Prisoners

Mr E

How to give away most of the movie in a trailer. It does look good, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ESqBM9tG44

IMDB: A Boston man kidnaps the person he suspects is behind the disappearance of his young daughter and her best friend.

macslash

agree that the trailer gives a lot away, but it does look decent. Kind of reminds me of the Lovely Bones..kinda

fryup

Saw it today didn't like it very grim, very violent and the ending was totally in the WTF territory

WatchWolf

fryup wrote: »

the ending was totally in the WTF territory

Could you expand on this?

The ending didn't strike me as anything overtly strange.

e_e

I don't understand why anybody would complain about it being violent and grim too as the trailer and plot make it very clear what kind of film it's going to be.

Turtyturd

WatchWolf wrote: »

Could you expand on this?

The ending didn't strike me as anything overtly strange.

Didn't get that either, unless you are someone who dislikes

open endings, although it's not even that open as you know what is going to happen.

Essien

I commented on this in the what have you watched thread.

I found it very frustrating. It was so unnecessarily slow for ages, most scenes being much longer and more dragged out than they needed to be, which wouldn't have been so bad if it was at least consistent throughout the film.

I just found the ending to be pretty abrupt, which there was no need for considering how much time had been wasted elsewhere. What was most frustrating though was that there was heaps of backstory that could have been elaborated on but was pretty much just brushed over and left up to the audience to figure out. Again, I can live with that but in this case there was just so much useless padding in there taking up heaps of running time that could have been far better utilised.

I was so happy with this for so long, but looking back at it it's just a shame that it could have been so so much better.

VONSHIRACH

Thinking of seeing it next week. I don't mind if it is not movie of the year. Is it a reasonably gripping/entertaining movie or did people think it was just a waste of money going?

Turtyturd

VONSHIRACH wrote: »

Thinking of seeing it next week. I don't mind if it is not movie of the year. Is it a reasonably gripping/entertaining movie or did people think it was just a waste of money going?

A lot of it depends on you. I generally don't mind a film which has a long running time but with this I really felt it, and as I said elsewhere it's full of cliches and the constant twists, and misdirects left me feeling a bit underwhelmed by the actual end. The two leads put in good performances though.

fryup

WatchWolf wrote: »

Could you expand on this?

The ending didn't strike me as anything overtly strange.

the

showdown with the old aunt

for one thing, was a bit daft i thought..almost comical

Luno

The trailer really gives away the majority of the plot!

Overall I enjoyed the movie but had a few issues with the lack of detail like

the character Bob Taylor and why he was in on it and the way the "aunt" managed to get Keller despite him going there with intentions to get her!

JP Liz V1

Great performances from Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal and especially Paul Dano

Mitch Connor

Luno wrote: »

The trailer really gives away the majority of the plot!

Overall I enjoyed the movie but had a few issues with the lack of detail like

the character Bob Taylor and why he was in on it and the way the "aunt" managed to get Keller despite him going there with intentions to get her!

Bob wasn't in on it - he was just deranged after being kidnapped by them as a kid. He was stealing items of the victims and imagining he was responsible.

tunguska

VONSHIRACH wrote: »

Thinking of seeing it next week. I don't mind if it is not movie of the year. Is it a reasonably gripping/entertaining movie or did people think it was just a waste of money going?

Its more than reasonably gripping and entertaining, definitely worth going to see. I actually thought it was a cracking movie. The acting from everybody is top class. Although Terrence Howard's character wingeing in every scene is a little hard to take. Was hoping Hugh Jackman would bitch slap him and tell him to man up. Hugh Jackman himself is great though, I really wouldn't mess with him, especially if he had a hammer in his hands. But now for words I never thought I'd ever say: Jake Gyllenhaal is brilliant. I mean he should get an Oscar nomination at the very least, he's so good in this. I dont know what the deal is with all the blinking and tatoos but he just nails it as somebody whos seen some very bad things, who is world and people weary, but still retains a strong sense of decency and humanity.
Like I said the acting across the board is top, but the photography is stand out. Roger Deakins has to get an Oscar for what he's done here, this film looks amazing.

LuckyLloyd

Gylenhaal is brilliant.

