3096 Jours

Repetitive? Yes, definately! Because being kidnapped for 3096 days is something repetitive. If you expect Hollywood dramatizations, no, this is not that film. This film looks very simple at the surface, but deep inside holds very good character development and feelings. Acting is superior, the small actress as Natasha surprises with her performance. Older Natasha is also acted very well. But the real star is the director, creating a simple bir very impressive movie.

I came to this movie having read Natascha Kampusch's book of the same name, and watched a documentary about the case.

In it's favour the events depicted in the film are pretty accurate to how they were described in the book. Wolfgang Přiklopil's house and the cell he built are close to how they really were.

But is authenticity enough to make this a good movie? Well, not really.

The film feels very flat, there is very little sense of tension or drama, it's just a plodding retelling of the events.

Thure Lindhardt and Antonia Campbell-Hughes are fine in the roles of Přiklopil and Kampusch. However, some of the other actors are less successful, and it seems as though some of their voices have been re- dubbed?

The main problem with the film is its lack of insight. The film barely explored Kampusch's inner thoughts during the experience, the coping strategies that allowed her to endure the ordeal. And what of Přiklopil? We know nothing really about him, what drove him to do what he did? What happened to him to make him the way he was?

The relationship that developed between Kampusch and Přiklopil was complex. She never lost sight that a crime was being committed and that she had to escape, but she also came to sympathise with him, seeing him as a damaged human being.

Some have said this story shouldn't have been filmed. I don't agree - but I do think it needed to be handled in a different way. Kampusch's story is an extraordinary one, and it really deserved a film that could do it justice.

If you want the full story of what happened, read the book instead.

The fact that this movie is based on a true story, makes it definitely worth watching. I admire the actrice who playes Natascha Kampusch, she really does an amazing job. Also, she got extremely skinny to play this role, which makes it even more credible. The small room where she was held in the film, looks exactly like the real one (yes, I did some research after I watched this). In the mood to feel miserable? You won't regret this one!

Some of the reviews for this film reveal the "blame the victim" mentality held by society towards victims of sex crimes. The hints of blaming the victims echo the usual excuses, that these victims in some way got what they "deserve" for not apparently fighting back, for "letting it happen", and on and on. These rationalizations are some of the worst blows to the victims and conversely one of the greatest supports of the perpetrators.

It is necessary for films like this to be made so the myths and lies of sex slavery are viewed for what the reality is: torture, plain and simple. In one of her newspaper interviews after the film was made, Ms. Kampusch stated that the reality was far worse than the film depicted, so this glimpse into the world of sex slavery was watered down considerably.

I also was glad that there were hints of mysterious behavior from other characters involved in the story who may or may not have been involved in what the Austrian police later publicly claimed may have been the machinations of a pedophile ring, which may have helped this perpetrator abduct and psychologically torture the victim. Too bad this statement from the Austrian police was not included in the film.

I had tracked the progress of this film from its initial stages after the release of the book to the ridiculous speculative casting; Kate Winslet and Scarlett Johansson, two actresses known for being voluptuous playing an emaciated young woman from about preadolescence to young adulthood? Yeah, right! No wonder the film took ages to get going. Unfortunately, it was also delayed because the initial director (Bernd Eichinger) passed away. Hoffman later took over the realms with Eichinger still listed as writer. This type of story was not suitable for maudlin Hollywood Oscar bait treatment and fortunately it didn't go there. It's probably a good thing it was an independent film with obscure indie actors which would help detract the potential glamorization of such a sad sad story.

If you have read the book this film is based on, I would be surprised if you found the film equally insightful. It isn't. The film in spite of its natural limitations of time does not do enough to absorb Natascha's harrowing story. You're pretty much getting a clear-cut version of her ordeal but that's not surprising with most adaptations of real life stories, especially ones that have an important chronology as hers did. This monster robbed her of her youth, and you can't really translate that when you have a grown woman of 30 playing the young teenage version of her.

Having said that, the acting was okay - nothing special. Hughes, to me at age 29-30 does look convincing as a younger person, not sure enough to pass for a young teenager but you will just have to suspend any disbelief. The set and locations I think are relatively well done. There are some scenes that were as I imagined them to be reading the book. The story does stretch the truth more than what Natascha herself was willing to reveal in her book but has implied outside of the book later on. The relationship between kidnapper and captive is very complex - probably not understandable to most people, thankfully. This movie does a predictably mediocre, yet mildly engaging way of portraying this type of relationship.

To be honest, if I just watched the film without actual knowledge of the real-life events that occurred, I would have given it a lower score, but because of my personal interest in Natascha's story, I can't help but say I was interested in the film - to see a visual albeit fictitious representation of what "happened".