Talk:Captivity (film)

message: I just finished watching this movie only minutes ago.
The plot summary as shown in this article is WRONG.
The things mentioned in this article never actually happened in the plot!
This article seems to have been vandalized by someone without a life.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.135.170 (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: The article says, "This film has received an MPAA rating that has never been received to any film in the history of cinema." Besides being poorly written, I don't understand what that statement means. As far as I can tell it has received just an 'R' rating. Does that statement mean that the movie has been given new descriptions for why the rating was assessed?
: Ditto.  Whoever wrote that statement should clarify it, and until they do, I'm deleting it because as it's written, it's not true.  This film has received two ratings so far, an NC-17 (which it's not the first to get, several films have received that rating, the first being Henry and June), and after significant re-editing, it got reduced to an R, which a sizable chunk of today's movies get, especially horror movies.  Oh, some refer to it as having a "hard R" or "heavy R", but that's not a true rating, merely an attempt to educate the movie-going public that this film isn't one that just barely missed the cut-off for a PG-13, it's one that comes in just under the wire of being an NC-17.  If the author is referring to it having some new "content description" (I don't know if the MPAA has a specific name for those standard terms they use to describe why a movie is PG-13, R, etc.) that's never been used before, as I noted, I don't know if the MPAA has a specific term but I can promise you they aren't "ratings" as that would be confusing - R is the movies one and only true rating (in it's current form; NC-17 previously).  Nolefan32 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MPAA rating 

message: I also deleted the entry that said "According to critics, this film is more intense and disturbing than "Hostel", "Saw", and "The Hills Have Eyes" put together."  The only two reviews I've been able to find on this movie (it's still way before its release date), both from respected critical sites specializing in horror movies, did say it was graphic but not significantly more so than the rash of films out of late all trying to out-do each other in the gore department (like the ones noted above).  They also slammed it for being pretty lame overall, but that's neither here nor there.  To the person who made the comment, I highly recommend you back up the statement if you want it in there, because otherwise it appears to be complete hogwash and little more than an attempt to drum up business for a potentially horrible movie.Nolefan32 06:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics on the gore content 

message: I don't care for Captivity either, but can we find more neutral sources to back up the facts in this article and not some blog that rants about how Solomon is a 'misogynist pig'?--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flick filosopher as sources 

message: In what way is this film within the scope of the French cinema task force ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  French cinema 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Captivity (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101054520/http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10782 to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10782
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified