Prisoners (2013)

[baumer]

Discuss

[Gopher]

Not a perfect film (you really do feel the 2.5 hour running time) but it's still some of the most intense filmmaking I've seen this year. Everyone in the ensemble gets some really great moments- Hugh Jackman gives a career-topping performance- but the MVP is Deakins because never have I felt so cold and isolated watching a movie. The cinematography is just fantastic. 

 

Go out and see it! You won't be disappointed. 

[baumer]

I think this is a film Gopher and I agree on.  It's not a perfect film but there is a lot to like about it, as Gopher said.  However there are a few things to dislike about it and that left me scratching my head.  I wanted to give it an A, and all throughout I kept telling myself it would all come together, it would all make sense at some point.  It does come together for the most part and it is kind of wrapped up nicely but there were parts along the way that just didn't sit well with me.  

 

For those of you who don't want to know, there are spoilers here, so proceed with caution.

 

Hugh Jackman does give a career topping performance and imo he should be a shoe in for an Oscar nomination.  He is just a strong and angry man.  His physical presence in this is very evident as he just looks so much bigger than everyone else.  When he is angry, you feel his pain.  When he wants to hurt someone, you feel that with him. And when he starts to do his angry father thing, even though you don't completely agree with him, you empathize with him and almost understand how he could do it.  

 

There's a fantastic fork in the road in the film and it really got me into it more than I already was.  At one point you really don't know if the suspect is telling the truth--that he has nothing to do with it.  And then there is a brilliant scene where Jackman is watching him outside of his house.  The two things that the suspect (Dano) does really make you turn to Jackman's side.  And that's important because the film needs you to understand accept that Jackman is not just a grief stricken father.  

 

Also very strong in the film is Gylenhall.  I've always enjoyed his work and he has been brilliant in films like Brokeback, Love and Other Drugs, Brothers, Source Code and many, many others.  He is in here as well.  I didn't quite understand who he was or why he had to blink all the time or why he had tattoos all over him but my guess is that will be an interesting behind the scenes feature on the BR. But he was a hard character.  He has a story and I'd be interested in a film all about him.  

 

A few of the things that I didn't like all that much SPOILERS BIG TIME NOW was the motivation for the killer was never really explained.  I realize that some killers just want to watch to world burn and they don't necessarily need a motivation but I felt that this killer did need one.  She had been doing it for a long time but there really wasn't any reason as to why.  Also, it's mentioned that she never really was Alex's aunt and that is something that I thought was a little strange.  Alex, at any time that he was being tortured, could have told them it was his aunt.  But he kept his mouth shut and went through some really awful torture.  I realize he had the IQ of a ten year old, but even a ten year old understands right from wrong.  Also, there were so many good actors in the film that were just ignored or forgotten about.  It just became the Gylenhal and Jackman show and that's too bad because the supporting cast was really strong in this.  Another thing I didn't get was why the captain was such a jerk to Detective Loki.  Why was he like that?  And finally I didn't understand why Jackman went along with what the killer said at the end.  She weighed about 105 pounds and was a full foot shorter than Jackman and he had plenty of opportunity to fend her off.  That was annoying.

 

Having complained about all of that, the movie is very well directed and again as Gopher said, Deakins' cinematography is cold and and blue and it makes you feel really alone and helpless.  I wouldn't be surprised if he is nominated again this year.  

 

Prisoners is a good movie.  It sucks you into the story and it really makes you want to find out what happened to the girls.  It's absolutely worth seeing but I can't give it an A, a very strong and high B+.

 

7.9/10

 

One humorous note in here is that there was a lot of Marvel stuff in here.  Jackman obviously played Wolverine and then you have Terrence Howard as he played Rhodes in the first Iron Man.  And then you have Gylenhal playing Detective Loki.  It's just kind of funny.  

 

One final thing is that this movie will make you think and it will spark conversation.  That's a good thing.

