Broadly enjoyable as Robert J. Kral's score is, the dramatic chords that accompany the needlessly embellished opening credits, interspersed with the opening scene, come across as more than a little over the top. Between low production values (e.g. Tinny sound design, flat cinematography) and the happenstance of a frame rate that gives imagery the appearance of live television, the film immediately impresses as quite low-budget fare. That belief is reinforced with somewhat brusque editing, and a certain stringent bareness in the production design, art direction, and orchestration of every scene that greets us. I wish to cast no aspersions on "key makeup artist" Horst Sarubin, but that contribution to the feature could perhaps best be described as "perfunctory"; given the very plain visage and sartorial arrangement of those before the camera, one could be forgiven for thinking off the cuff that the cast was pulled right off the street. The spaces that were used for filming, and in which scenes are set, and the design of computer graphics that we see in passing, all cement without question that the filmmakers were likely making the best they could of what they had to work with - and make us wonder how long we can possibly maintain suspension of disbelief. I do think 'The hostage' is enjoyable, but to say that it requires open-minded generosity is a fabulous understatement.
Some of the props, effects, and action sequences look reasonably decent, while others scream inauthenticity in light of the dire lack of resources, poor timing, and inconsistency of depiction. While bearing storytelling potential, wide swaths of the narrative could be recycled from daytime television as much as from major blockbusters, and no few ideas are heavily used tropes or outright contrivances. Dialogue struggles to feel real or believable, and there's only so much personality to go around between all the characters in the feature. Scene writing tends to feel very blase and by the numbers, imparting only glimmers of the impact or meaningfulness that it should. Writer Zac Reeder, director Bryan Todd, and all others on hand made an effort, more or less. But it's wholly evident that for whatever money the production companies ponied up to make 'The hostage' happen, a lot of the cast and crew must have provided their own personal vehicles, folding tables, wardrobe, house decor, and perhaps even some of their own money - such as to rent a moving truck as a stand-in for a mobile law enforcement command center.
A passing instance of sexism is gratifyingly repudiated by another male character, only for that tinge of thoughtfulness to be countered by the emphatic and unnecessary use of homophobic and racist slurs. Sadly and famously struggling in the latter days of her life and career, it may or may not surprise to learn that former child actor Dana Plato joins the cast - yet only in a very small role. Cynthia Rothrock is arguably the most high-profile name in the ensemble, and has a bigger supporting part, but goes to waste since she's given little to do in the first place, let alone any opportunity to employ the martial arts skills that made so many of her earlier movies so much fun. "Good guys" and "bad guys" alike illustrate an astounding lack of intelligence or foresight at one time or another. And - I assume on account of a lack of means to film multiple takes, and/or Todd's inexperience as director - the acting is mostly characterized by either a flummoxing casualness, or delivery and comportment that's a little too hard-boiled and on the nose.
Somehow the film zips along, and before you know it two-thirds of the length has passed. This is particularly unexpected since the plot is so simple and straightforward that even a modest turn around the 1-hour mark fails to convey significant gravity. The dearth of genuineness in the production dampens any sense of stakes in the thriller narrative, so even at its most intense - the climax - 'The hostage' barely holds any water. The plot has been so desperately thin all along that the ending, bringing us full circle to where the film began, does successfully conclude the title with a heightened sense of drama, but somehow feels like it's no real resolution at all. What is happening here?
Apart from much more financial backing, this title needed a screenplay that was much tighter and more carefully considered. We do essentially get a complete and coherent narrative, but substantial portions of the writing seem specious and tenuously put together. Was there no editing or approval process from the time the first draft was submitted to the time filming began? Were there no revisions or rewrites? It certainly doesn't feel like it. I don't like to be such a downer, but maybe screenwriting isn't Reeder's strong suit - and for the apparent breakdown in procedure, I'm forced to question the capabilities of those who should have addressed issues in the screenplay before 'The hostage' entered production.
