Directed by:
Denis VilleneuveScreenplay:
Aaron GuzikowskiCinematography:
Roger DeakinsComposer:
Jóhann JóhannssonCast:
Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Maria Bello, Terrence Howard, Melissa Leo, Paul Dano, Dylan Minnette, Zoë Soul, Erin Gerasimovich, Kyla-Drew (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
How far would you go to protect your family? Keller Dover is facing every parent's worst nightmare. His six-year-old daughter, Anna, is missing, together with her young friend, Joy, and as minutes turn to hours, panic sets in. The only lead is a dilapidated RV that had earlier been parked on their street. Heading the investigation, Detective Loki arrests its driver, Alex Jones, but a lack of evidence forces his release. As the police pursue multiple leads and pressure mounts, knowing his child's life is at stake the frantic Dover decides he has no choice but to take matters into his own hands. But just how far will this desperate father go to protect his family? (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (5)
Reviews (15)
Prisoners bears the hallmarks of a high-quality psychological drama and a very good crime thriller. However, it ultimately falls short on both genre levels. As a character-focused film, it fails due to the restrained (even in the context of the situations in which the characters find themselves) or, conversely, exceedingly prudent actions of the protagonists. With the exception of Jackman, about whom the hunting prologue tells us most of what’s important, and Gyllenhaal, who adds a peculiar element to his performance with suspiciously frequent blinking (which could indicate that he has a dark past, or that he simply has a facial tick), the actors in the film are dead weight. They do not help with evoking the morally ambivalent feelings that comprise the core of the narrative, as Villeneuve doesn’t bother to better justify their infrequent presence or involve them in the main action. Keller’s wife pays the highest price for the utilitarian handling of the characters. Of all the actors, Maria Bello overacts most aggressively, so we needn’t feel sorry for her as she sometimes wearily and sometimes hysterically staggers her way through the film. ___ The film’s sense of gravitas is apparently supposed to be bolstered by long shots (of tree bark, for example), frequent fade-outs, heavy rain, the use of ambient noise instead of non-diegetic music (which is similarly cacophonous as the aforementioned noise, so – like in Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – it is sometimes difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins). These are not very original means of evoking a gloomy atmosphere, but they generally serve the purpose. However, Villeneuve overuses them and because of that – among other things – the film fails as a procedural thriller. ___ Shots intended to shape the atmosphere predominate over shots that convey any determinative information. Furthermore, most of the essential revelations are based on unconvincing coincidences rather than on collecting and analysing evidence. The length of the investigation (and thus of the film) is not proportionate to the manner of revealing the perpetrator. At the end, you will come to the most powerful realisation that the whole investigative storyline, with all of its dead ends and ambiguous clues, was designed solely for the purpose of forcing the characters to face certain moral dilemmas so that they would both experience and do something very unpleasant and somehow redeem themselves after staggering out of the labyrinth of (a)morality (this involves one of the many traditional religious motifs that the film works with, along with serpents, crucifixes and Bible quotes). ___ If Villeneuve cared primarily about the psychological level of the narrative, why does he devote so much space to the investigative level, spending most of the film trying to convince us that this is a crime movie after all? The two different levels ultimately weaken each other. Disinterest in the past and deeply rooted motivations of the characters can be accepted in a procedural, but not in a psychological film. Holes in the logic would not matter so much in a psychological study of a person in an extreme situation, but they are distracting in a detective story. Instead of one consistent film, Villeneuve made two films, both of which are thoroughly unsatisfying. 70%
()
(less)
(more)
Very similar style to Clint Eastwood's Mystic River, just as austere and economical, with utmost emphasis on editing and minimalist musical composition. While that film is more complex and interconnected in terms of screenplay, Prisoners relies on a linear plot and open, long scenes full of emotions, when the camera does not move. It is dense, strong, and uncompromising. However, it is also filmed with sensitivity, with an exceptionally effective ensemble cast. Hugh Jackman gives a great performance.
()
A tense, heavy drama and also a perfect detective movie about searching for two kidnapped girls. Villeneuve directs with a sure hand, squeezing the maximum out of the actors. The atmosphere is perfect, almost like the Scandinavian detective series that are so popular right now, but it has that American abnormality and disregard in it. Jackman has never acted better, Gyllenhaal is just awesome and even Paul Dano who just plays a swollen, blood-shot eye for the second half of the movie, is excellent. The viewer has no idea till almost the very end, the twists mount up, decisions are ever more desperate and the clock is ticking. If it weren’t for a couple of places where the movie starts running on the spot the fill time, I would give full marks.
()
Exactly the type of film that pulls out all the trump cards in the first third, only to dilute them in vain and uneasily mix them. I was looking forward to a slow psychological crime thriller, but over time it breaks down into a one-string litany, from which protrudes Deakins’ excellent camera and the character of Jake Gyllenhaal, who, unlike the others, has the advantage that you basically don't learn anything about him (at least in this way, it’s a little mysterious). The film also fails significantly as a detective story when it dispenses information very inefficiently and fails to justify its excessive length (one revelation involves a senseless number of repetitive and intense dialogues without a deeper meaning). However, the music, the camera and some of the directing moments away from the plot make it a solid film. EDIT 2020: I take it back, it all works brilliantly as a story of insurmountable anxiety and destructive rage. And in fact as a detective story about a spasmatic detective who patiently faces a feeling of inadequacy.
()
An absolutely amazing movie with awesome atmosphere that utilizes its characters, the weather and moods. It completely analyzes the individual details of the situations and the characters themselves. That’s how I like it, and that’s exactly what I get out of American production once every two years, if at all. The first movie I saw that was done with such precision was Seven. That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking of while watching this movie. But I’m sorry that I still can’t give it the full five stars. There were scenes where I needed a deeper explanation. And I don’t think there was any time left for that explanation. It was long enough and if it was just ten minutes longer, I probably wouldn’t have managed. Anyway, Hugh Jackman and Jack Gyllenhaal’s acting was really amazing. They both tuned into the roles so well that I saw all the individual nuances that made it different from ordinary acting performances. Hugh becomes a wreck, and Jack’s face ticks get worse and worse by each passing minute, all the way to the finale. A great movie and precise filmmaking. I wish there were more of those.
()
Gallery (76)
Photo © Warner Bros. Pictures
