Prisoners (2013) – Review

Review: Prisoners is a dark, involving mystery. The film is about Keller Dover, a man who will stop at nothing to get his daughter back after she and her friend are kidnapped. Meanwhile, police Detective Loki begins to unravel an almost thirty-year-old mystery as he searches for the two girls.

Director Denis Villeneuve’s narrative can be taken as a character drama as the film explores the effects the tragedy of losing one’s daughter takes on the Dover family and the Birch family (the parents of the other girl). Detective Loki’s dramatic journey is also showcased heavily. However, the film works better as a straight mystery. Villeneuve structures the narrative primarily around the discovery of new pieces of information, eventually leading the characters and audience to the kidnapper – fitting the genre norm. The characters are but mere pieces on the board that Villeneuve moves around to fulfill their narrative roles, divulging information and making discoveries as they do.

There is not really a lot of context into who these character are and why they are the way they are when the audience is introduced to them – it is not necessary given that this is a detective film and the narrative is driven by the unraveling of the mystery. But, for this to really work as a character drama (which at times it seems like it is trying to be), the audience needs more background. As it is, there is no context for comparison. The audience sees the characters lead to dark places, what the strain makes them capable of, but for all the audience knows these characters have always been on the edge, and this kidnapping is just the tipping point or an excuse and not a full on venture down uncharted waters.

Keller Dover both appears very capable and willing to commit the acts that he undertakes under the guise of trying to find his daughter, but the audience is also shown moments in which he feels the gravity of what he is actually doing. But, more than Villeneuve exploring this as a way to tell the audience something about Dover or to show the audience the journey that he is on, he is looking at the darkness that all men have within them. The reason that Villeneuve does not want the audience to know these characters too well, or have a strong connection to them initially, is so he can present them as just average Americans who easily accept darkness and evil into their hearts when faced with tragedy. None of the characters is shown as being noble; there is only cruelty – every action justified by an even greater perceived evil. This also enables Villeneuve to do something particularly interesting: even though Dover’s actions are unforgiving, in the moment the audience is right there with him because in their hearts, they too believe Alex is guilty (without actual proof). Thus, Villeneuve asks the audience as well to look inside themselves and consider what they too are capable of and what their true nature really is when faced with heightened emotions and circumstances.

All this leaves Prisoners feeling rather heavy emotionally. Plus, Villeneuve paces the film very slowly on purpose to drag out the agony to get the attended emotional response from the audience – a feeling of being emotional drained, as if there is no light in the world, only shadow, bleakness, and despair.  And yet, Villeneuve brings the narrative to somewhat of a happy conclusion, but he has done such a marvelous job of dampening the world and humanity it does not really matter. None of these characters will come away from this the same (and not in a positive way).

However, while the slow pacing is effective in that it allows Villeneuve to create an overall tone of despair, the film does feel long at times, which does detract from the narrative slightly. Villeneuve does counteract this, to some degree, with great thrilling moments and intriguing story twists though.

Detective Loki is an interesting character, but the audience never really knows anything about him. Villeneuve only shows him on the job. The case seems to be taking a toll on him, more so than maybe it should be, but the audience does not really know why. He is a loner, has some interesting tattoos, an odd twitch with his eyes, and seems to be completely engrossed in his job with nothing else going on. But really, he is just a shell for the audience – a conduit by which the audience gets clues and unravels the mystery. Loki is almost void of anything the audience can latch onto and take stock in, and yet at least half the narrative is spent with him. To some extent, Loki can be seen as the film’s way of portraying itself as a mystery thriller, while Dover is its more grandiose narrative endeavor of digging deeper into the core of man – and whether man is inherently good or evil.

