The begenning of the movie looks as dark and gloomy as the inside of my head; very crowded with no sound at all. I hated how the movie started with a political argument, which I disagree with, about how rebellions (Hamas) considered as terrorists just because they choose to defend their country. It sounds like an irrelevant comment but so was it in the movie. Right? I have been literally holding my breath all through the movie that I thought I was going to die of supspense at any moment. The end (the escape scene) though should have been told in details. It left me wondering how could the student unlock the door for Clair.

I watched this at home on DVD from my public library. Regarding the title, the definition of syndrome is "a group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize a particular abnormality or condition." With that firmly in mind one can appreciate the story. It is about a couple of 30-ish characters but in the end it really is about her story and survival.Australian actress Teresa Palmer is Australian character Clare Havel, as the movie starts she is arriving in Berlin. The cinematography and sound are great to recreate that feeling and ambiance of first arriving in a foreign city, climbing the steps from the brightly lit subway and into the city at dusk. We find out much of why she is traveling alone but she intends to go to a different city in a couple of days, do some photography, maybe publish a book some day.On the street she meets Berlin resident Max Riemelt as English teacher Andi Werner. It all seems innocent, he drops some books at a street corner waiting for a light change, she offers to help, he has her hold his basket of strawberries, they exchange small talk, then he shows her some of the city. As the story goes on at some point we realize that the meeting wasn't accidental, Andi has the "particular abnormality or condition" that results in his finding and imprisoning a pretty girl in his very secluded residence in the old section of the city. He seems normal in most circumstances but has some deep issues. He seems to care very much for Clare, in his own way may even love her but not in a way that respects her own needs. So most of the movie is a test for Clare to find a way to regain her freedom.It is not a pleasant viewing because of the subject but the acting of the two main characters is top-notch. SPOILERS: The imprisonment spans a number of months, Clare was a photographer and her inspiration to get help was to put photos of herself half-naked and chained into homework notebooks so one of the students could expose Andi's misdeeds. In the end Clare is back in the city, free of her physical and emotional chains. If one has to find a "message" in the story it is to be cautious who you trust when you know nothing about them.

This movie was well-made and super compelling. I would give it 8 out of ten stars if I were a fan of this genre. Its set up is fantastic and its execution is really strong. Both the acting and directing were first rate!My problem is, I don't know anyone would make a movie like this. The premise is sick: a woman is kidnapped, held prisoner and sexually abused… with plenty of detail at each point. But I felt it was disgusting to watch. It felt yucky to give my time to a movie that is all about the the dark and sick side of humanity. If you like that kind of thing, then this is a really solid and creepy movie that would be great. It's actually an excellent portrayal of a sick human. It's just not my cup of tea.It also felt like the theme and story was lazy story-telling. Basically, get a creep, have him sadistically dominate an unwilling female, and then…SPOILERS.——— SPOILERS——— have her turn the tables and get revenge. You could take any sadistic loser, have him kidnap anyone weaker, and have instant screen drama. That's why I say the storytelling is lazy. With some adequate directing and acting, this story could have been made by anybody.My big problem, apart from the sickness of the theme, was the implausibility of her captivity… as well as her inability to escape.There could have been a thousand times where should have hit him over the head with a frying pan or stabbed him in the heart, but it never happened and was never even considered by the victim character, Claire.Additionally, her attempts to escape were pathetically weak. The windows were "reinforced" but she could have easily dug out the wooden window frames that were holding the glass. She could have tried to break through walls. She could have lain in wait to kill the guy when he came home. And on and on. A truly desperate person would have been able to escape that place, especially when the captor is away at work the whole day, every day.Other than the implausibility, this movie would be engaging and dramatic to watch… if one is into that kind of thing.

This is one of those films where someone said "hey, what if..." and presented a very basic plot, then rushed out a draft script. Rather than redrafting and reflecting on how to make the story interesting and relevant in some way, they just pad it out to make it a feature length. As it is, what could have been a detailed, fascinating film ends up being empty and boring. Where the story promises most isn't so much the escapist suspense side of things but the situation as a metaphor for relationships. Issues of control, dominance, repression of freedom, gender stereotyping, c0-dependency. Some of these ideas are hinted at but nowhere near developed, like the writer just didn't have the substance, depth or experience to know what they were doing or saying. There's one scene where the captor is shown to be a germaphobe, which is incongruent with many other scenes in the film (he basically never shows this OCD trait again). As a suspense film it has the occasional moment, but is woefully under-written. It simply could have been a LOT better, especially given the two hour run time.