Regie:
Denis VilleneuveDrehbuch:
Aaron GuzikowskiKamera:
Roger DeakinsMusik:
Jóhann JóhannssonBesetzung:
Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Maria Bello, Terrence Howard, Melissa Leo, Paul Dano, Dylan Minnette, Zoë Soul, Erin Gerasimovich, Kyla-Drew (mehr)Streaming (4)
Inhalte(1)
Keller Dover ist außer sich vor Sorge. Bei einer Thanksgiving-Feier mit einer befreundeten Familie sind seine jüngste Tochter und deren Freundin spurlos verschwunden. Zuletzt wurden sie in der Nähe eines fremden Wohnmobils gesehen. Detective Loki hat den Besitzer rasch ausgeforscht. Das Verhör des geistig minderbemittelten Eigenbrötlers Alex Jones bleibt ergebnislos. Nach 48 Stunden wird er freigelassen. Keller lässt sich zu einer Verzweiflungstat hinreißen und entführt den Verdächtigen. (ORF)
(mehr)Kritiken (17)
Das Finale bedeutete für mich im Hinblick auf die vorherige meisterhafte Atmosphäre, die sich steigernde Spannung und die originellen Drehbuch-Spiele mit den Zuschauererwartungen kein adäquates Knockout. Aber der letzte Schnitt, der Übergang zum Nachspann, ist gut.
()
There hasn’t been such a good crime film since Fincher’s Zodiac. It has all the necessary ingredients mixed in a balanced ratio: a perfectly bleak, brooding atmosphere (cinematographer Deakins once again reigns supreme), acting sure-footedness where once again – as in Fincher's masterpiece – I loved Gyllenhaal with his beleaguered police figure, and a perfect screenplay that looks like an adaptation of an ingeniously written novel by one of the Nordic authors who reign supreme in the detective fiction genre today. And on top of that the shit-phile called verbal gave it 1*, so I don't know what better recommendation you'd want :o)
()
Prisoners bears the hallmarks of a high-quality psychological drama and a very good crime thriller. However, it ultimately falls short on both genre levels. As a character-focused film, it fails due to the restrained (even in the context of the situations in which the characters find themselves) or, conversely, exceedingly prudent actions of the protagonists. With the exception of Jackman, about whom the hunting prologue tells us most of what’s important, and Gyllenhaal, who adds a peculiar element to his performance with suspiciously frequent blinking (which could indicate that he has a dark past, or that he simply has a facial tick), the actors in the film are dead weight. They do not help with evoking the morally ambivalent feelings that comprise the core of the narrative, as Villeneuve doesn’t bother to better justify their infrequent presence or involve them in the main action. Keller’s wife pays the highest price for the utilitarian handling of the characters. Of all the actors, Maria Bello overacts most aggressively, so we needn’t feel sorry for her as she sometimes wearily and sometimes hysterically staggers her way through the film. ___ The film’s sense of gravitas is apparently supposed to be bolstered by long shots (of tree bark, for example), frequent fade-outs, heavy rain, the use of ambient noise instead of non-diegetic music (which is similarly cacophonous as the aforementioned noise, so – like in Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – it is sometimes difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins). These are not very original means of evoking a gloomy atmosphere, but they generally serve the purpose. However, Villeneuve overuses them and because of that – among other things – the film fails as a procedural thriller. ___ Shots intended to shape the atmosphere predominate over shots that convey any determinative information. Furthermore, most of the essential revelations are based on unconvincing coincidences rather than on collecting and analysing evidence. The length of the investigation (and thus of the film) is not proportionate to the manner of revealing the perpetrator. At the end, you will come to the most powerful realisation that the whole investigative storyline, with all of its dead ends and ambiguous clues, was designed solely for the purpose of forcing the characters to face certain moral dilemmas so that they would both experience and do something very unpleasant and somehow redeem themselves after staggering out of the labyrinth of (a)morality (this involves one of the many traditional religious motifs that the film works with, along with serpents, crucifixes and Bible quotes). ___ If Villeneuve cared primarily about the psychological level of the narrative, why does he devote so much space to the investigative level, spending most of the film trying to convince us that this is a crime movie after all? The two different levels ultimately weaken each other. Disinterest in the past and deeply rooted motivations of the characters can be accepted in a procedural, but not in a psychological film. Holes in the logic would not matter so much in a psychological study of a person in an extreme situation, but they are distracting in a detective story. Instead of one consistent film, Villeneuve made two films, both of which are thoroughly unsatisfying. 70%
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
The ending is unfortunately weirdly mixed up, relying too much on coincidences, and forced. Otherwise, the performances and direction are great, and the atmosphere gets under your skin. We haven’t had a dark thriller like this in years. I’m anxiously waiting for Enemy.