I think it could have been a touch tighter but it's as uncompromising a modern Hollywood triller as you'll see.

Mitch Connor

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Gylenhaal is brilliant.

I think it could have been a touch tighter but it's as uncompromising a modern Hollywood triller as you'll see.

Really disliked his character, thought he was a smug dick. If he was meant to be then fair enough.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Went to see this earlier. Wouldn't be into dark sinister movies but my friend told me it was kind of along the same lines of taken. It definitely wasnt.

It was horrific, right from the very first scene, I knew I wasn't going to enjoy this movie, but I found the movie was so unpredictable and at times scary, I couldn't even look away.

A lot of it didn't make sense to me, such as

why did he go to the priests house to question him? What was that scene with Alex all about, with the dog? It didn't fit in with the rest of the story - and it was like they only did it so people would think it was Alex. And what was the maze about? It was just on his chain, they weren't in a maze.

I didn't find his wife very believable either, or the scene with the guy in custody.

The scenes with Alex were terrible graphic, and the way his eye just bore out in some scenes was really creepy. But I've no idea why they had to drag it out so long. Still though, was definitely a good movie albeit not my cup of tea.

That cop was gorgeous, too.

Corholio

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Went to see this earlier. Wouldn't be into dark sinister movies but my friend told me it was kind of along the same lines of taken. It definitely wasnt.

It was horrific, right from the very first scene, I knew I wasn't going to enjoy this movie, but I found the movie was so unpredictable and at times scary, I couldn't even look away.

A lot of it didn't make sense to me, such as

why did he go to the priests house to question him? What was that scene with Alex all about, with the dog? It didn't fit in with the rest of the story - and it was like they only did it so people would think it was Alex. And what was the maze about? It was just on his chain, they weren't in a maze.

I didn't find his wife very believable either, or the scene with the guy in custody.

The scenes with Alex were terrible graphic, and the way his eye just bore out in some scenes was really creepy. But I've no idea why they had to drag it out so long. Still though, was definitely a good movie albeit not my cup of tea.

That cop was gorgeous, too.

I've read this twice and I've still no idea if you liked it or not :pac:

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Corholio wrote: »

I've read this twice and I've still no idea if you liked it or not :pac:

Well I've watched it, and I still have no idea if I liked it or not either!!!

notGill

LexieOnRale wrote: »

A lot of it didn't make sense to me, such as

why did he go to the priests house to question him? What was that scene with Alex all about, with the dog? It didn't fit in with the rest of the story - and it was like they only did it so people would think it was Alex. And what was the maze about? It was just on his chain, they weren't in a maze.

1.

He went to the priests house to question him because he was a registered sex offender (from what I remember)

and 2.

That scene for me was to show that underneath that childlike exterior was something cruel, if even that of a child's cruelty, and as you said to lull the audience into thinking it was Alex

I thought it was a great film overall, the plot tied in nicely at the end, if a bit confusing the way they led you there.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

notGill wrote: »

1.

He went to the priests house to question him because he was a registered sex offender (from what I remember)

and 2.

That scene for me was to show that underneath that childlike exterior was something cruel, if even that of a child's cruelty, and as you said to lull the audience into thinking it was Alex

I thought it was a great film overall, the plot tied in nicely at the end, if a bit confusing the way they led you there.

1.

Thought that at first when he was knocking on the door, but then the body of the guy was found and the priest claimed he killed the guy cause he had hurt kids and would hurt again - doesn't make sense coming from a child sex offender.

2.

but the cruelty was otherwise so out of character for him throughout the rest of the movie. He said the kids cried when he left and that he only wanted to play with them and that he had wanted them to go for a drive in the RV was all. From start to finish he was completely harmless just for that one little thing, and it just didn't seem to fit the rest of his character. It felt it was just there to mislead the audience.

Meangadh

Saw this tonight, it was very long but I really enjoyed it. Jackman and Gyllenhaal were excellent- I always really liked them both as actors but I especially was happy to see Jackman do so well outside of his Wolverine or musical roles. He's an amazing actor, very few are as versatile as him. Doesn't hurt that he's great to look at too but in this film that's totally irrelevant.

