Prisoners





Dark, slow, incredibly gloomy...

And so, so silly.

What starts out as a reasonably involving story about how two families -- and specifically one man -- react to the disappearance and likely death of their two daughters ends up (a long time later) rolling with a climax straight out of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS with the added benefit of a monologuing baddie. It's pretty funny.

Hugh Jackman's quite good as someone who decides Jigsaw had the right idea (seriously, guys, he builds a torture room), but the script really doesn't do him any favors.

It's never a good thing for the audience to be fifteen steps ahead of the movie, but a subplot introduced here is so extraneous that it's clear it's going to have something major to do with the finale. Knowing that and putting a little bit of clumsy exposition together, the identity of the main villain (because this film has varying levels of villains, like a video game) isn't much of a shocker.

There's an amazing scene involving Hugh Jackman, Paul Dano, and a hammer. I'm tempted to recommend it for those few minutes alone, but then I remember there are 140-odd more to wade through. I can't wait for others to see it so we can count how many sheer coincidences propel the plot.

I'm bumping this for Libs.

This is a near perfect film. Until it isn't. Atmospheric, brutal, and slow burning, it is a two-and-a-half-hour mystery starting with the abduction of two children from a quiet suburban development in Pennsylvania. Various characters are either directly impacted or come to be involved: a frustrated father hardened by a tragic upbringing and years of survivalist training, a calm and observant detective, a mysterious stranger with a mental handicap who may or may not have played a part in the girls' vanishing, and so on and so forth. As a technical exercise, Prisoners is beyond reproach. The level of menacing atmosphere generated by the grey, rain swept, shadow enshrouded photography is astonishing and persuasive, and its patience in showcasing the procedure of the police and the moral compromises of the protagonist is rewarding: there is genuine pleasure in watching closely. For around two hours and ten minutes, it plays as a fascinating film in the vein of Zodiac, more interested in the nature of evil and grief and the inherent fascination of crime than the actual evil acts themselves. Alas, the film loses its way in its final half hour. The focus shifts to specific questions such as, "Who is the culprit and why?" The answers land with a schematic and ungraceful thud, the previously opaque line separating the just from the evil is streamlined, and a key moment clearly lifted from the 1988 art-house hit The Vanishing simply reminds the viewer how the denouement of The Vanishing is scarier, more courageous, and more satisfying than the hopeful variation presented here. My mind is split in two: Prisoners is so admirable and so riveting for so long, then it proves a glorious, prestigious tease.

B/B+

This film would be vastly improved if:

- the pedophile priest and the scene in his basement were cut;
- the shopping-mall pervert were the actual murderer;
- and the torture of the Paul Dano character proved an entirely amoral act by a loving father gone mad rather than an amoral act which, oh, wait, still helps save the girl and stop the evil witch, so maybe a bit justified even if it turns our stomachs.

Disagree with all of those above.

In other words, I thought it was a nearly perfect film. Making the shopping mall pervert the actual murderer would have simplified this complex, twisted film.

As for your third point: first of all, it doesn't really help THAT much. In the end, Jackman does not much to save his daughter. But I see how you can argue that his actions led to the discovery - but then again - what's wrong with the movuie showing that eben wrong acions can lead to good outcomes? It doesn't make what he did before any less wrong and actually puts the viewer into a very interesting dilemma because, yes, his actions might have helped a little, but they were wrong still.


Loved the film.153 minutes running time felt like 90 minutes.

Melissa Leo hamming it up, "I'M ALWAYS FIXING TO MURDER CHILDREN TO WAGE MY WAR AGAINST GOD, AND NO, I EXPECT YOU TO DIE, MR. WOLVERINE," is so cheesy, though, and it only simplifies the film.

I might be more forgiving if the film played as a macabre, but fun mystery with style and suspense, but it positions itself as this deadly serious meditation on the implacability of evil and then undermines itself entirely by embracing a highly schematic system of coincidences and close calls. The question of who-did-it never feels as important as the idea of how people respond in the aftermath of tragedy and violence, but then it turns out the film's end game entirely turns on the simple question of who did it.

You so much need to see Big Bad Wolves, the Israeli film. It pretty much has all the stuff you liked about Prisoners and all the stuff you wish it had - must-see for you! (I loved it too)

So is anybody else bothered by the fact no investigative work goes into catching the villain? Character A just stumbles into the baddie sticking a needle into one of the little girls.