Villeneuve takes a perverse look at Christian-based religion (or just religion in general really) as well. The characters that carry out the most evil acts are all justified (in their own eyes) by God, as are many who have done terrible things. What does it say about man, and his relationship with God, that he can know so truly that his actions, no matter how brutal or socially vilified, are just? And also, what does it say about man’s perception of God that he believes that his actions are what God wants/intends or that he will be forgiven? In both cases, man is merely projecting himself onto the idea of God as a means of justifying or coming to terms with what man has done or is going to do. Villeneuve presents all of these characters as being morally wrong: the man of faith who murders a confessed child-killer rather than trying to forgive and rehabilitate him through the proper channels (assuming that is even possible); a father who brutally and unforgivably tortures a man he believes to be involved in his daughter’s disappearance for information instead of leaving it in the hands of the police; a mother and father who sit by and do nothing to stop the torture of this man; and a kidnapper/killer who takes children to reveal to God who people truly are on the inside (as if God would not already know) – weak, scared, and brutal.

Everything thematically adds up to an experience that does not look too pleasantly on the nature of man. Prisoners is a journey into the darkness; and once there, man’s true form is revealed (much as the kidnapper intended). But, while the film is emotionally draining and maybe overlong, it is also a very good mystery with some great thrilling moments that takes a genre that has become quite mundane and boring in recent years (plagued with by-the-numbers and laughable plot-twists) and presents something that is wonderfully compelling as a mystery genre Hollywood film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Denis Villeneuve has really announced himself as a new master of the mystery genre, a genre that has all but died in contemporary cinema – co-opted by Hollywood injecting the films with out-of-place big action set pieces or awful (and stupid) plot twists (see this year’s Now You See Me for an example). With Prisoners and (more so) Incendies (one of 2010’s ten best films), Villeneuve has breathed new life into the genre that when does right has given cinema some of its greatest and most engrossing moments and stories. I very much look forward to his next film Enemy.

Prisoners as a whole has a very dark tone, from the music to the lighting and production design. Composer Johann Johannsson’s score accompanies this tone very effectively, in a sense further pulling any feelings of joy or hope out of the audience. Roger Deakin’s cinematography captures the tone wonderfully as well. Everything looks very dreary and muted, especially after the girls are taken. The opening scenes are full of bright fall colors and the warmth of Thanksgiving, but that color never really finds its way back into the narrative. Stylistically, the film sort of has the same look and feel as another great mystery Se7en. Patrice Vermette’s production design too thematically presents the world as being a dismal scary place, probably best seen in his sets for Dover’s father’s dilapidated building, the dirt basement below Father Dunn’s house, the decrepit maze-graffiti-filled house, and the kidnapper’s dirty, stripped down holding areas. Every creative aspect of the film works well to fulfill Villeneuve’s intended feel and look.

The cast is strong throughout. Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, and particularly Viola Davis are good in small supporting roles. David Dastmalchian just seems naturally very creepy and off, which serves him very well here. He also plays his character with an exciting intensity that pulls all focus. Paul Dano has the most difficult role in the film as Alex, the man Dover believes is responsible for his daughter’s disappearance. Dano plays with Dover and the audience. He appears innocent, but all involved are certain of his guilt as well. His performance allows the audience to support Dover, regardless of his brutality (which in turn should evoke questions about ourselves). Melissa Leo is also very good as Alex’s adoptive mother. She seems beaten down by the world, but there is something more there too. Jake Gyllenhaal is quite good, especially given that he is basically playing a shell of a character as Loki. He brings so much to the role, creating a real person out of nothing. Hugh Jackman as Dover feels in moments as being rather flat. He basically is just really angry and yells a lot. But, his performance is deceptively great. There is such intensity to his energy. He comes off as a tortured soul, not just because of what happened, but also as a man that has always lived in the darkness.

Summary & score: Prisoners is a great mystery with some good thrilling moments, but maybe more so it is a very depressing look at the nature of man and his internal darkness. 7/10

End of Watch (2012) – Review

Review: End of Watch is a realistic and gripping cop drama. The film is about two LAPD patrolmen, Brian and Mike, who get wrapped up in a war with a Mexican Cartel looking to move into Los Angeles.