Edited September 21, 2013 by baumer

[Cmasterclay]

This, despite not being a horror movie, was maybe the scariest movie I've seen in years. Uncompromisingly intense and haunting, as well as creepy as shit at times and brutal very often. It also gets so thrilling at times that I almost jumped out of my seat. Needless to say, I thought it was brilliant. For three particular reasons. One is the directing and the cinematography- this is one of the best shot movies I've seen in years (bravo Deakins.) Two is the acting, which is just a masterclass. Jackman is better than ever. Howard and Davis are way, way underpraised in reviews. But Jake G runs away with it. And I say that as someone who hasn't been too fond of his acting in the past in most movies. He was fucking brilliant. But what really set it apart was how REAL it felt- Keller's beat up pick up truck didn't feel like a prop, it felt lived in. The way the two families open the door and greet each other and hang out on Thanksgiving felt REAL, it didn't seem like famous actors playing a part. Gyllenhal's tattoos and twitches didn't feel like things just tacked on- they felt like they were really apart of him. That stuff is hard to achieve. And this movie does it in droves. This movie does have some flaws, but this post is long enough as is. Top three movie of the year so far.

 

A

[Vanilla]

One of my favorites of the year. Everyone does a great job with a great job, Jackman is great but I have to give it to Jake Gylenhall for the best one in the film. The guy kills it as Detective Loki, he is just a interesting character as baumer said, and I agree that I could have watched a whole film about him. I would say with a few minor flaws, over all a near great film.

 

9/10

[4815162342]

+1 to everyone who said that Jackman and Jake G are at their career best here.

 

The film is probably a bit overlong, but I think it recognizes this which is why we get the ending the way it is, which is very abrupt but at the same time conveys everything you need to know about the plot resolution without dragging the audience through it.

[glassfairy]

C+

 

Nice acting performances but way too long and i'm not even here for that Lifetime Movie Network movie of the week story. From the time the priest says his bit about the man taking children anyone with an IQ in triple digits has worked out the link with the uncle who disappeared. Then you sit and wait, and wait and wait for something to click for the detective who has solved every case. As soon as I saw the mazes on the wall of the mannequin molester I remembered the pendant on the corpse's chain. If the police made more money i'd sign up. And I won't even get started on the we were devout but our son died of cancer so we waged a war on God by taking children and turning parents into monsters mess. Not even Lifetime would.

[Water Bottle]

The good parts:

+Excellent Direction

+Mostly excellent acting especially from Jackman and Gylenhall.

+It manages to remain tense throughout the movie

 

The bad parts:

+The script. The script suffers from three major problems: an abrupt ending that is meant to be ambiguous but is plain stupid, a script that falls apart when you think about it, and it's weak exploration of it's central theme.

-The abrupt ending is meant to be in line with the film's dark tone but...I would imagine that the police would, oh I don't know, move all vehicles when they realize they have to dig up the property. They would therefore discover the hole Jackman is under a very short period of time. The whistle is eery but alas, eery doesn't excuse a bad ending.

-The script that falls apart is because it's not completely cohesive and because some smart characters make some stupid decisions. I'm not talking "stupid because their emotionally stressed" but stupid in that they become incompetent. I do like the irony that Jackman was right about how incompetent the police are: he's the one that finds who has the girls and they can't find him because they don't move the vehicles off the property.

-The movie's primary theme is largely about crisis of faith. The antagonists want to force a crisis of faith on believers (hence why they take kids) and there's constant references that the characters have a faith. Not a single character in the movie actually has a crisis of faith. What the fuck? That's like bringing up the theme but then refusing to even scratch the surface. The secondary theme is doing what it takes (the police doesn't, Jackman does) but...it's too under the surface to really work.

 

Overall, the direction and acting is strong (so much so that many critics seem to completely forget that a great film needs a strong narrative as well) but the movie's script needed at least one more draft to bring out the theme more, to make everything cohesive, and to find a way to bring the movie to an end naturally that doesn't make you want to scream at police incompetence.

