Prisoners

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. (27/11/2013)

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. (16/11/2013)

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. (10/10/2013)

In the second half of the movie, I was permanently in the situation that if Cthulhu suddenly appeared on the horizon and Detective Loki started repeating "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn", I'd think it actually made perfect sense. After all, Prisoners' greatest asset and at the same time its most malignant tumor is the same as with, for example, the Lost series. That 90-minute layering of questions and themes that culminates in a totally B-grade payoff cut from The Bone Collector or other late-90s Se7en exploitations is actually perfect trolling, where the viewer is kept glued to the screen with a classic Oscar-worthy morality drama about kidnapping, guilt, punishment, and justice, with only a very suspect-looking Gyllenhaal fumbling around with arm tattoos, a terrible haircut, and a Masonic ring. And all of this is sprinkled in with excellent direction, almost Elswit-esque godlike cinematography (Deakins could have bought that Oscar after this), and above-par acting, surprisingly from Hugh Jackman in particular. Villeneuve imho should have totally gone wild in the style of, say, Angel Heart; as it is, this is "merely" a technically brilliant genre film. (16/01/2014)

There hasn’t been such a good crime film since Fincher’s Zodiac. It has all the necessary ingredients mixed in a balanced ratio: a perfectly bleak, brooding atmosphere (cinematographer Deakins once again reigns supreme), acting sure-footedness where once again – as in Fincher's masterpiece – I loved Gyllenhaal with his beleaguered police figure, and a perfect screenplay that looks like an adaptation of an ingeniously written novel by one of the Nordic authors who reign supreme in the detective fiction genre today. And on top of that the shit-phile called verbal gave it 1*, so I don't know what better recommendation you'd want :o) (17/11/2013)