I just find out that this movie was filmed in just 12(amazingly taken and long) shots. I find it amazing that a director could direct this kind of some "one long shot" and everything's went well. It reminded me of one of my favorite long shot, in the "Children of Men", when Clive Owen was in a 'war'. The cinematography (CMIIW, I'm not sure about the term i use)of this "Kidnapped" is superb and beyond any level, one of the best for me.
That was one of the things that sparked my interest in this film. However, unfortunately, I've also read that it was they same kind of "long shots" that Hitchcock used. Supposedly, the cuts are there, and take place in dark frames of the film so it appears that the shot is continuous. Either way, though, there are obvious sections that are non-stop, which is impressive to say the least. I didn't hear about the "cuts" until after I watched it, and it made me wish I'd liked the movie, as I'd happily watch it again to see if I noticed them.
However, I'll never be as impressed as I was with the opening shot of Boogie Nights, which starts on a rooftop, scales down, crosses the street, and enters a nightclub where every major character from the film is introduced, complete with a dance routine. That had to be a nightmare to shoot, but my God, was it amazing!
I found the long shots annoying, the cinematographer did't do a good job of panning around the room so it was hard to follow the action AND the shakey cam was distracting. If a long tracking shot is done well (like in some of the other movies mentioned here), it is amazing. I felt like the lengthy shots were done merely for the sake of saying there were only x amount of shots.