 

C

[baumer]

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on a couple things WB.  One, the ending, while abrupt is actually fitting.  What more could they do?  Jackman's going to prison.  He tortured the hell out of Alex and no matter the state he's in, he's going to jail.  Jackman's sole purpose in the film was to save his daughter, and he basically failed but in the end, the police show up and she is saved.  So his mission is accomplished.  As for the police being incompetent, I don't think that is totally fair.  Loki was working basically alone and those around him were incompetent, but he wasn't.  I think the mother should have been a suspect from the beginning but even if they would have stripped the house down they wouldn't have found them and I really don't think they would have looked under the car at first.

 

I understand your complaints and I agree with some of them, just wanted to rebut those two. 

[4815162342]

+The script. The script suffers from three major problems: an abrupt ending that is meant to be ambiguous but is plain stupid,

 

The ending is not meant to be ambiguous at all but clearly obvious. Jake G hears the whistle a couple times, dismisses it and is about to leave when he hears it again a bit louder and he gets an "oh shit" look on his face because he remembers Maria Bello saying that her daughter said she'd found the whistle before she was kidnapped.

 

It's clear that Jackman will get found, we simply don't see it because the film knows it's long enough already and there's little point in dragging the epilogue out with Jackman being found, going to jail, etc.

[Water Bottle]

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on a couple things WB.  One, the ending, while abrupt is actually fitting.  What more could they do?  Jackman's going to prison.  He tortured the hell out of Alex and no matter the state he's in, he's going to jail.  Jackman's sole purpose in the film was to save his daughter, and he basically failed but in the end, the police show up and she is saved.  So his mission is accomplished.  As for the police being incompetent, I don't think that is totally fair.  Loki was working basically alone and those around him were incompetent, but he wasn't.  I think the mother should have been a suspect from the beginning but even if they would have stripped the house down they wouldn't have found them and I really don't think they would have looked under the car at first.

 

I understand your complaints and I agree with some of them, just wanted to rebut those two. 

 

Sorry, but an ending should always feel organic. An abrupt ending, even if it's a cliff-hanger or leaves a few things for the audience's imagination (as is in this case), is never fitting. If it feels like it suddenly just ended, then the movie failed. Also, I'd say he succeeded in getting his daughter rescued. The only reason Loki arrived just in time to save the daughter was because Jackman had kidnapped Alex Jones and the police chief insisted he tell the "aunt" when they have found him. As for Loki working alone, why doesn't he have a partner? Anyways, Loki might be competent but the police as a whole are incompetent. Which is my point. They wouldn't have purposefully looked under the car first, sure, but they would have moved them.

 

The ending is not meant to be ambiguous at all but clearly obvious. Jake G hears the whistle a couple times, dismisses it and is about to leave when he hears it again a bit louder and he gets an "oh shit" look on his face because he remembers Maria Bello saying that her daughter said she'd found the whistle before she was kidnapped.

 

Except he doesn't know where to look. He just knows Jackman is somewhere. As the tech guys said, it could take weeks to dig everything up. The question isn't whether or not Jake G knows Jackman is there, it's if he can find him in time to save him.

[4815162342]

I would imagine that the police would, oh I don't know, move all vehicles when they realize they have to dig up the property. They would therefore discover the hole Jackman is under a very short period of time. The whistle is eery but alas, eery doesn't excuse a bad ending.

 

You say this without understanding how the police would actually operate. Based on all the information they had and what transpired, any police investigation would have believed that the threat to safety was over. Therefore, there was zero need to rush the investigation of the property since there was no reason to believe anyone was still a prisoner. All they thought needed to be done was excavate to look for physical remains. A few days here or there don't matter to bones.

 

Sorry, but an ending should always feel organic. An abrupt ending, even if it's a cliff-hanger or leaves a few things for the audience's imagination (as is in this case), is never fitting. If it feels like it suddenly just ended, then the movie failed.

