First of all, aside from the female protagonist, there is not a single character in this movie who's likable. They're all irritating, violent and psychotic scum of low intelligence who are introduced in cliché freeze frames with short descriptions ("rapist, sentimental father"). The movie makes a half-hearted attempt to give the characters some humanity or depth, such as by depicting the movie's would-be rapist as a "sentimental father" who likes painting. Yes, well, Hitler was an artist too, but that didn't exactly redeem him, now did it? You see, these characters are violent psychos because they're poor and because some people are not. The movie asserts that being rich is a sin, rich people deserve to get kidnapped and murdered and that poor people (except, of course, that these characters aren't really poor, because kidnapping is a profitable business) get an automatic right to do whatever they think is necessary, or unnecessary. The characters in the movie keep talking about poverty and injustice as if they actually cared about any of it.This movie has to be as leftist and liberal as it can possibly get. It's sickening. As far as I can tell, Latin America is screwed up partly because their entire culture is screwed up. Has Europe or the US gone through similar problems due to poverty, or war? No. As far as I know, neither has Asia. Why can't Latin America gets its act together? Poverty is clearly being used as an excuse here, to justify the thuggish behavior of the characters. But thanks to our new religion of cultural relativity, there are no good or bad cultures, only different ones, so clearly we must blame poverty. Whatever.The plot is non-existent, there's no action, every event seems like a pointless non-sequitur, a lot of the dialogue is just incoherent shouting and babbling, the violence is pointless... ugh. There's nothing particularly clever about the direction either, pretty standard post-Tarantino fare. In short, there's no reason to see this movie for any reason.

The film representation of the characteristics of poverty in Latin America, and of the phenomena it originates, has developed through the years, from the populist portraits of the 1930s and 1940s, in which being poor almost equaled sainthood (as in "Nosotros, los pobres"), to the movies of today called "porno-misery" by some critics. In the early 1950s Luis Buñuel's "Los olvidados" turned the tables, with its depiction of a disturbing high level of cruelty among the child and teenager delinquents of México City, and it paved the way for movies based on serious research. In this vein, the documentary "Tire dié" made by Fernando Birri and his students was a filmed survey of marginalization and misery in the province of Santa Fe, Argentina. Movies with a new approach were made, as "Romance del Anicento y la Francisca" in Argentina, "El chacal de Nahueltoro" in Chile, "Gamín" in Colombia, "Pixote" in Brazil, among others, as well as later works with aspirations for stronger sociological value, as "Sicario" from Venezuela or "La vendedora de rosas" in Colombia. These films painted a more precise picture of the social situation in Latin America, and of the underprivileged, without accusations or sermons. The release of "Cidade de Deus" marked the start of a curious phenomenon: although the film was based on a book that sustains the violent description of the story being told, most audiences and critics were dazzled by its technical virtuosity to describe violence, putting aside its social value. Since then we are having, from all fronts, movies that, using the consumerism ethics, and the aesthetics and rigor of a publicity spot, trivialize social inequity and misery, and glamorize crime. "Secuestro express" falls into this category. It is a Hollywood version of a frequent phenomenon - kidnapping. As almost all of the good or bad films dealing with poverty, there is no intention to point reasons: in these movies, you seldom hear of bad distribution of national wealth, hoarders, landowners or creole oligarchies that have sold their countries to transnationals. This is not the reason why I blame these movies, which have the right to make their own statement, but the accommodation of their own local situations to worn out formulas of traditional narratives, giving solutions to their dramas that, in the execution, resemble more foreign action movies, than Latin America realities. They even describe the characters as stereotypes of 1940s melodramas: these seldom react as they would in real life, but in a way that allows the creators to make "beautiful shots". For example, when the kidnapped woman (Mia Maestro) is released momentarily in a lonely place, far away from Caracas, instead of running for her life, she falls and cries in the dust, a strategy that permits the director and cinematographer to make a few nice shots of Maestro, and a chance to add a second ending to the story. The script follows a predictable direction (another example: of all the taxis in Caracas, the woman's runaway boyfriend boards the cab chauffeured by one of the kidnappers' accomplices), that unfortunately turns the movie into a catalog of common places. In the end, the authors divide the world in a 50% of hungry persons and 50% of well-bred folks. A little research would have revealed to them that, in the real world, the percentage of hungry people surpasses by a great margin the filmmakers' lack of information.

