PRISONERS : Fan Reviews/Reactions ( SPOILER ALERT!!)

[carouselkathy]

I still have to say that I think the ending was perfect. If the whistle had been louder, it would have been too obvious. When I saw it, the audience was absolutely silent, which added to the suspense and the irony.

[birchie]

Oct 3, 2013 18:59:18 GMT -5 carouselkathy said:

I still have to say that I think the ending was perfect. If the whistle had been louder, it would have been too obvious. When I saw it, the audience was absolutely silent, which added to the suspense and the irony. I didn't mean to post this twice. How do I delete it?

press the little arrow next to the gear thingy next to the little hand and the drop down menu has a delete option...only if it's your own post, it doesn't show up on others.
Sue

[carouselkathy]

Thanks, Sue.

[jo]

I still have to say that I think the ending was perfect. If the whistle had been louder, it would have been too obvious. When I saw it, the audience was absolutely silent, which added to the suspense and the irony.

I agree about the ending being perfect!

SPOILER: Click to show

The first whistle sound was faint...then it became a bit more pronounced...and the last one was already quite obvious ( as it was to Loki... shared by the entire audience sitting hushed and paying as much attention as the detective), as the movie faded to black. The middle-aged man seated across the aisle from us could not contain his satisfaction with the ending and the movie and started clapping quite excitedly

Re the sound quality - my sister, who is more technically-aware than I am, said that when the movie is announced as being shown in "2D", it usually has excellent sound quality compared to regular films. I did not even know that. it could also be depending on the quality of the projection system used by the cinema. I saw Les Miserables an incredible 6 times and the last two ones I had seen were shown in older cinemas and I thought the light and sound did not compare well with the first ones I had seen (in excellent and newer cinemas).

Jo

[jo]

Guess who loved PRISONERS and wrote a lengthy blog about it??

James Franco!


SPOILERS EVERYWHERE*****SPOILERS EVERYWHERE*****SPOILERS EVERYWHERE



www.vice.com/read/some-impressions-prisoners

SPOILER: Click to show

A Few Impressions

Jake Gyllenhaal Is the Perfect Gumshoe in ‘Prisoners’

By James Franco



Warning: This article contains spoilers.

Prisoners is awesome. I loved, loved, loved it. The atmosphere, the pacing, the framing, the acting, and the subject matter are all so good. I love that my man Jake Gyllenhaal is back as a hard-hitting actor. His portrayal of Detective Loki is mysterious, empathetic, tough, and believable—all without a backstory. All we know about Loki is that he spends Thanksgiving alone at a Chinese restaurant and that he has never foiled a case. He is the perfect engine for this contemporary noir where each turn (well, almost each turn) in the narrative is believable and gripping. But more than that, he embodies the “complex simplicity” that Thoreau speaks of. He tells little with words but tells so much with presence and clues. Clock my man’s crazy tattoos and the erratic blinking he does whenever he is thinking hard about something. Scope his shirts buttoned esse-style, all the way to the top. These are the signals of a confident and searching actor and they signify to viewers that Detective Loki is a force to be reckoned with in his world. Even though Loki has a shadowy backstory, these little clues are all we need to fall in love with him.

And just in case it isn’t clear: I LOVE this film. It is so dense with atmosphere and full of questions about who we are and what we believe in. It is so rich that it feels like a novel. I kept asking myself as I watched it: How did the screenwriter and director jump straight past conventional literature and create literature for the screen? Maybe someone will just have to do a book adaptation of this film. It’s that good.

Because it is so good, I want to ruminate on some things I found troubling. Think of this pondering as coming from your friend whom you saw the film with; you’re both in the car together on the way home and you’re just discussing what you liked and didn’t like about the film. It isn’t straight criticism, but rather a little detective work on the detective film itself.