Gyllenhaal was super as the cop, I'd imagine he could have a great back story such was the kind of heavy load he seemed to carry on his shoulders. The ending was a bit abrupt I suppose given that the film was probably about 20 minutes too long but I kind of liked that it wasn't perfectly "finished" as such.

fryup

personally speaking i thought the torture scenes in the derelict building were barbaric, no need for it to be so graphic...like watching watching a video nasty

as i mentioned in another thread> how this got film got a 15A and not an 18 rating is beyond me, there were kids as young as 9 watching this in the cinema the other day

e_e

I disagree about it deserving an 18 and the torture scenes going too far. The vast majority of it is implied and you don't really see any of it happening graphically, it only ever shows the results and consequences of it. It's clearly there to portray the father's descent into barbarism to find his child instead of getting off on the violence itself. It's far from on the level of a Hostel or Saw and unlike those films it's not there for perverse enjoyment.

Goldstein

fryup wrote: »

personally speaking i thought the torture scenes in the derelict building were barbaric, no need for it to be so graphic...like watching watching a video nasty

as i mentioned in another thread> how this got film got a 15A and not an 18 rating is beyond me, there were kids as young as 9 watching this in the cinema the other day

I don't think you can assign blame to IFCO for bad parenting.

SimonTemplar

I had attempted to see this on Friday but I left the screen after the first scene and saw it on Saturday instead. I left because in my immediate vicinity were:
- people rustling bags making enough noise to wake the dead
- two people who brought KFC into the screen making a stink
- worst of all, a couple who brought their infant child to the screening. I mean, what kind of bad parents brings their infant child to a 2.5 hour movie like this.

I couldn't move because the screen was sold out. I could just about tolerate this for a stupid action movie or raucous comedy, but it would have been intolerable for for a quiet pensive movie like this.

I'm glad I waited to see it in a quiet 1/3 full screen the following day.

AnonoBoy

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Went to see this earlier. Wouldn't be into dark sinister movies but my friend told me it was kind of along the same lines of taken. It definitely wasnt.

Your friend must a weird idea of films or else was taking the mick out of you and trying to trick you into seeing it!

fryup wrote: »

personally speaking i thought the torture scenes in the derelict building were barbaric, no need for it to be so graphic...like watching watching a video nasty

I wouldn't say that. There's a far sight worse in films these days and this whole thing was shown to be barbaric, even the people performing the torture didn't want to. That was the point of it - how far would these men go to save their children?

Yes it was nasty and grim but it wasn't gratuitous I didn't think. You weren't supposed to enjoy it, you were supposed to be repelled by what they were doing to the man.

as i mentioned in another thread> how this got film got a 15A and not an 18 rating is beyond me, there were kids as young as 9 watching this in the cinema the other day

I think it should have been awarded an over 16s. Kids should not see this film and idiot parents insist on bringing kids to these things.


Personally I thought the ending was a bit too Hollywood for my liking.

Jackman's character being rescued at the very end seemed just too convenient - although it was obvious from the moment he found the whistle that this was going to happen.

fryup

Goldstein wrote: »

I don't think you can assign blame to IFCO for bad parenting.

well, i can assign blame to IFCO in creating the 15A rating which gives an excuse for bad parenting

e_e wrote: »

I disagree about it deserving an 18 and the torture scenes going too far. The vast majority of it is implied and you don't really see any of it happening graphically, it only ever shows the results and consequences of it.

i beg to differ, you see the guy's face beaten to a pulp with resounding sound of the thump! thump! of each punch

and the "hot press" scene with an up-close shot of the guy's terrified face was quite simply depraved and i don't care what the subject matter is it wasn't necessary to go so far and it made the film look ridiculous going for the shock value..and lets not forget it was a simple minded person with a mental age of a 10 yr old that he was torturing

e_e

Except that it simply wasn't going for shock value as it is a clear progression of Jackman's character and fits into the film's theme. Further yet the film argues against torture by it not benefiting either character in any way.

Even the punching scene was relatively mild compared to some other films. Are you really saying that it's too much for a 15 year old? Look at films like Hostel and consider how it could have been handled.

AnonoBoy

The close up of his face in the shower was depraved?

Why depraved? It was a close up of an eye.