 

Except he doesn't know where to look. He just knows Jackman is somewhere. As the tech guys said, it could take weeks to dig everything up. The question isn't whether or not Jake G knows Jackman is there, it's if he can find him in time to save him.

 

1) If you don't think an organic ending can be sudden, then you got a very narrow view of how things should end and there's no use pressing further on the subject. Organic has nothing to do with the speed of an ending. Organic means the ending has naturally grown out of the preceding plot without any "force" wedging it in.

 

2) Your point? Do you really think they'd have included the ending the way it was if it wasn't for the audience to realize that Jackman was going to be found? They made a big deal about how Jake G has never not solved a case, so the second he gets his look of recognition, the film ends because that's it, he's solved it and nothing more needs to be said. If you wanted another 10-15 minutes to show Loki and the crew excavating Jackman, hospitalizing Jackman, arresting Jackman, and incarcerating Jackman...well, I doubt the film would generally have been as well received by the public and critics so far.

[baumer]

Of course he would find him.  First of all, he'd call the entire force back, then he'd follow the sound and he'd find Jackman pretty easily.

[RobinHood26]

Its a solid film, that has plenty of problems but Jackman, Gyllenhaal, and Deakins kill it.

 

B (85)

[Water Bottle]

You say this without understanding how the police would actually operate. Based on all the information they had and what transpired, any police investigation would have believed that the threat to safety was over. Therefore, there was zero need to rush the investigation of the property since there was no reason to believe anyone was still a prisoner. All they thought needed to be done was excavate to look for physical remains. A few days here or there don't matter to bones.

 

Fine, if the police don't remove obstacles before they begin a search, then I guess that's a problem with incompetent police in the real world. I don't care if there's no rush: you have to do it sooner or later and it seems it's more efficient to do it sooner. I could be wrong but it seems like a silly point to argue with me over it. It's not like I'm going to grade the movie any higher nor am I going to change my mind that it's more intelligent to move the cars first.

 

1) If you don't think an organic ending can be sudden, then you got a very narrow view of how things should end and there's no use pressing further on the subject. Organic has nothing to do with the speed of an ending. Organic means the ending has naturally grown out of the preceding plot without any "force" wedging it in.

 

I know what Organic is and I do think abrupt endings can't, by their nature, be organic. I can also tell you that not once have I ever said "wait, this movie is over?" and then proceeded to like the ending. Not once. Call it personal preference if you like...and since a review is basically me stating things the way I see it, aka my personal preferences, my point stands.

 

2) Your point? Do you really think they'd have included the ending the way it was if it wasn't for the audience to realize that Jackman was going to be found? They made a big deal about how Jake G has never not solved a case, so the second he gets his look of recognition, the film ends because that's it, he's solved it and nothing more needs to be said. If you wanted another 10-15 minutes to show Loki and the crew excavating Jackman, hospitalizing Jackman, arresting Jackman, and incarcerating Jackman...well, I doubt the film would generally have been as well received by the public and critics so far.

 

My point is I thought the ending was bad. As to how they could have ended it, well apparently I don't know anything about storytelling according to your point 1 to answer the question. Even if I did, I'm not going to answer the question. They gave me an ending and I didn't like it but it's the ending the people making the film wanted. I'm going to respect them there.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Water Bottle

[Michael Gary Scott]

Baumer I felt the killers motivation was they felt they were getting back at god for taking their son away. Anyways loved the film. Jackman, Gylenhall and Deakins are all on the top of their game here and I loved the ending. 4.5/5

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

How was Loki not suspended after he loses it on a suspect who then gets a gun and commits suicide while in custody?

 

The ending felt like it cut off when it did for the sake of being "shocking". Meh.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

I highly enjoyed the film, it was suspenseful and acting was great. Jackman should be nominated for Best Actor.   Cinematography is amazing, best this year so far. The script did have its problems like how did the police not realize that Alex was not who he was. Would they do a search and realize nothing comes up for that name or if something did it would not fit his the description. 