Writer-director David Ayer’s goal with End of Watch seems to be to put the audience directly in the place of a typical LAPD cop, giving a life-in-the-day experience. To do this, he uses a combination style of found-footage and documentary filmmaking, utilizing hand-held camera work and low-end digital or typical ‘found-footage’ quality cameras and natural lighting. Doing this creates a very gritty and shaky style that makes the audience feel like they are in the action, as their point of view is generally the same as the protagonists’ (or in close proximity) and the camera’s constant movement also creates the illusion of experiencing the action first hand. The film both benefits from this style, as the audience does very much feel like they are right there in it, and it also detracts, as the style gets a bit tedious on the viewer (unless done by a fantastic filmmaking group, which is rare). Here, especially, the constant close-ups, shaky-cam and not really getting to see everything gets a little old, which means what the audience is seeing is not necessarily what they intuitively feel like they should be seeing. Also, story wise, it is a bit odd to see characters, like the gang members, carrying around small digital cameras to create the illusion of where the footage came from. Overall, while the style does work with the narrative, shooting it more documentary and less found-footage style (like The Shield, for example) may have given the same general effect but without some of the nuisance that comes hand-in-hand with ‘found-footage’ (though, speaking of the style, I was very impressed with how the it was used to its greatest degree in the film Chronicle from earlier in the year).

Ayer’s narrative is a bit disjointed causing a slight pacing problem, as well. Most of the narrative is structured to be a character drama, and in this regard the film is very successful. All the principal characters are fleshed out and given moments for the audiences to get to know them, relate to them and take a stake in them, which makes the film that much more powerful and affecting. However, Ayer also tries to insert a thriller narrative into the second half, probably to beef up the action (since there is already a good cop character drama about the LAPD this year in Oren Moverman’s Rampart). The issue is that the thriller narrative does not develop until deep into the film, leaving all the character stuff (which is all great) to feel slow in retrospect, as if the film is just waiting around until something happens. The structure feels a bit like a TV series story arc rather than a tight film narrative (as films need to be much more economical due to time constraints), taking its time to develop deep characters while peppering in action here and there. Ayer does hint at a more action oriented sub-plot, which dominates the end of the second act and beginning of the third act, but he does not make it the focus, rather putting everything into character moments and day-to-day life of the cops, thus when the thriller narrative takes over, it does not flow organically. The end result is the pacing being a bit off and therefore the film feeling slow in parts, which adds to the tediousness already felt from the shooting style.

However, all Ayer’s character work and realism makes the drama very effective in its manipulation of the audience’s emotions (unless they are the few that are completely put off by the style, and there probably will be a few). The audience is completely invested in Brian and Mike, and even deeply care about what happens to them. Thus, the thrilling moments are all the more gripping and dynamic. In this, the film leaves the viewer emotionally taxed by the end.

End of Watch is really a great character drama, and it works best in that capacity. The action and thriller moments work more due to the audience’s stake in the characters than on their own merits. Fans of cop centric crime dramas will enjoy this film (assuming the shooting style does not put them off).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: I am not sure if any director has more of a niche than David Ayer does with cop films (maybe Wes Anderson with Wes Anderson style films). While I like his script for Training Day, it is really Antoine Fuqua’s film, which leaves Harsh Times as Ayer’s best work prior to End of Watch. Both Harsh Times and End of Watch are very gritty in their style, though Harsh Times is much more daring with its protagonist. End of Watch has two characters that are very safe for the audience, and that means they are easy for the audience to like and get behind. End of Watch is probably Ayer’s best film to date, but I personally like Harsh Times more because it does not feel as much as an attempt at a typical Hollywood-style narrative in terms of its characters (plus, End of Watch’s ending lets the narrative off the hook a bit dramatically, but it is still poignant).

The work of composer David Sardy, cinematographer Roman Vasyanov and production designer Devorah Herbert is all complimentary to the aesthetic style that Ayer wanted for the film – primarily found-footage with some documentary-like stuff thrown as well. The film has a very realistic feel, from the characters to all the sets and wardrobe. It looks and feels like they filmed it in the real neighborhoods that it takes place in (and they very well might have) with real police and criminals (for the most part). The score backs up the emotional drama of the narrative, but is overshadowed by a great soundtrack.