()
An absolutely amazing movie with awesome atmosphere that utilizes its characters, the weather and moods. It completely analyzes the individual details of the situations and the characters themselves. That’s how I like it, and that’s exactly what I get out of American production once every two years, if at all. The first movie I saw that was done with such precision was Seven. That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking of while watching this movie. But I’m sorry that I still can’t give it the full five stars. There were scenes where I needed a deeper explanation. And I don’t think there was any time left for that explanation. It was long enough and if it was just ten minutes longer, I probably wouldn’t have managed. Anyway, Hugh Jackman and Jack Gyllenhaal’s acting was really amazing. They both tuned into the roles so well that I saw all the individual nuances that made it different from ordinary acting performances. Hugh becomes a wreck, and Jack’s face ticks get worse and worse by each passing minute, all the way to the finale. A great movie and precise filmmaking. I wish there were more of those.
()
Dies ist exakt diejenige Art von Film, der sämtliche Trümpfe im ersten Drittel aus dem Ärmel zieht, nur um sie danach vergeblich zu verdünnen und verlegen zu vermischen. Ich habe mich auf einen langsamen psychologischen Krimi gefreut, jedoch löst sich dieser im Laufe der Zeit in einer einsaitigen Litanei auf, aus welcher Deakins exzellente Kamera sowie die Rolle von Jake Gyllenhaals emporstechen, der im Gegensatz zu den anderen den Vorteil hat, dass wir im Grunde nichts über diese Person erfahren (hierdurch wird sie zumindest ein wenig mysteriös). Der Film scheitert in grundlegendem Maße auch als Detektivgeschichte, zumal er Informationen sehr ineffizient verteilt und keine Argumente für die übermäßige Länge vorlegt (im Zusammenhang mit der Enthüllung erscheint eine unsinnig hohe Anzahl an sich wiederholenden und intensiven Dialoge, die einer tieferen Bedeutung entbehren). Sowohl die Musik, Kamera als auch einige der Regie-Momente "außerhalb des Geschehens" machen das Ganze jedoch zu einer soliden Angelegenheit. EDIT 2020: Ich nehme es zurück, alles funktioniert so genial wie eine Geschichte unüberwindlicher Angst und destruktiver Wut. Und eigentlich ja auch als Detektivgeschichte über einen spasmischen Detektiv, der geduldig einem Gefühl der Unzulänglichkeit strotzt.
()
There are always a hundred and one glitches to grumble about with Villeneuve’s movies; from the unnecessary length, through predictability to occasional idiotic behavior of the characters. But it also applies that these things get under your skin and begin to rot and rot weeks after watching them. And paradoxically the impression from them gradually gets stronger. So much so that after a while they seem much better than they had seemed at the time you watched them. But this doesn’t apply to Prisoners, which doesn’t get under your skin; well, maybe does, but just the atmosphere and nothing else. Instead of feeling uneasy all the way home from the movie theater “whether the sprogs are sleeping snugly in their beds" and then holding them tighter than normally by their hand for a couple of days because “you never know", satisfaction begins to sink in about this solid piece of Fincherism, although still plagued but hundred and one snags.