I honestly don't get your point on that at all.

fryup

e_e wrote: »

Even the punching scene was relatively mild compared to some other films. Are you really saying that it's too much for a 15 year old?

too much for an under 15, the film is 15A thats under 15 accompanied so you could legally have a child as young as 8 (or younger) watching it..which was the case when i went to see it the other day and thats not right imo

AnonoBoy wrote: »

The close up of his face in the shower was depraved?

Why depraved? It was a close up of an eye.

you're missing my point....its was the whole method of the torture having someone in a tiny hut freezing & scalding them at will, that i found depraved ...i just thought it was completely OTT and not necessary

AnonoBoy

fryup wrote: »

too much for an under 15, the film is 15A thats under 15 accompanied so you could legally have a child as young as 8 (or younger) watching it..which was the case when i went to see it the other day and thats not right imo

Well I agree that it should have been a 16 film. But you're saying it's like a video nasty, which it really isn't.

fryup wrote:

you're missing my point....its was the whole method of the torture having someone in a tiny hut freezing & scalding them at will, that i found depraved ...i just thought it was completely OTT and not necessary

Not necessary how? The idea was to show how far this Christian man would go if he thought it would leave to saving his daughter's life. Yes it was hard to watch but the picture from the start was never going to be cuddly and nice. It's a grim film.

Is your whole point that it was too much for the rating it got or that it was too much to be shown on screen no matter what the rating?

fryup

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Is your whole point that it was too much for the rating it got or that it was too much to be shown on screen no matter what the rating?

yes too much for 15A, imo it should have got an 18 rating

having it 15 A was ridiculous

AnonoBoy

fryup wrote: »

yes too much for 15A, imo it should have got an 18 rating

having it 15 A was ridiculous

Fair enough. I'd be inclined to agree that it got too low a cert. I think 16 would have been more apt but that's me.

You obviously feel strongly about it. Perhaps contact IFCO and let your feelings be known?

Meangadh

Well the whole 15A thing in itself is a bit ridiculous in my opinion. If a film is 15 cert regardless of the letter after it, I wouldn't be bringing younger kids to it. 13 or 14 maybe, but no younger. Just would rather they wait to see it til they're older.

I honestly didn't think it was that bad- and I don't go to films like Saw cos I just think they're stupidly over the top and I don't want to see horrific violence. I did kind of watch through my fingers in the bit where

Jackman's character was punching him in the face

but that was as bad as it got really. The "hot press" thing you mentioned- sure you see nothing in it only a bit of his face and it's mostly in darkness.

I dunno, I don't think it's even a case of being de- sensitised to things or anything- because as I said, I don't like really violent films. This isn't a violent film- it's a film with a bit of violence in it. And even at that, not much- there is one scene that's difficult to watch, and another where you feel discomfort for the "victim" even though you don't see anything, and maybe you could even add something like

the guy killing himself in the police station

- but that's about it.

A 16 film maybe, but definitely not 18.

shrewdness

Went to see this at the weekend with little knowledge about it, just part of a short tv ad so just knew the basic plot. Thought it was excellent.

Hugh Jackman is a scary, scary man. He really nailed the part of a desperate father willing to do anything to get his daughter back.

Meangadh

Yeah I LOVED seeing Jackman in that kind of role, I think he's such a good actor but just doesn't get associated with "serious" acting because he's so associated with Wolverine and singing and dancing. Which even themselves are polar opposites! I'd really love see him in more roles like this. He's genuinely scary in this role.

p to the e

Really underestimated this film going in. The atmosphere is grey throughout (does it ever stop raining) which adds to the intensity. It's hard to pick the star of the film because it's wonderfully acted by all concerned. Jackman, Gyllenhal, Paul Dano, Melissa Leo, Maria Bello and even Terrence Howard gives it their all. Jackman is convincing as the desperate father, Gyllenhal puts in the performance of a career and Dano is creepy as hell.

For the negative side I felt it was a tad too long. Maybe ten to fifteen minutes could have been shaved off with no great difficulty. Also, like some people have mentioned, I really think it should have been given a 16 cert as it is violent in parts with quite an adult orientated plot. All in all it's one of the better films I've seen this year.

