Rapt (2009)

Sadly Over-hyped

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

The outline on the main page gives the guts of this story, apparently based upon a true-life event. Perhaps it was, but this story is as much a well-constructed thriller as it is a character study of various powerful people, particularly the victim of the kidnapping, Stan Graff (Yvan Attal) who is gradually revealed to be a thoroughly unpleasant business mogul, concerned only with his own self, his pleasures…and his dog.In a quick series of opening vignettes, we see Stan at a hurried business lunch, thence to an apartment for a quick tryst with a woman (the clichéd lover every French male seems to have), then to a darkened room where he and others are playing poker, then to home to greet his wife and daughters, then to a solitary inner sanctum to be with his dog while he rests in solitary splendor.The next morning, he is kidnapped, whisked away to a remote, rural location where he is held, blindfolded most of the time, and brutalized physically and mentally.His wife, Francoise (Anne Consigny), at first is shown as a dutiful wife and mother; but, as the plot develops to reach the climax, she shows how little she truly cared about Stan's ordeal at the hands of kidnappers. Equally, Stan's daughters (played by Julie Kaye and Sarah Messens) show themselves to be more concerned with their mother or themselves.Stan's business associates and so-called friends also bring similar attitudes to bear. When things get tough for them as they try to keep the company running, while Stan is held to ransom, the financial aspects of the company and its survival gradually predominate. Add to that mix are the revelations about Stan's infidelities and gambling debts that begin to surface in the press.All in all, the film is therefore a study of what type of character lies beneath all the facades when emotions, needs and tensions run amok. Ironically, one of the most sympathetic characters is the kidnapper-in-charge – the only person who tries to make Stan's ordeal less terrifying that it could have been; although, it's terrifying enough for most viewers.As expected, the production is classy, faultless, well-paced (although some will disagree), appropriately suspenseful and thoroughly entertaining. The scenes containing the police action, reaction, re-planning and shadowing of kidnappers attempting to pick up the ransom are riveting.It's the ending, though, that will puzzle many, enrage others or, like myself, raise the possibility of an entirely different interpretation to the one that seems to be the case. Watching and listening carefully to what is done and said will reveal for you, I think, what truly happened. If you see the movie, you'll know what I mean.Like Anthony Zimmer (2005), in which Yvan Attal also starred, Rapt is another excellent thriller with twists that match, and perhaps surpass the former. So, do yourself a favor and wrap your mind around Rapt. And let us all hope that neither Hollywood nor others try to produce another take.Give this a nine for sure.June 7, 2012

A kidnapping thriller that has a dark noir side, as well as an interesting look at wealth, politics and morality. Throw in a complex family drama and a deeply flawed main character, and you have a familiar situation raised into a well above average film. Visually sharp, suffused with an intense energy, even in the quiet scenes, the kidnapping of super wealthy industrialist Stanislas Graff opens a Pandora's box of questions about the man's lifestyle; his mistresses, his gambling debts, that leave his powerful 'friends' backing away from their desire to pay to get the man back, and makes his steadfast wife question the complacency with which she has accepted how things are. The film makes the very dark point that the kidnappers, while awful and terrifying, in some ways are more honest, direct and even human than the upper-class .1% of the world that Stanislas is usually surrounded by, and is part of himself. There are weaknesses. Some of it gets repetitive, and the ending is intentionally telegraphed (why?) and not very satisfying or thought provoking. Also, in attempting to deal with so many themes, ideas and story threads (cops, the business people, lawyers, the family, the kidnap victim, the kidnappers, etc there isn't much of a chance to really dig beneath the surface of all these very intriguing characters and ideas. Stanislas' daughters, for example, are pretty much ciphers.But still a very worthwhile trip into unsettled, disturbing and questioning darkness.

I think some of my good friends here with the other reviews need to watch the film again. Some, not all.Yes, it's a somewhat slow and quiet film, beautifully shot and acted. Though supposedly of some sort of "thriller" genre it is actually a "thrillingly" excellent character study. Not the sort of example of humanity that is gratifying to see however.The main character's kidnapping and two months in captive isolation are essentially a metaphor for his own solitary confinement in his cold narcissism. He is no less his own prisoner than if he had contrived the kidnapping himself, as the police have reason to suspect.When his wife, and daughters, seek some sort of contact and contrition from him for the fact that his betrayals are now a matter of public disgrace, he quite coldly declares that it is himself alone who deserves pity and solace, and that he will explain to no one. His faithful dog is treated with more affection and care.You would naively think that his "ordeal" would effect some sort of transformation of his personality. Sorry, personalities, especially this kind, do not change so easily. He loses one of his fingers, but otherwise is intact. (Want some cheap symbolism? The finger is gone, but he easily lights up that big cigar of self-indulgence.) He knows, and we know, that the kidnappers have left him with a means not just to satisfy them with his money, but to "do the right thing" in preventing the further violent mayhem they threaten. Innocents will be killed at random. He does have the money: his shares of the company have been sold and his lawyer congratulates him for how extremely wealthy he still is. The kidnappers want their full 50 million.The film ends perfectly, I think. He sits alone in his palatial room on a regal chair, with his cigar. His wife is divorcing him, his daughters have been distanced by his coldness and empty claim of love. The "Calypso" message arrives. He sits. My understanding of his character, as it has been portrayed so consistently, is that he thinks to himself something like "that is no concern of mine."

The movie is very slow moving and I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people gave up on it, being bored and all. And if you expect a high adrenaline thriller, let me tell you: Look elsewhere. You won't find it here for sure.What you will "find", is a movie that cares about characters and is very subtle. Maybe I'm reading things into it, but the sublime and underplayed changes that happened during the course of the movie are just incredible. There is not a big bang or something grandiose happening. It's in the details and the small things (acting and otherwise) that the story continues.If you can bear with it and love it for it, you will be rewarded with a very human drama. A drama that might even stay with you, after you finished watching the movie.