The idea behind this film is great and the front cover depicting helpless individuals in cages is definitely eye catching. Then I read the back and was hooked and reaching for my wallet before heading to the tills. This is going to be another Red state, or from a horror and gore aspect, Frontiers. However, despite a well acted and promising start, things just didn't go anywhere. And as for the final third, point and what was it springs to mind. I have seen some disappointing films, such as the Hamiltons, but this, not only takes the biscuit, it is the biscuit. If you are in the mood to be bored, annoyed, frustrated I would suggest watching the new cartoon versions of scooby doo.........there is 100% more gore and suspense in an episode of that than is in this. I beg you not to watch as you cannot get those 90 minutes back

Awful, Awful Horror Movie, If actually you can call it that. I don't want to talk about this movie very much, simply because it's just not worth it. My only goal is to prevent anybody else from losing 90 minutes of their precious life to this crap. Yes, I regret wasting 90 minutes on this. The plot is just not there ! It's only two sick dudes torturing some poor bastards. And it's not even that. just a few scenes of that. It kind of wants to be political, but It's not at all. and it doesn't go anywhere. It's not critical of anything. That's just it. this film is nothing. Not even a horror movie. It's not scary. I would prefer cliché horror movies anytime. 'Cause I'd know what I'm up against and just skip the title. But movies like this are the worst. They are pure waste of good time. I'd rather play solitaire on my PC than watch this, if I were you.

Just watched this movie and first came here to simply give a rating to it. Then I saw the reviews and just had to disagree with most of them except the one from "dylan-chauvin- smith". Of course the main plot has been seen before, the whole teenagers taking a bad turn... but this one has to be one the most original take on it I have seen in a while.First there is the political dimension and statement about Guantanamo itself and how war can really mess people up in their brains. It speaks of the potential for horror of letting people with too much power and very little legal oversight. Being a lawyer can help when you have a problem with authorities, but once these are removed from legal oversight, and far away, anything really can happen. Just check wikipedia for Guantanamo, you'll get the idea.The detective coming in out of nowhere eases the tension created and just continuing with further torture would have made the movie just another one of the genre. A dark, voyeuristic thrill ride of sorts. Having him fail at rescue makes the movie much more chilling, at a psychological level.Leaving the movie without any definitive ending, if somewhat frustrating for the viewer with little imagination, is very successful at letting you feel the agony of indefinite imprisonment. Just think about it, really.

Oddly enough, the bad reviews on this site were what enticed me to actually watch the film. Besides the first review by Coventry, which had some constructive criticism and actually compared this film with others within its genre, the reviews all took issue with the episodic quality of the films plot. It seems that they haven't been introduced to the concept of art cinema - a mode of film practice which subverts and breaks from classical filmic conventions like continuity editing, and strict causal relations between narrative events, instead focusing on the psychological depth of its characters and the "everyday" realism of disjointed, unrelated events. This film definitely shows various qualities of the art cinema, especially its episodic structure and focus on character psychology. I found the plot intriguing and despite what some of the other reviewers said, I think that the introduction of the private detective was not arbitrary but actually contributed to the creation of the expectation that the tortured would be rescued. By building this character who can sympathize with the families of the missing, as he has ostensibly lost his own daughter, the director effectively takes the audience out of the roll of victim-by-proxy and into rescuer-by-proxy. This is clever because by the time this plot line is introduced, the viewer has become frustrated with the course of events (as trapped in them as the tortured) and the detective becomes the voice for the audience, while also giving them a view onto the other side of the tragedy of kidnapping/forcible confinement.As for the ending ... I cannot believe that one of the previous reviewers complained about the fact that the ending did not gesture to a sequel. I'm sorry bud, but sequels did not exist before the late 80s early 90s and the dawn of the multiplex theater. I also disagree with the suggestion that the film doesn't allow the audience to interpret the final events in any way that they wish - because that is exactly what the ambiguous ending does. The lack of closure makes it the viewers responsibility to interpret the ending in whatever way that they can.Overall, the film was esthetically pleasing and definitely generated the reactions thrillers are supposed to. Maybe for Coventry the film is just another in a long line of psychopath/kidnapping/torture stories, but I have seen few which are as dedicated to the art of film and not very tangibly grasping at demographics in hopes of being successful. Also I would say that Territories fell well within the range of the independent film mode, and far from that of the B-film - despite its low budget and virtually unknown cast. Definitely a film worth watching - at least for those who can appreciate films which reveal their artifice by making the viewer think.