Movie Review: Prisoners

3.5 stars out of 5

I liked this movie, but not for the reasons I expected to. And I blame Broadchurch and the New York Times for that. The Times review had me anticipating a smartly-made psychological exploration of the aftermath of child abduction. And Broadchurch on BBC America raised the bar for how such a story could be told. But as I watched Prisoners, I was liking it less and less, realizing that it wasn’t particularly smart or insightful. In fact, it was kind of stupid.

But as it began to pick up later in the film, my expectations shifted. And that’s when I realized: This is really just a twisted B-movie, an over-the-top thriller. And as that, I totally dug it. It kept me guessing all the way. And the ending kicked butt.

The director—I want to say Fernando Valenzuela? No? Hervé Villechaize? Still no? Denis Villeneuve!—does a good job setting the mood. We’re in an upper-middle-class Pennsylvania suburb (albeit with a sign for Conyers, Georgia) in the late fall. It’s always grey, always sleeting. Spirits should be high for the holidays, except that two little kids are missing.

Enter eating-at-a-Chinese-restaurant-alone-on-Thanksgiving police detective Jake Gyllenhaal. He’s good in this—dogged, believable, and evidently made a decision that his character would blink a lot. Also really good is Terrence Howard, as one of the dads, trying to cope, and trying to hold onto his decency. Paul Dano does nice work as the creepy guy with the brain of a 10-year-old who quickly becomes a suspect. Not nearly as effective is Hugh Jackman as the other dad, the super angry one. Jackman does an okay job, but he’s not real subtle. And he does that American-accents-are-tough-so-I’ll-just-grumble-like-Christian-Bale-does thing. Also, he has a stupid beard. Just came across as kind of phony overall. But I guess he pulls off “totally enraged” pretty well.

Maybe I should’ve gone to see Rush instead. I don’t know. But really, I did enjoy this. Don’t expect too much, and I think you will too.