At the end of the movie I asked myself what it was about, what was its point? The kids who are kidnapped by Paul Dano’s character are found, Dano’s evil “aunt” Melissa Leo is shot and killed, and everyone is happy, more or less. So, in the end, the movie is partly about Hugh Jackman’s character being pushed to extreme behavior in order to save his daughter. Plainly, it’s about a citizen who lives within the law who goes outside of the law and tortures a man for a week because he believes this man kidnapped his daughter. And if that’s what the movie is about, why don’t we see more of this act of torture? We see him punch Paul Dano’s creep-o character a couple times in the face, but that’s nothing we haven’t seen in every Stallone movie ever made. Then—in what I think is the oddest turn of events in the film—he makes a kind of torture shower and puts Paul Dano inside of it.

This almost feels like a copout because we can no longer see Paul Dano get tortured. We only see a wooden wall and his eyes through a slit. And that’s where poor Paul Dano's part ends in the movie—we never see him out again. From the trailer I thought that creepy Paul was going to make an Edward Norton-in-Primal Fear-type turn from mentally impaired creep into wicked child-abducting mastermind, but instead he spends the movie screaming in a box. Mostly this is just to say that I am a fan and wish I could have seen more of him.

The other aspect of this torture box—aside from the odd amount of time it takes to build—is that Viola Davis and Terence Howard just sit around the abandoned house while crazy Hugh Jackman builds the hurt locker and meanwhile their daughter is home alone in the bath as another creeper stalks about, stealing clothes from the children’s rooms. The problem, or at least what I question, my dear friend in the car with me, is: Why did the filmmakers chose this particular form of torture? First of all, building an instrument of torture from scratch seems a little extensive of a commitment for a man urgently trying to find his daughter. Why doesn’t he just cut the guy’s fingers or dick off instead? Why build a torture shower? Maybe the reason is that it allows the character to torture Paul Dano’s character more easily because he can’t see him. OK, I can sort of buy that, for the character, but not exactly for the movie because the audience is ready to follow Hugh’s character through almost anything for two reasons: first, he’s lovable Hugh Jackman (which is hard to forget, and even though he gives a brilliant performance I found myself asking, What is Hugh Jackman doing in this indie drama?), and second, because his character has lost his child (the logic being that if audiences are ready to side with anyone, it will be parents looking for their abducted children, and if there are villains that we want to punish more than anyone, it's child molesters, especially creepy ones with creep-glasses like Paul Dano). My point is that the movie was almost entirely set up to have Hugh torture the fuck out of creepy Paul with the audience’s blessing, which is later—WARNING: SPOILER ALERT—thrown in the audience’s face when we learn that Paul is innocent. So, why did they hide everything in the shower? Not sure.

But back to the man of the hour and why I like this movie so much: Check out Jake walking around all the creepy basements. Love it! Check out his computer-bashing rage scene. Love it! Check out the way he questions motherfuckers, holding his gun like a real gumshoe, and races the girl back to the hospital with blood running down his face like a champ. Love it!

Still, one last question: What was up with the mazes? Why mazes? Just asking...

Previously - Writing to Live in Hollywood[/bspoiler]

Please don't forget to read the feedback section - some very interesting and sensible responses to some questions that James Franco raised. I think Franco should watch the movie again, if he wants a fuller comprehension of the storyline and play a better detective or a morality play observer - LOL!

Jo

[jo]

There is no spoiler from this James Franco comment --

OK, I can sort of buy that, for the character, but not exactly for the movie because the audience is ready to follow Hugh’s character through almost anything for two reasons: first, he’s lovable Hugh Jackman (which is hard to forget, and even though he gives a brilliant performance I found myself asking, What is Hugh Jackman doing in this indie drama?),

Is he dense? He thinks Hugh is only good for action movies and movie musicals? And hosting Oscars? And just being lovable? That Hugh cannot tackle indie drama type of acting? Maybe he should have checked first whether Hugh has done work of that nature ( Erskineville Kings? A Steady Rain? Even The Fountain? )? Maybe he should have checked that Hugh comes from a theatre background and actually does theatre?

And who says PRISONERS is an indie drama?? It belongs to the thriller genre, but elevated by the deep character study (that Guzikowski chose to embue his fictional characters with) into something that audiences can be riveted to and encourage thoughtful discussions!