()
Das hier ist ein Thriller! Gänsehaut verursachend, nervenaufreibend, depressiv. Zwar hat er einige Narben in Form einer bestimmten Kalkulation mit Zufällen, vieler Unklarheiten (Kisten, Labyrinthe) und einer Nebenfigur (Bobby Taylor), aber der Kern ist unerschütterlich. Das ist natürlich die Besetzung - Jackman als verzweifelter Vater am Rande des Nervenzusammenbruchs und Gyllenhaal als unermüdlicher Detektiv mit einem harten Tick im Gesicht. Besonders er erobert 60% des Films für sich, die verbleibenden vierzig lässt er seinem wolverinesken Kollegen. Die Atmosphäre wird durch das kalte Wetter (ständiges Schneien oder Regnen), dringende Musik und ein langsam ansteigendes Ende vervollständigt, bei dem Sie sowohl Fingernägel als auch Zehennägel verlieren werden. Und eine längere Laufzeit hat diesmal geholfen.
()
A film about fear, uncertainty, and demons that lurk more or less deeply within each of us. I have considered Villeneuve to be one of the most talented directors of today for some time now, and even though he is capable of creating a better atmosphere, all you need is to watch the scene of the frantic car ride with a blinded driver across the city to realize whose film you are about to see. Similarly, the screenplay presents very decent work in its genre, which is capable of surprising and being original. The creators patiently build tension, anxiety, and a sense of threat, letting their detective stumble and convincingly fulfill the requirements of the thriller genre. For parents, there is no nightmare worse than the disappearance of a child, and the filmmakers spare none of their characters. Without drowning in sentiment, they manage to intensify emotions to the maximum. Another motif strongly resonating throughout the film is the temptation to take investigation and justice into one's own hands. The father of the lost child succumbs to this desire, and the screenwriter finds some justification for torture in the name of higher goals. By my standards, that takes away a star. Of the actors, the most notable is Jake Gyllenhaal, who delivers an outstanding performance and is another reason to devote more than 150 minutes of your time to this crime story. Overall impression: 85%.
()
A tense, heavy drama and also a perfect detective movie about searching for two kidnapped girls. Villeneuve directs with a sure hand, squeezing the maximum out of the actors. The atmosphere is perfect, almost like the Scandinavian detective series that are so popular right now, but it has that American abnormality and disregard in it. Jackman has never acted better, Gyllenhaal is just awesome and even Paul Dano who just plays a swollen, blood-shot eye for the second half of the movie, is excellent. The viewer has no idea till almost the very end, the twists mount up, decisions are ever more desperate and the clock is ticking. If it weren’t for a couple of places where the movie starts running on the spot the fill time, I would give full marks.
()
Very similar style to Clint Eastwood's Mystic River, just as austere and economical, with utmost emphasis on editing and minimalist musical composition. While that film is more complex and interconnected in terms of screenplay, Prisoners relies on a linear plot and open, long scenes full of emotions, when the camera does not move. It is dense, strong, and uncompromising. However, it is also filmed with sensitivity, with an exceptionally effective ensemble cast. Hugh Jackman gives a great performance.
()
Ein fesselndes Drama, in dem es eigentlich nicht um all die Überraschungen und Enthüllungen ging (ein aufmerksames Publikum sieht durchgehend verschiedene Andeutungen und es bleibt nur ihm überlassen, wie es damit umgeht), sondern darum, was sie mit den Figuren machen. Solche Filme mag ich. Hugh Jackman und Jake Gyllenhaal sind perfekt und ich habe ihnen absolut alles geglaubt. Und die Kombination von Villeneuves Regie, Deakins’ Kamera und Jóhannssons Musik hat wieder einmal für eine fantastische Stimmung gesorgt. Es war düster, dreckig und intensiv. Ich bin froh, dass daraus niemand eine langwierige Serie gemacht hat, sondern einen richtigen Film.