D-FENS

tunguska wrote: »

Jake Gyllenhaal is brilliant. I mean he should get an Oscar nomination at the very least, he's so good in this. I dont know what the deal is with all the blinking and tatoos but he just nails it as somebody whos seen some very bad things, who is world and people weary, but still retains a strong sense of decency and humanity.

It’s always good to see a lead cop not portrayed as a stereotypical hunk. Gyllenhaal comes across as a lonely, flawed character in this and the blinking / tattoos were an interesting touch too

Mousewar

Yeah, I enjoyed that very much. Similar to Gone Baby Gone - not in the obvious way that they share a common theme - but the whole tone and atmosphere of the film was similar. Maybe not quite as good as GBG but still a really good film.
Gooberballs was tremendous in it - wouldn't have put that much stock in him up to now but that was an excellent performance.

brianregan09

Did anyone even for a second think that when Gyllenhall was speeding to the A&E at the end that he would crash with the kid in the car and be blamed for taking her, as in he drove you're man in custody to kill himself more or less or was i just going mad

Fantastic movie though Jackman really is an animal of an actor superb

Turtyturd

brianregan09 wrote: »

Did anyone even for a second think that when Gyllenhall was speeding to the A&E at the end that he would crash with the kid in the car and be blamed for taking her, as in he drove you're man in custody to kill himself more or less or was i just going mad

Fantastic movie though Jackman really is an animal of an actor superb

Didn't get that...but they did set him up as a dark character. Even his introduction

is set up to make u think he is connected to the girls disappearance.

McGrath5

Saw this tonight, fantastic film.

Hugh Jackman was superb in his role, he really has gone up in my estimation as a very very good actor.

AnonoBoy

Turtyturd wrote: »

Even his introduction

is set up to make u think he is connected to the girls disappearance.

I didn't get that at all from it. Never once thought he was anything other than a weary cop trying to do his job.

xxyyzz

I enjoyed the movie but I thought there was a significant change in tone about 2 thirds of the way through. It started out as a study on how justifiable torture is and got pretty grim which I thought was very well done but the last third seemed to morph into a fairly run of the mill sub-Dennis Lehane style whodunit and I think it let the film down. I also wasn't sure why they gave the briefest mention to Loki's past in a boys home but never let it contribute to the plot. All in all it was a better than average thriller let down by the final half hour.

Hrududu

I got a little confused about

the book they found in snake guy's house. Did someone else write a book about the abductions? And how did the author get the information about solving maze puzzles?

Dermighty

shrewdness wrote: »

Went to see this at the weekend with little knowledge about it, just part of a short tv ad so just knew the basic plot. Thought it was excellent.

Likewise. I enjoyed the fact that the villain was uncertain for the majority of the movie. Also the pacing and length of the film was a good thing. Hugh Jackman > Jake Gyllenhall when it comes to acting.

Turtyturd

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I didn't get that at all from it. Never once thought he was anything other than a weary cop trying to do his job.

Maybe it was just me. I went in to see it completely cold...having not seen any trailers or read anything about it and felt that his introduction, coupled with his appearance was movie bad guy introductions 101....and almost like for a second they want you to believe he is the guy in the RV

Mousewar

Hrududu wrote: »

I got a little confused about

the book they found in snake guy's house. Did someone else write a book about the abductions? And how did the author get the information about solving maze puzzles?

Hmmm, I just assumed that was a book written by someone we haven't met who wrote about all these kids abductions over the years. I don't remember that the book referenced anything to do with

mazes

, did it? If it did, it presumably got the info from

snake guy who was the only one to escape

.

SimonQuinlank

Saw Prisoners yesterday having heard nothing about it before.I was pleasantly surprised and quite enjoyed it,even if it did drag a bit in parts.

Jackman,Dano and Gyllenhaal were good value (never seen many detectives with a fringe like his though!) though Jackman's wife and Terence Howard's characters were fairly poorly written and a bit annoying.The police chief provided some much needed lighter moments too.

Well worth a watch all things considered.

Seen this last night, good movie but like others felt it dragged on a bit in the end. Would recommend people to give it a watch anyway not amazing but still worth a visit to the cinema.