"Secuestro Express" began as a project for a short. Jonathan Jakubowickz had written a story and Sandra Condito and Elizabeth Avellán, among others, wanted to make it happen. For reasons that don't matter to me, the short became a full-length feature film, the hours became longer, the work became harder… The result makes notorious that it was supposed to be a short, because it runs obligatorily too long. However, it's a total thrill and it keeps your eyes on the screen for its hour and a half. After Jakubowickz made his story longer, the characters took shape, and what could have been a tale of soulless kidnappers, is a glance at human beings who care for their city, even when they do what they do.Jakubowickz' ferocious camera is a representation of the Venezuelan reality; it moves unsure, it accelerates constantly. With guts and courage, the director puts his imagination in motion, and shows to us the two sides of the city; the rich and the poor, the good and the bad, the ones who eat and the ones who can't, the ones who live and the ones who are dying. The Latin American reality is not far from what Jakubowickz presents. In fact, there are thousands of kidnappings like the ones this movie illustrates, every day."Express"; quick, effective and only sometimes successful. The types of persons, who do this; act, dress and talk like the film's kidnapping threesome: Nigga Sibilino, Budú and their leader Trece. Interestingly, this is how these three men call themselves artistically. They are part of a hip-hop band called "3 Dueños". Jakubowickz got to them by listening to their music, and the characters he wrote for them fit perfectly with their personalities; he knows it and they know it.One of the many highlights of this picture is that all the characters are very close to the actors' realities. The three kidnappers come originally from the suburbs, and they didn't have to make an effort for their portrayals; they had it in them. A permanent improvisation is clearly noticeable and it reassures the "reality" of the film. When the three of them grab Martín (Jean Paul Leroux) and Carla (Mía Maestro) and scream: "Don't look at my face", they say it because it works like that.They are not joking with the guns they carry with them, they are not joking when they call Carla's father (the genius Ruben Blades), and they are not joking with the drugs they purchase from Marcelo (Ermahn Ospina), a Colombian and homosexual dealer. The scenes that the movie develops are determined by a voice that announces the time ("5 a.m., in Caracas"). The best moments are the ones you feel connected to, because you identify with them. When they are stopped by the police, for example; and a simple exchange fixes the situation.When Trece talks to Carla about the city and about what's going on. "What's the secret?", she inquires. Trece explains, and you easily realize that Carlos Molina put the most commitment into his character. He achieves something there, there's an emotion felt that Pedro Pérez and Carlos Madera lack. If what the film's doing is leaving a message, I respect it. But that message won't make anyone change, because it takes a lot more in a world like this one.What I can say for sure are two things: "Secuestro Express" is a calling to Venezuelan cinema, these days when it's so difficult to make a complete movie; and it is so real and so true, that you will be scared to be out on the street after watching it.

"Secuestro Express" is an independent film about a common frequent reality in Latin America: Kidnappings. I was first very reluctant about watching this film, but it just came on DVD rental, so I got a copy, watched it and now I know that certainly this film is a very genuine depiction of a situation that is not known to most people in North America. Quite raw, and also entertaining, this film will keep the viewer in suspense and expectation for many surprises.Remember that this is a foreign film, not your regular "censored a... flick". That is the reason it was not shown in most theaters in the U.S. but it is now at your local DVD rental shop.Well, please let me know what ya'll think!http://www.miramax.com/secuestroexpresshttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371939 All Block Busters has it.