If there’s any moral to the story of Prisoners, it’s that a bad ending can absolutely destroy an otherwise great movie. If you’ve heard anything about the final twist of this film, you have probably heard that (in short) it sucks. But Prisoners represents one of the biggest challenges in making a movie. After building up consistent suspense throughout, how do you end your film? Other movies have squandered their potential with flimsy and poorly-constructed final acts, but few have been as good up until that point as Prisoners. In fact, if it weren’t for that last twenty minutes, this would easily be my favorite film of the year. What a disappointment.
Prisoners is a film about how a person, under enough emotional strain, is capable of doing horrible things for the betterment of his family. This is a theme that seems to be popular nowadays, with the great TV series Breaking Bad coming to a close, and Luc Besson’s Taken slowly becoming a franchise. Stories of men who do whatever it takes to provide for or defend the ones close to them resonate powerfully with a wide audience, as most people are easily sucked in by an everyman who, when put in an unusual situation, must do whatever it takes or pay the price. However, Prisoners and Breaking Bad go a little deeper than most, as they show the initially sympathetic main character’s slow and gut-wrenching spiral into insanity and/or evil, all the while daring the audience to continue rooting for him. As the mistakes and evil deeds of the lead character pile up, the audience must then question their own morals and how far they are willing to follow the character into the dark.
This phenomenon is incredibly powerful, and most movies that attempt to make the audience look within themselves deserve immense praise. If only Prisoners had done it a bit better. Hugh Jackman and Cuba Gooding Jr. star as the fathers of two girls who go missing on a rainy day in suburban Appalachia. The only lead is an RV (Walt and Jesse’s, maybe?) that was parked outside the house and vanished with the girls. A detective (Jake Gyllenhaal) finds the RV and arrests its only occupant: A mentally handicapped man played by Paul Dano. Dano steals the show among some seriously accomplished actors, and that’s saying a lot. He works with society’s inherent mistrust of the mentally ill, and Hugh Jackman’s violent reactions to his complacency are pretty shocking.
Jackman kidnaps Dano, brings him to an abandoned building, and torments him in various brutal ways in order to discover where his daughter is. As his methods of torture become more and more visceral and cringe-inducing, the audience is forced to wonder whether or not Jackman is right. Because even though all the evidence points to his claim, it’s impossible to think that his inhuman cruelty to Dano is somehow defensible. I refuse to spoil this aspect of the film, as it forces the audience to choose a side-- Are Jackman’s actions justified or reprehensible? The choice that the viewer makes speaks more about his perception than it does the movie. It’s incredibly amoral, but it gets the point across.
However, as I don’t want to spoil this film, I can’t reveal the twist ending. But I can reveal PART of it. So, the person doing the kidnapping (Dano or not) did it because he/she wanted to “Wage a war with God” for the loss of his/her son/daughter/nephew/niece/uncle/aunt/father/mother (just trying to cover everything here, people, it’s not easy to avoid spoilers). It seemed like a massive letdown that catered to people who wanted to be let off the hook for the cognitive dissonance brought up in the previous paragraph. Also, it smacked a little too much of a stereotypical horror movie-style cliched ending. I’m sure that the director had a big vision for the end of this movie, but I’m also sure that it got lost somewhere along the way.
The acting, fortunately, is enough to hold up the flimsy plot. Jackman makes an epic transformation from an average redneck father into a soulless madman hell-bent on the preservation of his family and the integrity of his position as the head of the household. Gyllenhaal, meanwhile, is just as good as he’s been in some of his other best movies, from Donnie Darko to Source Code. He has a huge amount of range as an actor, and he delivers a great performance here as the voice of reason and moral center of the movie. If it weren’t for his grounding performance, the film would probably feel unrealistic and impossible to connect with, as all the other characters are so over-the-top and unrelatable. But fortunately, he creates a character who is not only easy to relate to, but extremely well-written.
Final Score for Prisoners: 8/10 stars. It’s well-written, well-acted, and will have you gripping the edge of your seat even as the credits roll. It’s definitely not perfect, but it certainly outperforms a lot of the emotionless, unoriginal movies masquerading as dramas that have come out recently. In a year that has been polluted by special effects extravaganzas, shitty sequels, and horribly pretentious indie dramas, Prisoners and films like it are the saving grace. I’ll gladly take a great showcase for Jackman, Gyllenhaal, and Dano if it means that I have to suffer through the occasional Movie 43.
No comments:
Post a Comment