Good start, but then it gets ruined

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I've never particularly liked TV or movie portrayals of 'based on a true story' stuff before. But since becoming a Peter Strauss fan, I've learnt to appreciate the good ones, at least. The first point is to never compare a 'dramatic telling' of a story with the real account. That's why it always says "based" on a true story. It still has to entertain the casual viewers, which is an unfortunate but necessary part.The second point is to not assume who the story focuses on. This is not the harrowing tale of a kidnap victim - Enough of those already exist and there are reasons of privacy why so little of this film focuses on what she goes through. This is about the kidnapper himself. I found this film to be quite fast moving. In part, this is because it's predictable... You know from the opening scene Strauss's character somehow gets caught. But what you don't know is whether his kidnap victim survives. You don't know what happens to the other people and no clue is given until right before it happens. All the while, you're hoping for some kind of happy ending... and you never can be sure if you'll get it. What makes this such an engaging film is the fact that events are real. There are, of course, some small factual inaccuracies - Partly through dramatic licence, partly through preserving the privacy of the real people - For example, the real life kidnap victim has always declined every interview request and just wants to be left alone. This film respects that. Great to see Paul Winfield playing a role he's well-suited to. It's similar to the Lt. Traxler he played in Terminator, but with some surprising twists. Robert Lee Ermey handles the subtlety of his role exceedingly well - An experienced FBI Agent suddenly out of his depth, yet trying desperately not to show it, faced with a type of adversary he has no experience of. Samantha Mathis was interesting and realistic. She doesn't go through the typical Hollywood portrayals of people in these situations. She does what real people would do. Of course, the show stealer is Peter Strauss. I've seen him play both outright good guys and complex characters who sit either side of the line. I've also seen him play characters where their morality could be good or bad, depending on your perspective. In this, he's clearly the bad guy, but he plays the role in such a way that you feel you're allowed to like him. Perhaps even root for him, despite knowing how dark and repulsive he still is. As always, his character is portrayed with absolute realism- Not the utter madness of a psycho or the hyper-intellectual of Hanibal Lecter, but with the intelligence and realistic subtle complexity of a real person. This is not a Hollywood villain, this is what real people are like. And for a final surprise that will make you smile with satisfaction - The film makers save a well-played twist to the very end!

This movie was okay. I read the book when I was in high school and saw the first movie, The Longest Night. There were some factual errors and liberties taken for dramatic purposes which kind of ruined it for me since I had read the book first. When I saw the remake, I was expecting a more accurate version, but was disappointed that this movie also took liberties and dramatic license. Comparing the two films, The Longest Night is the better of the two overall. The design of the capsule bothered me in the second movie. It was very crude, shown as a large open space with the battery and wiring all in the same space occupied by the girl. In real life, the battery and wiring and fan was housed in an area that was sectioned off behind screens. The capsule in the first movie was an exact replica of the real one. The first movie also spent more time showing Barbara in the capsule and how cramped it was. The second movie never showed any shots other than her upper body. You never saw her feet and her trying stretch out. The only thing that the second movie depicts better is the character of Ruth Eiseman Schier. In the Longest Night she is depicted as a strong,equal accomplice when, in fact, she was not. Elizabeth Gracen's portrayal was much more in line with the real woman than Skye Aubrey's sexy vixen portrayal. It's a great crime story of survival and criminal madness. It would be great if someone would make a more gritty, realistic feature film that would be more factual. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before that happens. Also, a movie that doesn't use fictitious names would heighten the realism. There's a episode of FBI: The Untold Stories with Pernell Roberts that tells the story through narration and re-enactments. They use the real names, so I don't know why that couldn't be done in a movie version.

I haven't seen the original film, that this one is a remake of, but I guess it's better than this. This film is based on a true story, but I don't know how true to the facts it is. The plot is pretty good, but terribly predictable, partly due to the fact that the whole film is being told as a flashback. It's also slow, especially for a 90-minute movie. The acting is mostly decent at best, with a few exceptions. Samantha Mathis was pretty good, and Peter Strauss was quite convincing. However, pretty much everyone else was overacted and hardly believable. R. Lee Ermey was somewhat good, but since this is the same role that he always plays, it was to be expected. The characters are somewhat well-written. The dialog is bad and pretty cliched. The film is fairly boring, and hard to sit through, mainly due to the predictability of the plot and the bad acting. It does have some good sequences, though, and is decent overall. Due to the various bad factors of the film, it has little to no re-watch value, and is not worth owning, even if you can get it for virtually nothing. I recommend it only to fans of thrillers, and only if it's on TV, and there's absolutely nothing worth watching for those 90 minutes. 5/10

Peter Strauss is a delinquent who kidnaps the daughter (Mathis) of a millionaire (Urich) and keeps her closed in some kind of coffin buried on a forest and provides her with water, food and oxygen for 83 hours (from here comes the title).Everything is very predictable, especially because the story is told by Strauss from jail (in a big flashback). What makes it good is the originality of the kidnapping itself, the way they hide the girl that increases everybody's tension: her family (of course), the cops and even Strauss and his female accomplice (who have a not very good relationship).Summarizing, a good entertainment, the chance of watching Strauss in a good character and performance, and the joy of watching an early role of that great and very underrated actress called Samantha Mathis.