strong chemistry between those two is electric - you can literally feel the sparks. Bittersweet and touching, but also suspenseful. Be sure to check out this drama.
Did you know
- GoofsRachael closes a door after removing a metal box, but it is shown open soon after.
- Quotes
Sue: What do you really know about him?
Rachel Clifford: I know that he doesn't wear dentures.
- ConnectionsEdited into Screen Two: Captives (1996)
- How long is Captives?Powered by Alexa
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content