Pages

Monday, September 23, 2013

Prisoners

When you’re kid, you’re invincible. Or at least you feel that way. Your parents can teach you the dangers of the world, but nothing can stop someone from pulling over to the side of the road, grabbing you and driving off. It’d be that simple. You’re gone and your parents are left in ruin.

That’s the jumping off point of the exceptional new crime thriller, Prisoners. Early in the film, Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his family walk to their friends’ home to celebrate Thanksgiving. Keller, his wife, Grace (Maria Bello), and their hosts, Franklin (Terrence Howard) and Nancy (Viola Davis) have a great time catching up. They eat, they drink, they laugh, and so on, all with their kids running around and playing. After a while, Keller and Grace’s young daughter, Anna, asks her parents if she can run home to get something with Franklin and Nancy’s little girl, Joy. All parents agree, so off the kids go. Alone. The girls don’t return, and the parents’ worst fear is brought to life.


Keller Dover is the kind of guy who is always anxious, always prepared. The kind of guy who keeps his basement organized with copious amounts of food, survival products, weapons, hell, there’s even a fucking gas mask down there. Keller lives in a constant state of paranoia; he’s always ready for it all. Except this. Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young detective with an impressive record, is tasked with finding the girls, but as the hours (and eventual days) slowly tick by, Keller becomes increasingly anxious that no leads are being made.

I’m not revealing anymore, simply because after its first act, Prisoners sets itself up as an elaborate maze, and to reveal some of the steps may allow presumptive readers to figure out too much. Instead of describing how Prisoners is so accomplished, our time will be better spent discussing why.
Director Denis Villeneuve knows how to create an intricately layered web of a film. That’s what he did with his brilliant tale, Incendies, a few years ago. One reason I admire Villeneuve’s direction so much is because he makes room for time. He isn’t concerned with unleashing expository dialogue then cutting to the next scene. He likes to watch his characters. He appreciates the emotional expression of thought, something all too rare in modern American movies.

I’ve seen every film Hugh Jackman has been in, and if he has reached more profound emotional depths than he does as Keller, I’m certainly not aware of the material. We sit anxiously as Keller flirts with the notion of crossing the line. And once it’s crossed, we can’t help but judge his intentions. Is Keller right in his actions? Is it okay for him to deny the law and exact vengeance on his own? It’s that moral conundrum, mixed with Jackman’s intensity, that keeps us engrossed throughout.

In addition to Jackman’s ferociousness, Prisoners acts as a compelling character study of how people handle grief. Some sit in bed, fogged by prescription pills. Others participate in illegal deeds, while others dismiss them. My point is, every single person who graces the screen in this film is at the top of their respective games. Even Paul Dano, who I often have trouble believing as an actor, is disturbingly desperate as an early suspect. 
Having noted all that, the real star of this show is Jake Gyllenhaal, who plays Detective Loki as an obsessed, by the book closer unwilling to forget prior indiscretions. Loki’s troubled past fuels his exceptional police work, and it is enthralling to watch his process unfold on screen. Gyllenhaal gives Loki an interesting character quirk, a rapid, nervous blinking that I found wholly believable. He proves that it’s the little things that make a character.

Prisoners is the type of domestic, moderately budgeted crime thriller that is becoming less and less frequent. It’s powerful, engaging, meticulously detailed and exceptionally acted. It is also very, very smart. Too many movies of this kind rely on cheap tricks or washed up clichés to gain marketability. Not Prisoners. It never went where I thought it was going to go. A 

36 comments:

  1. Based on the trailers for this I knew it was going to be good, but the film was even better than I thought. You are correct in saying that everyone is on the top of their respective games. I'm a massive fan of Gyllenhaal's and with this I think he's topped himself, same with Jackman who's ferocity is simply palpable throughout. Bello and Davis are perfect as grieving wives/mothers and Dano is just creepy. I'm a big crime-thriller fan and this has been one of the few films in that genre that has managed to actually be thrilling throughout in quite a long time for me. I was on the edge of my seat numerous times throughout the film which is exactly what I want from from this genre. I also loved how it never felt the need to brighten things up or add some sort of relief to the story, it progressed as a more realistic(...) tale than many other films of this style.
    Despite all of that, for people who like stories like this (well-done crime thrillers I mean) who I think will love it, based on what I experienced when I went to see it, people who go in based solely on the cast might not dig how brutal it really is. I know that the woman who sat in front of me really disliked how the film ended. Her words, "That's it..." clearly expressed her desire for more of an end point to the story than the one that was given (which I thought was perfect). Great review man, glad you loved it as much as I did!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man! And hell yeah, I loved this one.