Wattle Bottle only in large cities police have partners. So in a small town it make sense that Loki would be himself. I would liked to know more about the lady. It very abrupt  when the movie tells you  who the kidnapper is and minutes later she dies. 

B

[ssjrem]

I really enjoyed this film. Great acting performances all around, particularly from Jackman and Gyllenhaal. Very suspenseful and I actually didn't think it felt overly long; I was too caught up in the story. I gave it an A.

Edited September 27, 2013 by ssjrem

[MrPink]

I think this is a film Gopher and I agree on.  It's not a perfect film but there is a lot to like about it, as Gopher said.  However there are a few things to dislike about it and that left me scratching my head.  I wanted to give it an A, and all throughout I kept telling myself it would all come together, it would all make sense at some point.  It does come together for the most part and it is kind of wrapped up nicely but there were parts along the way that just didn't sit well with me.  

 

For those of you who don't want to know, there are spoilers here, so proceed with caution.

 

Hugh Jackman does give a career topping performance and imo he should be a shoe in for an Oscar nomination.  He is just a strong and angry man.  His physical presence in this is very evident as he just looks so much bigger than everyone else.  When he is angry, you feel his pain.  When he wants to hurt someone, you feel that with him. And when he starts to do his angry father thing, even though you don't completely agree with him, you empathize with him and almost understand how he could do it.  

 

There's a fantastic fork in the road in the film and it really got me into it more than I already was.  At one point you really don't know if the suspect is telling the truth--that he has nothing to do with it.  And then there is a brilliant scene where Jackman is watching him outside of his house.  The two things that the suspect (Dano) does really make you turn to Jackman's side.  And that's important because the film needs you to understand accept that Jackman is not just a grief stricken father.  

 

Also very strong in the film is Gylenhall.  I've always enjoyed his work and he has been brilliant in films like Brokeback, Love and Other Drugs, Brothers, Source Code and many, many others.  He is in here as well.  I didn't quite understand who he was or why he had to blink all the time or why he had tattoos all over him but my guess is that will be an interesting behind the scenes feature on the BR. But he was a hard character.  He has a story and I'd be interested in a film all about him.  

 

A few of the things that I didn't like all that much SPOILERS BIG TIME NOW was the motivation for the killer was never really explained.  I realize that some killers just want to watch to world burn and they don't necessarily need a motivation but I felt that this killer did need one.  She had been doing it for a long time but there really wasn't any reason as to why.  Also, it's mentioned that she never really was Alex's aunt and that is something that I thought was a little strange.  Alex, at any time that he was being tortured, could have told them it was his aunt.  But he kept his mouth shut and went through some really awful torture.  I realize he had the IQ of a ten year old, but even a ten year old understands right from wrong.  Also, there were so many good actors in the film that were just ignored or forgotten about.  It just became the Gylenhal and Jackman show and that's too bad because the supporting cast was really strong in this.  Another thing I didn't get was why the captain was such a jerk to Detective Loki.  Why was he like that?  And finally I didn't understand why Jackman went along with what the killer said at the end.  She weighed about 105 pounds and was a full foot shorter than Jackman and he had plenty of opportunity to fend her off.  That was annoying.

 

Regarding the spoilers, the killer's motivation was basically that her child fell victim to cancer, so to strike back at God, she kidnapped other people's children to take them away so parents can share their suffering. As for Alex, I think the explanation you're supposed to buy is that Alex loved his aunt very much (remember that conversation with Loki in the house?), and that he wouldn't tell on her.

 

I felt like an idiot for not realizing that the dead body in the priest's home was Melissa Leo's husband. It took me the drive home to realize that's why he disappeared. Went to a confessional and the priest killed him.

 

As for Gyllenhaal's facial tics, I think he mentioned that a lot of geniuses do those tics, so that's why he adopted that for the role. To further emphasize his superb track record.

Edited September 28, 2013 by MrPink