Prisoners has been getting great word of mouth. A friend of mine even claimed it was the best movie he'd seen all year. And although I don't take much stock in what critics say; they seemed to adore it as well. I thought the movie looked great but I ended up being a tad disappointed by it. It's not that it's a bad movie. It's just that it's a pretty mediocre one, elevated by truly great performances by everyone in the cast.
Prisoners is basically about two young girls who disappear from their neighborhood on Thanksgiving day and the grief their families experience, and the lengths some of them will go to to exact revenge. Hugh Jackman plays Keller, the father of one of the girls, who is a Christian survivalist who always hopes for the best but plans for the worst. Somehow, the movie doesn't make a big enough deal about his Christianity, because I think the things he does in this movie are a little more interesting when you consider that he is a devout man. His wife is Maria Bello, who mostly gets resigned to grief stricken mother who can't get out of bed. But, you know what? She nails it. Their friends from down the street whose daughter also goes missing are the peaceful and sweet Terrence Howard and his tough as nails, turn a blind eye wife played by Viola Davis. Once the girls are missing, Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) shows up and begins to investigate. His investigation quickly leads to a mentally stunted strange young man named Alex (Paul Dano), who they quickly arrest but must let go because of lack of evidence. And while Loki continues his investigation which leads him all over the damn city, Keller hones in on Alex, convinced of his guilt. He stakes out the home he shares with his aunt (Melissa Leo), and eventually kidnaps him and holds him prisoner, where in he decides to torture him until he talks. Meanwhile, the audience is assured of his innocence with every passing moment. This movie is designed less as a whodunit, than it is more a revenge thriller, and I think the paradox of trying to please both of those genres sort of strains the script, which seems manic and unrestrained. The whodunit section is interesting but overly long, leading us to one red herring after another. The revenge part is much more interesting but almost seems to take a back seat. Plus, I invented a much better and more effective ending in my head before seeing this movie, so I was pretty disappointed with the road they chose to take.
Speaking of the ending, I won't spoil anything, but it is a tad disappointing. First of all, it's fairly predictable, at least to anyone who has ever seen an episode of Criminal Minds or Law and Order. Second of all, this two and a half hour movie is over long by at least forty minutes. There is one story line especially which irks me. It serves almost no purpose except to throw the audience off the trail one last time. It's very confusing and more or less is unnecessary. It could have been cut completely or at least scaled down a great deal. This could have easily cut thirty minutes from the running time. I love a good long movie, but this movie definitely felt like it was two plus hours long. Good long movies never feel like they are overly long. I keep comparing this movie to Zodiac in my mind (same star, both whodunits), which is a great long movie. It's about three hours long, but it never feels like it. Zodiac is a movie that uses every single moment of its running time, it doesn't waste a second. The same can't be said for Prisoners.
All of this being said, I didn't hate this movie. In fact, I sort of liked it while watching it, except for the fact that Detective Loki, the big hot shot detective who has never lost a case, didn't really seem like a very good detective. I was picking up on things that he didn't notice until a good 45 minutes later. However, after watching it, all the flaws seemed to stick with me and that is definitely a sign for me. If I can forgive a movie its flaws, if they don't bother me the way this movie did, then the movie did something right. I think Prisoners does a lot wrong. However, it's saving grace is the cast. This cast is all so great, individually and collectively, that it easily elevates this movie to something worth talking about. Sometimes when you have a cast full of great actors and famous people, you wonder why they are all a part of the ensemble when only one or two have a really great scene. But each actor here is blessed with at least one or two really great meaty scenes that let them shine individually. They also shine as a collective unit, working off each other with ease, helping to make each other's performances better.
While all the performances are great, two particularly stand out. And, despite what the media will tell you, it's not Hugh Jackman. Yes, he is good. Yes, he is intense. Yes, this movie mostly rides on his able shoulders. But, he's also a little over the top at times. The two stand outs, for me, are Paul Dano and Jake Gyllenhaal. Dano has been one of my favorite actors for quite some time. He's terribly underrated, I think, but also the only actor on the planet who can hold his own against Daniel Day-Lewis (See: There Will Be Blood). This is his second performance where he barely says a word of dialogue but somehow manages to steal just about every scene he is a part of. (The first was Little Miss Sunshine). Then there is Jake Gyllenhaal. Long gone is the puppy-dog eyed sad, little boy from movies like Bubble Boy and October Sky. His Detective Loki is all nervous ticks and anger and aggression behind the eyes. This is his single best performance to date, even better than his Oscar nominated performance for Brokeback Mountain.
So, for me, the best thing about Prisoners is the performances. The rest of it is just sort of cliche and mediocre. The only thing it really inspired in me is a desire to watch Zodiac again. So, I guess there's that.
Grade: B-
Labels: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Paul Dano, Terrence Howard, Viola Davis