      I heard a few "That's its" as well, and I think you are totally spot on: some people will go wanting a Jackman/Gyllenhaal hero movie, but that it ain't. It's honest and real and brutal. I also really appreciate its lack of humor. Just tell it straight and don't worry about if the audience will be able to "take it."

      It's a shame that people go to movies and expect every little plot point to be resolved definitively. Life isn't like that at all.

      Delete
  2. Very compelling and tense, even when you feel like you know where it's going to go. That said, the last 15 minutes or so are a little disappointing considering how conventional they get, but still: I was riveted just about the whole time. If not just for the story, but the amazing ensemble as well. Good review bud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man. I was with the movie all the way, even in its final moments, but I get where you're coming from. I was totally thrown off by Joy's foggy memory. Loved that.

      Delete
  3. I agree with a lot of your thoughts about this film. The pacing is such that Prisoners never feels like it's 2.5 hours long. Villeneuve puts his audience right there beside the characters and, fortunately, he has a uniformly excellent cast with which to do that. Even Leo, a frequent scenery-chewer, strikes mostly natural notes as the alleged killer's aunt.

    A few issues keep me from lavishing too much praise on it, however. As effective as this film is, I felt it slipped into genre cliches a few too many times (i.e. the race to the hospital) and certain bits of dialogue were rote or on the nose (not being able to play Springsteen because "I'm black," for instance). Finally, the whistle at the end seemed like a false note tacked on to give audiences an iota of hope amid the ambiguity. I think it'd be more effective to cut to black on Loki staring out across the back yard to the old car. You spend the entire film putting your audience on edge. Why give up now?

    Those critiques aside, I respect any film that leaves me feeling something as I walk out of the theater. A friend and I were speechless for several minutes. We were both unsettled by what we'd seen and ended up talking through the movie over coffee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I loved that Springsteen line! I swear to God a few of my friends have said that to me before, regarding that exact artist. I thought it was perfect.

      Seems like you didn't dig this one as me, and that's totally cool. I agree, in this day and age, if a movie sticks with us through post-coffee talk, then it has to have done something right. Sadly, that is becoming increasingly rare. Thanks as always for your insightful comment, my friend!

      Delete
    2. That line just felt hokey to me, but then again a lot of off-the-cuff quips sound hokey in real life. *shrugs*

      For me, Prisoners is one of the best of the year so far, but I don't think it will be one for the ages. A solid thriller worth revisiting, but it didn't pack the same emotional or thematic punch as Zodiac or Memories of Murder or High and Low, three films that make for easy comparison pieces.

      Delete
    3. I'll agree with your last paragraph there. I think that's fair. Definitely too early to tell if it will carry weight for years to come. I would be surprised if it had Zodiac-like staying power.

      Delete
  4. Great review! I loved this movie so much, my favorite of the year so far. I feel a little silly, especially after how much I enjoyed Jake Gyllenhaal's performance, but I didn't notice the blinking. It wasn't until afterwards when I saw people complaining about it, did I even register that he blinked more than a regular person. Whoops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! People complained about the blinking? (sigh). It was a great little tick, usually something he did when he was annoyed, like questioning Dano for the first time. I wonder if the people who complained about it caught the line where his character was sexually abused as a kid. Nervous ticks can be an actual result of childhood trauma, which I'm sure you've seen in your line of work. Oh well. We loved the film, so it's all good!

      Delete
    2. I enjoyed Gyllenhaal's performance because of how much was baked into the character without any dialogue to call attention to it. The blinking and the tattoos and the short fuse are never explained for us, but they say a lot about who this guy is and where he's coming from.

      In any other film, we'd hear him talk about his ex-wife or his abusive childhood or watch him attend an AA/NA meeting. We're not given any pat excuse and I quite like that. The only hint here is his interaction with the defrocked priest and even that is left to the imagination.