For all the deserved criticism, I can't say I wasn't entertained. We've seen it all before, and seen it done much better; all the same, the hurdles and limitations confronting the movie are obvious, and yet the cast and crew persisted. I admire their gumption, and the effort, even if the result is plagued with issues. Still - while hardly the worst picture I've ever seen, one can't sweep under the rug everything that is so glaringly amiss here. I recognize the value in 'The hostage' - unfortunately, there's just not much of it. For utmost fans of someone in the cast, or those aching for thrillers no matter their quality, this may be worth a look despite its problems. For anyone else - regrettably, you probably just don't need to bother.
Some of the props, effects, and action sequences look reasonably decent, while others scream inauthenticity in light of the dire lack of resources, poor timing, and inconsistency of depiction. While bearing storytelling potential, wide swaths of the narrative could be recycled from daytime television as much as from major blockbusters, and no few ideas are heavily used tropes or outright contrivances. Dialogue struggles to feel real or believable, and there's only so much personality to go around between all the characters in the feature. Scene writing tends to feel very blase and by the numbers, imparting only glimmers of the impact or meaningfulness that it should. Writer Zac Reeder, director Bryan Todd, and all others on hand made an effort, more or less. But it's wholly evident that for whatever money the production companies ponied up to make 'The hostage' happen, a lot of the cast and crew must have provided their own personal vehicles, folding tables, wardrobe, house decor, and perhaps even some of their own money - such as to rent a moving truck as a stand-in for a mobile law enforcement command center.
A passing instance of sexism is gratifyingly repudiated by another male character, only for that tinge of thoughtfulness to be countered by the emphatic and unnecessary use of homophobic and racist slurs. Sadly and famously struggling in the latter days of her life and career, it may or may not surprise to learn that former child actor Dana Plato joins the cast - yet only in a very small role. Cynthia Rothrock is arguably the most high-profile name in the ensemble, and has a bigger supporting part, but goes to waste since she's given little to do in the first place, let alone any opportunity to employ the martial arts skills that made so many of her earlier movies so much fun. "Good guys" and "bad guys" alike illustrate an astounding lack of intelligence or foresight at one time or another. And - I assume on account of a lack of means to film multiple takes, and/or Todd's inexperience as director - the acting is mostly characterized by either a flummoxing casualness, or delivery and comportment that's a little too hard-boiled and on the nose.
Somehow the film zips along, and before you know it two-thirds of the length has passed. This is particularly unexpected since the plot is so simple and straightforward that even a modest turn around the 1-hour mark fails to convey significant gravity. The dearth of genuineness in the production dampens any sense of stakes in the thriller narrative, so even at its most intense - the climax - 'The hostage' barely holds any water. The plot has been so desperately thin all along that the ending, bringing us full circle to where the film began, does successfully conclude the title with a heightened sense of drama, but somehow feels like it's no real resolution at all. What is happening here?
Apart from much more financial backing, this title needed a screenplay that was much tighter and more carefully considered. We do essentially get a complete and coherent narrative, but substantial portions of the writing seem specious and tenuously put together. Was there no editing or approval process from the time the first draft was submitted to the time filming began? Were there no revisions or rewrites? It certainly doesn't feel like it. I don't like to be such a downer, but maybe screenwriting isn't Reeder's strong suit - and for the apparent breakdown in procedure, I'm forced to question the capabilities of those who should have addressed issues in the screenplay before 'The hostage' entered production.
For all the deserved criticism, I can't say I wasn't entertained. We've seen it all before, and seen it done much better; all the same, the hurdles and limitations confronting the movie are obvious, and yet the cast and crew persisted. I admire their gumption, and the effort, even if the result is plagued with issues. Still - while hardly the worst picture I've ever seen, one can't sweep under the rug everything that is so glaringly amiss here. I recognize the value in 'The hostage' - unfortunately, there's just not much of it. For utmost fans of someone in the cast, or those aching for thrillers no matter their quality, this may be worth a look despite its problems. For anyone else - regrettably, you probably just don't need to bother.
