Tad Pole . . . THAT would be news in America, because our more religious folk would want the resulting embryos locked up as "bad seed" in their state penitentiary. On this side of the Atlantic we've always known that there is no minimum age for EVIL. Everyone reads Ray Bradbury's creepy short story, "The Small Assassin," in school. Everyone has seen THE OMEN. Everyone knows about the lethal Flint Kindergartner (a classmate dissed him, so the next day--with "premeditation"--he brought his uncle's gun to school and shot her dead). America switched to executing citizens by lethal injection because Five-Year-Olds didn't fit in the electric chair. Only in a naive country such as England would a film maker waste 82 minutes of screen time debating how long to punish a sex maniac responsible for a torture\mutilation murder committed at age 11. Even if the Perp were 5 years old, all of us Yankees can hear Nancy Grace, Jane Velez Mitchell, and every other TV Wise Woman screaming in our ear "Till Hell freezes over!" If any Americans besides me are lured into viewing ABDUCTED: KIDNAPPED AND BRUTALIZED, they will marvel at how quaintly old-fashioned the English are, debating issues we and most of the world settled in the 1600s.

David Starr 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.

ewoker2001 From the start Victims draws you into a dark question about truth, sowing a seed of doubt in the mind of the watcher. John Bocelli plays the part of the "victim", wrongly accused, very well, unwavering throughout most of the film leading the watcher to question the validity of the kidnapping. The way the film has been shot – in one continuous take leads you along with the story nicely, building up the suspense as to what will happen when they reach their destination. The confrontation between Nina Millns and John Bocelli is very well acted and asks the question – what would you do? How would you react? All through the film the cold calm exterior of Sarah Coyle, the kidnapper, holds except for one brief interaction with Nina Millns, showing us a glimpse of humanity under the detached persona. The final confrontation between Sharon Lawrence, Bradley Cole and John Bocelli allows us to see the true "victims" in this piece and is done with feeling and depth. The whole story carries you along easily from the first shot - preparing the camera - to the final scene - as the van doors close. Victims is a film that makes you ask questions about human nature – justice and injustice. How would you handle it?

Christian I had little expectation as I screened the World Premiere at Montreal FantAsia Film Festival. As the slow-paced story played out however, I got everything I could ask for from a low budget thriller. It is thought-provocative, nuanced, different and brings out tension and emotions satisfyingly while still leaving unanswered questions.David Bryant wrote a solid screenplay, got some actors to rehearse between them and add their take to the story and then basically filmed three long takes theatre-style, only with a cameraman as an eye-witness participant, in three days in a unique location. He put his own money to create the film on ultra-low budget and had actors and DP to opt for a later profit-sharing scheme to minimize upfront cost. Yes, this film was created with less than 3000$. David later joked that his plane ticket to Montreal was the now the biggest cost he had to incur.Budget consideration aside, this movie lacks nothing. The one-take and some time jerky camera serve the story and make you feel the immediacy and intimacy of the characters. There are a few welcomed surprised, but the story stays in the grey spectrum (like the colour correction) the whole time. We are left with a lot to ponder and discuss.Special thanks to David for sharing his thoughts and experience in the Q&A and outside the theatre in an informal discussion of this fine piece of art.