-

The "torture-porn" subgenre is in serious need of some new blood. "Hostel: Part II" did shit at the box office, and "Saw IV," though still an overperformer, was the lowest grossing entry since the first. Enter Roland Joffe's "Captivity." If there was ever a horror film that fully embodied the traits of the shunned older/younger brother - screaming for attention by doing everything in its power in which to get it - "Captivity" is certainly it. Twisted for the sake of being twisted and gross for the sake of being gross, I'd dare say Joffe's down 'n' dirty little ditty is, however, far more effective at times than those two gross-out franchises I've made mention of only moments ago.

Essentially, "Captivity" is a one trick pony. The only reason one should or could want to see this film is because of its startlingly harrowing "torture" sequences, and perhaps torture isn't the right word. Some may label it torture, but I'm not talking overt physical torture in the "Hostel"/"Saw" sense as much as I'm referring to more subtle, mental torture. Kill your dog or I kill you, for example. Or even force-feeding the protagonist small, severed ligaments and various pieces of intestinal matter - after mixing them in a blender - through a funnel. The actions taken against our lead and their very unusual nature will stick with you long after the movie is over.

Most impressive about "Captivity," if not the unusual nature of the film, is Roland Joffe's direction. His visuals are rather unique at times, other times intensely atmospheric, creating both a perfect sense of tangible ambience and dread throughout. I vibed to the dark brown and grey sets as well. The filters did an excellent job of conveying a morbid tone and, if nothing else, Joffe, and also his DP, did a bang-up job of relaying mood. Thankfully, Joffe sees fit to take a few moments here and there to explore Cuthbert's character a bit as well and I appreciated that. Do not be mistaken though, "Captivity" clocks in at a brief 89 minutes - leaving little room for exposition - as the film firmly centers itself around its bitter, violent content more than any sort of realistic character development.

Acting is always a tough call in a film of this nature. The performances, as they are here, are rather bland and forgettable. Elisha Cuthbert does well enough, but there were times where I was pulled out of the illusion by some of her rather questionable actions (her character is supposed to be scared shitless but finds time to fix her hair). Daniel Gillies is decent enough when playing "quiet," so to speak, but when it’s time to get those emotions going, he’s utterly laughable. I haven't seen overacting like that in ages. I was impressed, though, by the very likeable Pruitt Taylor Vince. The man was born to be an actor and, even in his very small role, he proves it undeniably.

I've heard some call "Captivity" one of the worst movies of all time. Granted, it doesn't have much of a point, nor a reason for existing, but its mean streak and horribly grotesque sequences of "torture" will surely shock some. That's all this film aims to do, really; shock. I've seen better acting, certainly, but in a modern release, there are few movies that will go this far this often. I don't know about you, but this is how I like my movies - mean and to-the-point. "Captivity" isn't for everybody, but supporters of the "torture-porn" subgenre will find something worth liking.