Sorry, James -- you try too hard trying to be too cool smiley-rolleyes010


Jo

[luzie]

Oct 4, 2013 6:50:30 GMT -5 jo said:

There is no spoiler from this James Franco comment --

OK, I can sort of buy that, for the character, but not exactly for the movie because the audience is ready to follow Hugh’s character through almost anything for two reasons: first, he’s lovable Hugh Jackman (which is hard to forget, and even though he gives a brilliant performance I found myself asking, What is Hugh Jackman doing in this indie drama?),

Is he dense? He thinks Hugh is only good for action movies and movie musicals? And hosting Oscars? And just being lovable? That Hugh cannot tackle indie drama type of acting? Maybe he should have checked first whether Hugh has done work of that nature ( Erskineville Kings? A Steady Rain? Even The Fountain? )? Maybe he should have checked that Hugh comes from a theatre background and actually does theatre?

And who says PRISONERS is an indie drama?? It belongs to the thriller genre, but elevated by the deep character study (that Guzikowski chose to embue his fictional characters with) into something that audiences can be riveted to and encourage thoughtful discussions!

Sorry, James -- you try too hard trying to be too cool smiley-rolleyes010


Jo

It's Franco, the “actor, artist, poet …” who is so cool that he p*sses ice-cubes. I know why I can't stand this self-important dude at all! Why does he feel obliged to dabble in film critic too now?

[mamaleh]

It's pretty obvious that Franco sees this as ("my man") Jake's film, which leads me to believe they are either good friends or he'd like them to be; that appears to be the prism through which he views the movie. Some critic agree, although most think Hugh is the major protagonist (or antagonist, depending on your moral worldview) or that it's a two-lead movie. Yet Warners is positioning Jake for supporting and Hugh as the lead, which seems about right to me.

Perhaps because he associates "indie" with quality, Franco perceives PRISONERS as an indie, which I take as a compliment to Villeneuve. But I share your umbrage, Jo, at Franco's ill-informed belief that Hugh is out of place in an "indie drama." He simply doesn't have all the info and is proceeding from flawed data. Maybe he should spend more time catching up on Hugh's canon of outstanding dramatic work and less time pontificating on things about which he displays his ignorance.

Ellen

[jo]

It's alright to express admiration for a colleague but does it have to be done also while putting down someone else's supposed "brilliant" performance ( as he describes Hugh's portrayal, while wondering how Hugh could possibly be part of this brilliant piece of film acting). Like as much as he wants to -- that is his choice -- but I personally do not care for the "brooding" school of acting where a lot of younger indie actors seem to be trained in. If you check the Movie Awards board of IMDB there is a thread which wonders why there is so much fuss about Jake in PRISONERS. I do not question people's choices, but it is still a matter of taste.

Maybe I am just too annoyed saying this -LOL- but I think he may be putting down Hugh somewhat because Hugh was too much admired/loved as a host (and that's because Hugh was very accomplished) while he was the epitome of the worst Oscar hosting ever.

Nice try, Mr. Franco!


PS: Maybe he should attend the MPTF ONE-NIGHT-ONLY event to see how it's done

[birchie]

Can't stand Franco. It's a good thing he's so high on himself because he'll never have the stature & respect that Hugh Jackman has & very much deserves. I agree that it's sour grapes over the two versions of Oscar hosting. One was applauded all over the world and one was a joke! Sorry JF, you should stick to YAM movies which is about the height of achievement for you.
Sue

[jo]

For a moment, I also felt this way

SPOILER: Click to show

Walter Rodriguez‏@superwalter641h
Then ending of prisoners is the beginning of THE WOLVERINE...Hugh jackman underground in a hole

[jo]

There were comments on how PRISONERS evokes A STEADY RAIN --




Hugh is clean-shaven and shows a well-chiselled profile in this play, as against the facial hair and rather not-so-great haircut in the movie, but the clothes almost remind you of what Keller wore. Denny did have some similarities in terms of the character arc that happens in the plots.

Jo