      Delete
    3. EXACTLY! People want to know why characters do what they do, and when the movie doesn't tell them, they complain. I'll never understand that. I mean... why does Hannibal Lecter like to eat people?

      Delete
  5. So far only heard good things so I'm definitely going to check the movie out. The cast seems great as well and I'm hoping it will rekindle my love for Gyllenhaal. I need more actor-love in my life. Nice review!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! I really did enjoy this one. I haven't seen this smart of an American crime thriller in some time, which was nice. Gyllenhaal ROCKS in this movie.

      Delete
  6. Seeing this today. Hope it lives up to expectations for me

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've been back-and-forth about seeing this though I am surprised by the running time. I'm still not sure about it though I did love Incendies and have heard great things about Villeneuve's other new film with Jake Gyllenhaal.

    BTW, how was that M83 show and are you going to do a concert review?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I honestly think you'd like it. As for the running time, it flew by. Genuinely.

      Do you follow me on Twitter? I think that's the only place I mentioned I was going to the concert. If so, I have no idea what your user name is, which seems weird. Ha.

      The show was amazing but instead of a concert review I'm going to update my Top 10 M83 Songs. I love that fuckin' group.

      Delete
    2. I don't have a Twitter account and probably never will yet you're one of the few people I do follow along with a few bloggers and Jena Malone.

      Delete
    3. Gotcha. Shit, I didn't even know Malone had a Twitter account. Following her right away.

      Delete
    4. Well, here it is: https://twitter.com/MaloneJena

      the future Mrs.thevoid99

      Delete
    5. I'd never heard her singing before. Groovy.

      Delete
  8. I'm going to come out of my very long hiatus and have to comment again, because this review is so spot-on, especially considering it's one of the best movies of the year for me (along with The Hunt and Fruitvale Station). It's like a screenwriter's wet dream. Such an incredibly smart movie, great acting, and perfect direction. And I loved how there wasn't a "main star", but was shared between Gyllenhaal and Jackman, but the themes of the movie also became main characters. I definitely have to see Incendies now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey man, really good to hear from you. So happy we agree fully on this one. I loved everything about it. Such a smart, tight script.

      Thanks for stopping by and commenting!

      Delete
  9. Yes! I dug it too. The pacing was terrific, and the screenplay was anchored by great performances and tight direction. And that ending... I'm still thinking about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too! I thought the ending was perfectly timed. Villeneuve did solid work here.

      Delete
  10. Seeing this on friday - so excited!
    Everyone seems to be raving about it. I'm a big fan of Jackman and Gyllenhaal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice! Can't wait to read your review. Gyllenhaal in particular is a BEAST here.

      Delete
  11. I heard so many complaints about run time that I was worried. This movie flowed like the well thought out puzzle it was. I did not notice the time except that the scenes feel complete and not rushed. I'd also heard that there was an obvious tell on the Perl, but since I did not look closely at the cast the solution did not become clear till the late stages of the story. The Way Gyllenhaal buttoned his shirt is another character touch. It had a couple weak story devices but also a couple of great thrill moments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice, glad you liked this one. I didn't have a problem with the time at all, thought it moved very, very well. Didn't notice the way Gyllenhaal buttoned is shirt - gives me something to look for when I see it again.

      And hey, thanks so much for stopping by and commenting!

      Delete
  12. Before even seeing the movie, I had an idea of what the movie was about, having seen a clip on The Daily Show of Jackman's Keller explaining to police what the suspect had said to him in the parking lot. Not having seen if it was said or not, I thought it was possibly going to be about people being prisoners in their own mental prisons of their perspectives towards the world--seeing what they want to see and all that. Fast forward to around the 2nd act, I'm thinking, okay, we have a literal prisoner, so maybe there's going to be another because of the title's plurality (those of you who've seen the film know if there is or not). Then once you know the truth as to whether Keller's actions are justified, for lack of a better term, it was apparent of the multiple layers of meaning of the title and instantly made it one of my favorite movies of the past few years. I could see both Jackman and Gyllenhall winning an Oscar for their beautiful performance. P.S. Terrance Howard was awesome, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hell yeah man, such a well thought out title. I knew you'd like this one. And the performances... jesus christ. Really hoping for some Oscar love with this one.

      Delete