I've been keeping an eye on developments in the UK and there's been a definite shift in independent film of late as a handful of writer/directors try to usher in a new perspective of what Brit flick actually stands for. The creative force behind Abducted: Kidnapped and Brutalised (David Bryant), the US release title, has delivered a taught, claustrophobic 'why-dunnit' with minimal cast, minimal locations, and a dialogue heavy script that is unsettling, threatening, and malevolently violent beneath the obvious captivity of the protagonist of the story. Clearly shot digitally it makes use of available lighting and minimal set requirements, very low budget certainly, but not without a flair and passion that many filmmakers with more of everything: more money, more equipment resources, bigger crews, and more production backing are sadly devoid of. Just goes to show what can be done with a solid script and a heap of natural talent.
*SPOILERS* Chris McMahon is kidnapped on his wedding day by a gang of masked assailants, bound, gagged, beaten, and dumped into the back of a transit van before being driven away to an isolated location prior to what seems like an execution. On the journey to the place of his ultimate demise he is interrogated by two of the gang members who lay out the reasons for the abduction. Despite constant proclamation of his innocence (relating to a rape he apparently committed when he was 11 on a girl of 4)the gang members seem reluctant to believe anything but a full and frank confession fro m the man they think him to be, a bloke called Neil. How this story plays out, with beat downs, blindfolds, gags,, and the threat of death, is carefully choreographed with a final confrontation involving Chris' new wife , the kidnappers, and him - the level of expectation rises exponentially to a thrilling climax.
Shot, as I said, digitally, what makes this thriller a little unusual apart from all the stuff mentioned, is the fact it is broken down into only 3 x single and very long takes, almost documentary style, as if the resultant tape is some kind of rudimentary confession evidence. It's a clever set up and the execution is very good. It isn't perfect by any stretch of imagination but neither would the filmmakers claim it to be. It is supposed to be rough and ready - it's being made by the kidnappers (1st PPOV throughout suggest another kidnapper recording the action) after all. That said however it is a very accomplished piece of storytelling and deserves a viewing. It is released in US as Abducted: Kidnapped and Abused, though I have to say the original Brit title "Victims" was much better and alluded to a wider impact - many victims (as the story finally reveals)- although I have heard that other titles are being considered including "79 Minutes" which I absolutely hate as an idea. It means nothing. There are great performances across the board from the small cast, none of whom are well known faces from cinema or TV as far as I can gather. But they all deliver on point and do both themselves and the film huge justice.
So, if you're tired of the usual gangster, hooligan, zombie fare of British independent cinema and want to watch something that is unsettling rather than horrific, and is right out of left field, try Abducted: Kidnapped and Brutalised. The cover art is misleading, because it isn't brutal (not physically that is) in a Hostel or Saw kind of way that audiences seem to expect these days. And it certainly isn't a "Captivity" either - but then on the sort of low budget this film was made on it was never trying to be a reflection or homage to any of those anyways.
*SPOILERS* Chris McMahon is kidnapped on his wedding day by a gang of masked assailants, bound, gagged, beaten, and dumped into the back of a transit van before being driven away to an isolated location prior to what seems like an execution. On the journey to the place of his ultimate demise he is interrogated by two of the gang members who lay out the reasons for the abduction. Despite constant proclamation of his innocence (relating to a rape he apparently committed when he was 11 on a girl of 4)the gang members seem reluctant to believe anything but a full and frank confession fro m the man they think him to be, a bloke called Neil. How this story plays out, with beat downs, blindfolds, gags,, and the threat of death, is carefully choreographed with a final confrontation involving Chris' new wife , the kidnappers, and him - the level of expectation rises exponentially to a thrilling climax.
Shot, as I said, digitally, what makes this thriller a little unusual apart from all the stuff mentioned, is the fact it is broken down into only 3 x single and very long takes, almost documentary style, as if the resultant tape is some kind of rudimentary confession evidence. It's a clever set up and the execution is very good. It isn't perfect by any stretch of imagination but neither would the filmmakers claim it to be. It is supposed to be rough and ready - it's being made by the kidnappers (1st PPOV throughout suggest another kidnapper recording the action) after all. That said however it is a very accomplished piece of storytelling and deserves a viewing. It is released in US as Abducted: Kidnapped and Abused, though I have to say the original Brit title "Victims" was much better and alluded to a wider impact - many victims (as the story finally reveals)- although I have heard that other titles are being considered including "79 Minutes" which I absolutely hate as an idea. It means nothing. There are great performances across the board from the small cast, none of whom are well known faces from cinema or TV as far as I can gather. But they all deliver on point and do both themselves and the film huge justice.
So, if you're tired of the usual gangster, hooligan, zombie fare of British independent cinema and want to watch something that is unsettling rather than horrific, and is right out of left field, try Abducted: Kidnapped and Brutalised. The cover art is misleading, because it isn't brutal (not physically that is) in a Hostel or Saw kind of way that audiences seem to expect these days. And it certainly isn't a "Captivity" either - but then on the sort of low budget this film was made on it was never trying to be a reflection or homage to any of those anyways.