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
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?
9DFL
This movie's premise-a prisoner and outsider falling in love- may normally turn many people off. Surprisingly, is well-scripted, wonderfully filmed (some of the best camera shots and angles I've ever seen, and exceptionally well-performed. Julia Ormond, who I normally don't much care for, was wonderful. Tim Roth, as usual, blew me away. It remains one of the few movies I can watch repeatedly.
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 probably wouldn't have rented it if I realized it was a woman having an affair with a prisoner, so I'm glad I didn't know that or I would have missed out on this very good movie. As it was, it turned out to be more of what I expected - two people who had been drawn together by sexual chemistry being bonded together from a shared adversity. And the sexual chemistry and tension between Roth and Ormond (or, technically, their characters as portrayed by the two excellent actors) is very strong. This is one hot movie, and it manages to be so with no nudity (although, it does have a sex scene). The movie also keeps tension throughout by showing various people noticing them. That way, you really can't be sure who their future threat will be.
This is a movie that I really enjoyed. It was well written and very intense. Although the idea of a prison romance could have been a turn-off, in this film you feel compassion for the characters who are portrayed by these two fabulous actors. Julia Ormond was wonderful, and Tim Roth was HOT! I definitely have a thing for him, I think he is so sexy, not only is he a talented actor, but he also has this quality that makes him so attractive. If you feel the same way I do, or you like Julia Ormond, or if your just looking for a good movie with suspense and talented actors, then you will like this movie.
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