()
Prisoners bietet ein sehr starkes und wirkungsvolles Filmerlebnis. Das Drehbuch erforderte eine gute darstellerische Besetzung, sonst hätte alles in die Binsen gehen können. Hugh Jackman ist in der Rolle des verzweifelten Vaters mehr als überzeugend, Terrence Howard in der Rolle des ebenso verzweifelten, aber weniger verbissenen Vaters ebenfalls, Jake Gyllenhaal ist auch glaubwürdig und natürlich, nun, und Paul Dano bestätigt seine Universalität. Dass Schauspielerinnen wie Viola Davis oder Melissa Leo die zweige Geige gespielt haben? Auf gar keinen Fall. Vor allem Melissa hat tragische Gestalten wohl tief unter der Haut. Ich hegte Befürchtungen bezüglich der überzogenen Länge des Streifens, doch die Spannung wurde gut aufgebaut also habe ich mich nicht gelangweilt. Auch wenn die Auflösung etwas zu deskriptiv ist, tut dies dem Gesamteindruck keinen Abbruch. Ich denke, hier wird sicher etwas geboren - zumindest ein Erfolg bei den Zuschauern und irgendein Preis für einen Schauspieler.
()
In the second half of the movie, I was permanently in the situation that if Cthulhu suddenly appeared on the horizon and Detective Loki started repeating "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn", I'd think it actually made perfect sense. After all, Prisoners' greatest asset and at the same time its most malignant tumor is the same as with, for example, the Lost series. That 90-minute layering of questions and themes that culminates in a totally B-grade payoff cut from The Bone Collector or other late-90s Se7en exploitations is actually perfect trolling, where the viewer is kept glued to the screen with a classic Oscar-worthy morality drama about kidnapping, guilt, punishment, and justice, with only a very suspect-looking Gyllenhaal fumbling around with arm tattoos, a terrible haircut, and a Masonic ring. And all of this is sprinkled in with excellent direction, almost Elswit-esque godlike cinematography (Deakins could have bought that Oscar after this), and above-par acting, surprisingly from Hugh Jackman in particular. Villeneuve imho should have totally gone wild in the style of, say, Angel Heart; as it is, this is "merely" a technically brilliant genre film.
()
If this film wasn't so incredibly long, because in its length all tension disappears, it could be a truly powerful thriller. As it is, it's a good film, but it simply doesn't reach those imaginary laurels. The acting is excellent, the screenplay is good, but it's just stretched to an incomprehensible running time. Yes, there are strong moments, the whole plot has a hard impact on the viewer, but in two and a half hours, the impression starts to fade and the director doesn't save it with slow scenes. At least half an hour less and it would be the thriller of the year 2013. Like this, it's just a very long film that makes you think about the topic, but it doesn't impress on its own.
()
Now that was literally God's will. And one of the rare instances where I'll gladly change my original review and my original rating from the theatrical release back in 2013. Back then, just 4 stars and a bland and flavorless assessment in the style of AngelAngie-style – who thankfully hasn’t been writing any reviews since 2011 and can’t anyway – that, my friends and others, was also God's will. Indeed, the citing of God's will here is the key to everything, and if I apply it metaphorically to the entire production of Prisoners, it was definitely God's will to create such a merciless script (I hope Aaron Guzikowski gets a few more chances to write a story that is every parent's worst nightmare), to find more tremendously interesting subject matter for Roger Deakins after Skyfall (albeit notoriously more intimate subject matter, but Deakins' incredible eye for every shot is perhaps even more palpable here than in Skyfall), to inform a now international audience of Denis Villeneuve's immense directorial talent (if any Villeneuve film can be considered his Hollywood breakthrough, it's this one), and above all, it was definitely God's will to choose such a bravura cast. The rivalry between Jackman and Gyllenhaal is epic from the first minutes (and they're on the same side!) and perhaps the most interesting thing about their duel is that for a while you’re rooting for one of them more and then for the other, and you have to have human sympathy and deep empathy for both. What's even more remarkable about this film is how it differs markedly from similar genre films in certain ways. It is, of course, a crime thriller through and through, in which a standard police investigation takes place. But it's so cleverly written that you'll almost feel (and I mean almost!) the entire time that the cops are playing second fiddle in this case. The desperately pissed off daddy versus the cop with a tick in his eye. Borderline genius.
()
The atmosphere, the music, the impeccable acting performances ... this movie will really get under your skin. If there’s a director whose work I plan on not missing in the theatres in the upcoming years, it’s definitely Denis Villeneuve.
()