I also find the character of Alex (Paul Dano) a bit hard to reconcile. So he is just reunited with his long lost family in the end? Charming, but didn't he still contribute to the abductions and murders of various children? Low I.Q. and history of abuse or not, he is still an adult capable of driving a big RV and is also on the ball when he has a chance to escape (slashing with a piece of glass, going for a nearby window). Why is he entirely absolved when it seems he did, in fact, lure the girls to their (almost) doom?

Oh, and do they ever explain how Viola Davis and Terrence Howard's daughter escaped? There is a flash of images, but I am not sure if this is objective reality or what Hugh Jackman's character is imagining or...and I am finding it hard to remember what the specific images are anyway.

So, when are you gonna lower your grade?

B is the right grade.

But not B+?

Pretty good movie until the end.

Spoilers

So was the snake guy another victim or a complete red herring?

victim

Random observation: I dig how Jake Gyllenhaal is shaping his career lately with mature and original films such as this, End of Watch, and Source Code, and he has delivered a string of fine performances. I believe he is best in show here, even if Hugh Jackman's volcanic role is flashier.

Did you notice his character's constant eye twitch? That was a very nice touch.

Was anyone else instantly reminded of the ending of The Vanishing during the third act? When Melissa Leo's character says the only way he can find out where his daughter is is if he agrees to more or less drug himself?

I actually felt bad for the screenwriter. I saw the film at the premiere and as I left I saw the writer hounded by a bunch of people asking him questions like "Wait, how did the black girl escape?"

Speaking of, I really don't like the fact that both kids survive.

So rather than just say that, he draws a picture of a maze and shoots himself? And what did the maze have to do with anything? Other than giving Jake Gylenhaal a convenient heads up right before he actually walks in on her in the act. Everything was set up really well, but they couldn't find a way to bring it all together without taking massive leaps. And there aren't really any consequences either, since Hugh would probably take jail over dying in a hole at this point.

This film turns my brain into a pretzel. I still can't entirely reconcile my various thoughts. Love and annoyance. There are so many amazing small moments, such as the lingering shot of the girl's toothbrush, which perfectly put the audience inside this awful scenario. And as far as grim, graveyard-in-winter atmospherics go, the cinematography truly is beautiful. And the lead performers are completely invested and in top form. And it does nicely wrestle with the questionable morality of vigilante justice as contrasted with conventional police procedure, at least until the final 30 minutes. And, and, and... But when you stop afterward and truly reflect on the plot, it is very mechanical and full of forced discoveries and frustrating gaps in logic. There is definitely second-rate CBS-crime-drama caliber storytelling in its DNA.

Oh, and the detective deciding to drive the girl at top speed through the ice and snow to the hospital as he bleeds profusely from his head: too much? I wonder if they should have saved themselves the trouble of filming a "car chase" and just shown him phoning 9-1-1 for an ambulance.

I was mad uncomfortable during that part but I really liked the way they shot it. It cast doubt on whether the girl would live or not.

I thought this was great. Prisoners is a whodunnit at heart, but the identity of the culprit isn't really as important as the puzzle to get there. First of all, it's incredibly atmospheric. It feels like the gloomiest movie since...Seven? And that certainly helps contribute a tense mood; I couldn't help but notice a certain stillness present in many of the film's scenes, almost overpowering at times. Moreover, I found the film haunting, powerful, harrowing, disturbing, all those adjectives. It really asks important questions about guilt and justice. Denis Villneuve has a splendid cast to work with. A fiery, aggressive Hugh Jackman may gave his best performance to date, while Jake Gyllenhaal is also superb as a tightly wound detective. The entire supporting cast, including Viola Davis, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, Melissa Leo and Paul Dano, is also terrific despite limited screen time for most. The ambiguous ending will no doubt divide viewers, as these sorts of endings always do. I felt that it worked here; it goes out on a note of uncertainty, much like what the characters face throughout the film. A-

I don't in any way see how the ending is ambiguous.

You don't?

My friend was convinced that Loki thought he was imagining the whistle and would walk away without finding him. I didn't agree.

Personally I think it's fairly clear that they'll dig him up, but the fact that they don't hammer you over the head with it and that it's open to interpretation...makes it ambiguous, in my opinion.