The acting is fantastic in the film. Natalie Martinez and especially Anna Kendrick are great in supporting roles. Neither is really given that much, but they both make the best of it. Kendrick completely wins over the audience as Brian’s girlfriend (with wonderful little bits like her early morning snooping through his wallet). Michael Pena and Jake Gyllenhaal are very good as Mike and Brian. They are both very likable and charismatic, which invites the audience to care about them. Their chemistry and use of humor is also paramount to the film’s dramatic success.

Summary & score: End of Watch is one of the best cop dramas in a long time (maybe since The Departed). 7/10

Source Code (2011) – Review

Source Code is a good sci-fi action thriller that despite having seemingly ridiculous science behind it still works on an engagingly emotional level. Director Duncan Jones has a ton of sub genres to play with as the film develops. The capsule that Colter Stevens (the main character) inhabits is run down and decrepit, reminding viewers a lot of Sam Bell’s space station residence in Moon (Jones’s last film). The capsule environment mixed with the science of the film generates a feeling of a sci-fi atmosphere to the film. While, the score that opens the film has a sort of nostalgic Hitchcockian thriller feel to it, evoking emotions related to a mystery that the audience will participate in solving, along with the main character. And then, there is a romantic angle that develops as well. Jones mixes these three elements together very well, sprinkling in good action set pieces, resulting in an interesting and gripping film. The film does require that the audience pay attention – it is not overly complicated, but some thinking and understanding of what is going on certainly will help with the full appreciation. At its core, there are two mysteries, which at times are counterproductive – straining viewers more interested in the reconciliation of one more so than the other. The primary mystery is who bombed the train and how, but Colter Stevens ending up on the train opens up a lot of conceptual and philosophical questions that can distract from the principal goal (both for the character and the viewer) which makes the film a bit tedious at times. However, it has a fantastic ending that brings together both mysteries in a satisfying way (at least I thought so), resolving a number of the narrative structure issues. However story wise (and maybe even structurally as well), the film can feel a little derivative, as there are elements that feel a lot like other films (like: Groundhog Day, The Matrix, among others). But, many good and bad films reference and even steal ideas from past films, and for me this does not take away from the film at all. It is difficult, especially for well versed directors and writers, not to be influenced by great films (and I would even go as far as to say that filmmakers that have a strong knowledge of past great films and filmmakers cannot help but be influenced by their favorites and make better films as a result of it). What is also wonderful about this film is that it very easily could have been a throwaway entertaining action film (and there would be nothing wrong with that), but Jones took it as an opportunity to look at fate versus free will (much like The Adjustment Bureau earlier this year). The science is preposterous (or so it seems, but what do I really know about it), and in being so anything can happen. This allows Jones’s Colter Stevens to go head-to-head against the past and try to change fate, which garners most of the emotional impact of the film and makes Source Code great, instead of merely good or ok.

Technical and acting achievements: now two films in, Duncan Jones is certainly establishing himself as a director to watch. Moon is probably a more interesting character piece than Source Code, which for many film fans will endear it more to them, but Source Code is a different type of film. It is not so much about the characters (though they are given enough development to captivate the audience) as it is about the struggle to solve the mystery. I, for one, look forward to what Jones does next. Chris Bacon’s score is a bit uneven. The opening piece is fantastic, calling back to classic mysteries and thrillers. But, the rest of the score felt a little too generic to really stand out. D.P. Don Burgess does a good job shooting the film. There are quite a few images that have very interesting and exciting composition (I particularly liked the shot of Colter and Christina sitting/kneeing as the bomb explodes behind them). Paul Hirsch’s editing is also very good (which it needed to be) transitioning between the very kinetic world of the train and the dull decay of the capsule. Barry Chusid’s production design is good too. His sets are pretty standard for the genre and story, but his capsule feels just right (given what we learn about it as the story moves forward). Lead Jake Gyllenhall is good in his role (but I feel the film could have been much better with a stronger and more charismatic performance, one that the audience could really relate to in a deeper way). Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright are both excellent in their supporting roles, bringing a lot of character to not much screen time. And, Michelle Monaghan is superb as well. She is able to really bring the audience in and make them care with her sweet smile. She also gives the film a much needed release with a more light hearted and slightly comedic tone.

Source Code works as an action thriller, but it is even better due to its philosophical elements. 8/10