Prisoners

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. (15/02/2014)

A captivating drama in which it wasn't about all the surprises and revelations (the observant viewer receives various clues on an ongoing basis, and it's just up to him or her how to handle them), but rather what they do with the characters. I like films like that. Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal are perfect and I believed absolutely everything they did, and the combination of Villeneuve's directing, Deakin’s camera and Jóhannsson's music once again ensured a million-dollar atmosphere. It was dark, dirty, dense and I'm glad no one made a stretched series out of it, but instead one proper film. (01/03/2019)

There are always a hundred and one glitches to grumble about with Villeneuve’s movies; from the unnecessary length, through predictability to occasional idiotic behavior of the characters. But it also applies that these things get under your skin and begin to rot and rot weeks after watching them. And paradoxically the impression from them gradually gets stronger. So much so that after a while they seem much better than they had seemed at the time you watched them. But this doesn’t apply to Prisoners, which doesn’t get under your skin; well, maybe does, but just the atmosphere and nothing else. Instead of feeling uneasy all the way home from the movie theater “whether the sprogs are sleeping snugly in their beds" and then holding them tighter than normally by their hand for a couple of days because “you never know", satisfaction begins to sink in about this solid piece of Fincherism, although still plagued but hundred and one snags. (08/10/2013)

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)

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)