The movie starts out as the the mountain-climbing-survival-horror you might expect after seeing the DVD cover as your familiar set of city people on their holidays on Mount Nophonesignal in Farfromcivilisation County gets introduced (badly), finding a child in the middle of nowhere. You will be surprised when after the blunt first half of the movie it suddenly switches genres and you find yourself in the city of Bruges in a third- class gangster movie, with an all new set of people that you have no reason on earth to care about either.
I usually don't devote so much time to a B-Flick, but this train wreck of a script deserves detailed analysis.
So - as Director and writer Julian Gilbey has no idea what to do with any of his characters, besides showing them chit-chatting about irrelevant, mindless crap - people that you know next to nothing about are chasing this child that you know next to nothing about while other people that you know next to nothing about are protecting it with all their lives for no apparent reason besides the fact that you don't just leave a child alone. Which is a valid point, but doesn't work out, if you have no actual reason to emotionally connect with the child, or with the people who now one by one sacrifice their lives for her. And not even their deaths matter as Gilbey is killing even his more "important" characters off like extras in a Chuck Norris movie. It just happens and we never see them again and not just the director and you, but not even these people seem to care. Appearantly, besides one couple, these people aren't even bonded, apparently they don't even like each other too much, which - besides the fact that five of the four mountaineers don't like humor and one doesn't like smoked fish - is just about the only thing computable from Gilbey's dumb, pointless interludes. Now meanwhile it also turns out that the girl is the offspring of an easter-European war-criminal responsible for the deaths of millions or so, who already arranged a hand-off, willing to pay a lot of his abundant drugmoney or whatever, making her involuntary rescue team, as well as both kidnappers, two random hunters, an innocent police officer as well as some civilians basically having died to save the retirement fund of a mafia boss. As Ed points out: what if the only thing they have done is prohibiting a clean handover? And this is exactly what happened, flushing the significance of all these deaths right down the toilet.
But Gilbey apparently has no idea about the basic rules of scriptwriting anyway, as he produces detailed setups frequently, spending significant screen time on them just to nullify them minutes later, basically just adding totally redundant crap to an already pointless movie. Here, a whole scene on one person showing a picture of a mountain, proposing to climb it, giving detailed background information on it, to the point where he explains how long you fall from it's top. Will they climb it later? No. Will they even see the mountain ever again? No. Will the guy when eventually falling from another mountain think over his life in mid-air? Of course not. So here, a minute of screen time for the lead mixing different alcoholic beverages, against the warning of her colleague. Will she be incapacitated for the rest of the movie due to a severe hangover that she'll have to overcome to save people's lives? No. A minute later she explains, that she took aspirin, so she's fine. So what was the point then? Product placement? Mere stupidity? Here, a scene of two hunters inserted in a way so you think they are the kidnappers, but then they aren't. A red herring? Not really, as a minute later, they get killed by the actual kidnappers, I guess cause they're potential witnesses. But then why introducing them in the first place? Just so the kidnappers can steal their guns? Appearantly they are pretty cunning guys, don't they have money for their own guns? Here, guy breaks his leg. But he can still walk. Then he offers to stay behind anyway. Then heroine convinces him not to, so he doesn't and can walk again. What difference did it make that he broke his leg? Why was it necessary? Here, a whole plot device on the assumption that the police officer is corrupt, because guy mentioned above accuses him of being corrupt. But then again, he really isn't. Guy was wrong. But now, that you assumed he's corrupt and don't like him anymore, lets suddenly kill him. Let's also kill guy. Let's now kill a civilian for no reason. Here, let's set this house on fire, so heroine throws the child out of the window and then rather stays behind then breaking a leg by jumping out herself, now appears to burn in it, but then she doesn't. She wakes up and is now safe, as meanwhile the fire department arrived. Child waited outside I guess. Here, a guy assuming that he's being ambushed as he hands over the kidnapper. But then he isn't. He was wrong. He gets a new car instead. Was this to show he has bad instincts? In the last scene we see him in? Was it to show that black people are paranoid when seeing white people? Should I just not connect the dots???
Gilbey closes with the child saying thank you (well you're f*cking welcome) and then adds a line of the medical assistant calling heroine 'sweetheart' (lesbian? important fact?) before meaningfully rolling up the credits. He's also showing footage along with it - apparently Super9 video recorded with the digital camera shown breaking in the beginning for no reason - of the people we never cared about having a good time. Now, that it's over.
Great job dude. 1/10