Rapt (2009)

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

'RAPT' is a nasty and effective French thriller, although the nastiest moment comes early on and is subsequently not trumped. A rather unlikeable millionaire businessman is kidnapped; the film follows both his ordeal, and also the response of his family and associates. There are some thriller conventions here, particularly the slightly unbelievable professionalism of the kidnappers, but it's an effective movie nonetheless: tense and fast-moving, but also an interesting exploration of what might happen when someone loses all control of the narrative of their own life (and to wit, someone who has been used to doing exactly what he wants). I'm not sure there's any moral here, beyond the general unpleasantness of mankind (and more particularly, the rich), but the film not only entertains, but does so in an intelligent and provocative way.

The players, the family, the business men, the politicians, the kidnappers, the police, the solicitor and of course, the victim. All with agendas, all seeking resolution and some seeking personal gain. Was the kidnapping the sole motivation? Was the avarice and greed of the business associates a prime motive? Were the family really the ideal family unit?Ans, none of the questions were answered. The wife's disdain for the apartment, the police motivation for showing it to her, all contribute to an ending that seeks more answers.The collapse of the kidnapping, Stan's business position, the police case and the kidnappers' demands. If it was his own doing would the "calypso" note have appeared? For the French, the affairs of the heart are common place. the younger daughter's manner through out the episode. Did the family love the man or the riches and life style? The complex but seemingly simple plot lines gave way to a multitude of questions and who would most benefit from the escapade? Who was responsible?

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."

Yes, it is a great film. Very interesting, and solid characters. I can't understand how someone opined that he felt no identity with any characters and feels shortchanged that the ending was not complete. Hell if I can understand people who write their comments like their opinion rules and nothing else matters.Anyway, I was looking for some kid of conspiracy, something conclusive, but the director left something else and I have to deal with that.So, I have a question; do you think he is intending to commit suicide, or let the chips fall as they will as he can't pay the kidnappers since he relinquished all control of his funds and has nothing (am I right about this?).I think, in a more normal film, he would commit suicide, as dealing with the public with anything that will happen will be a disaster. I do think that is what he is going to do, as that is the only way he could be remembered as honourable. Or he could be thinking of a plan to return to the head of the company by blaming the board for what they did, but I do not think that would work. What do you all think?