Bastards Review

Playing originally at the Cannes Film Festival and now available in limited release, "Bastards" is a frustrating yet engrossing French film about a sensitive and adult subject worlds away from mulitplex blockbusters and 3D extravaganzas. "Bastards" is helmed with a clear vision and purpose by Claire Denis, a director who has worked with avant-garde actors such as Vincent Gallo (of "The Brown Bunny" infamy) and Holy Motors' Denis Levant in the past but who still remains an unknown except in certain film circles. 

The first word that comes to mind when describing Bastards is bleak. In fact, this film is almost unrelenting in its grim darkness as we quickly get sucked into the murky quagmire of its setting. Although not quite a thriller and not exactly film noir, Bastards dabbles extensively in elements of both genres. Filled with murder, intrigue, shady settings and even shadier characters, there isn't much redemption to be found in the course of this movie when all is said and done. And at the centre of this story is a mystery, and where the trail of evidence uncovering this mystery leads us is both shocking and revealing in more ways than one. The film throws you unforgivingly right into the middle of these characters' complex lives and it isn't until we are about 20 minutes or so in that everything becomes completely clear. We follow events mainly through the eyes of Marco Silvestri (Lindon), a world-travelling sailor who hears the terrible news that his brother-in-law and old friend has committed suicide and returns home to find the family he's distanced himself from for so long in shambles. Divorced and with two daughters he doesn't really have a strong relationship with, Marco is a loner who has long avoided his responsibilities towards his family and has become accustomed to a simple life where he only needs to worry about himself. 

In some of Bastards' most memorable and captivating visual imagery, we watch an innocent young girl (who we soon find out is Marco's niece) stroll around through the streets naked and exposed with an unnerving look of shock on her face. And it is the secret behind what happened to her that is the key to everything as Marco seeks to uncover the truth behind the whole sordid affair. With his sister keeping him in the dark and blaming him for all their misfortunes at the same time, what soon becomes clear is that a businessman by the name of Laporte (Subor) is somehow implicated with the suicide of his brother-in-law and the shocking state Marco's niece is found in. With the intention of keeping an eye on Laporte and perhaps to plan his revenge, Marco proceeds to move in to Laporte's apartment where he lives with his his wife and son. Raphaelle, a beautiful woman much younger than her creepy and sinister looking husband, promptly becomes infatuated with Marco and they get embroiled in a torrid affair that complicates an already muddled situation. 

Spoilers: 

When events unfold, we feel an almost inescapable sense of fate dragging all the characters down by the film's end, but Denis emphasizes this only to show how deceiving that sensation is. What this film is mainly about is the dysfunctional relationships people find themselves in and how they ultimately choose whether or not they become the victim in them. Raphaelle is entrapped in what is clearly a loveless marriage but she fears losing her son and her comfortable life and chooses to remain a victim. Lonely and isolated, she is easily seduced by Marco (a man who clearly has ulterior motives) and allows herself to fall into that role once again. Marco's sister chooses to remain passive and sit idly by as her husband and Laporte do unspeakable and horrifying things to her daughter, pleading weakness and helplessness. Marco is a good counterbalance to all of this victim-hood. A capable and confident man, he reviles the weakness he sees around him and is a decisive man no matter what challenge he comes across. Ironically though, by choosing to leave his life of isolation and by choosing to become involved in Raphaelle's affairs, he becomes a victim of it all himself. In the end, it is only his niece Justine who finally breaks through the shackles of victim-hood as she regains control of her own life by tragically taking it. In what is truly an unsettling viewing experience, no one truly escapes to live happily ever after.

Verdict: While the set-up is presented in a convoluted fashion that challengers the audience initially," Bastards" is a simple and minimalist story that struggles at times to justify its length. With an oddly fitting 80's style soundtrack, "Bastards" is, more than anything else, chiefly an exercise in style that lacks a strong enough narrative. Admirably however, "Bastards" doesn't spoon-feed us anything and is full of raw and emotional performances that expose the hollowness that consumes the lives of the world's victims, and yet shows us that those very victims are the ones who have the power to free themselves. 

B

Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 120 minutes

MPAA Rating: N/A

Cast: Vincent Lindon, Chiara Mastroianni, Michel Subor

Director: Claire Denis

Screenplay: Claire Denis, Jean-Pol Fargeau

Cinematography: Agnes Godard

A Hijacking/Captain Phillips Review

Minor Spoilers: 

For people who've seen their fair share of movies, it's no secret that Hollywood films and international films are sometimes divergent in style. A good example is that of Wim Wenders' "Wings of Desire" and its Hollywood adaptation, "City of Angels". Both films are about an angel who falls in love with a woman and decides to become mortal but that's pretty much where the similarities end. They may seem alike on the surface, but the deception lies in the fact that those two films are about remarkably different things. The former delves into deep metaphysical ponderings of existence and the meaning of what it is to be a human being, while the latter is a melodramatic romance movie starring Meg Ryan and Nicholas Cage. This deceiving incongruity is especially evident with "Captain Phillips" and Denmark's "A Hijacking", two films released within a year of each other that afford a great opportunity to witness differing styles at work. 

"Captain Phillips" is the real life story of the captain of the Maersk Alabama whose ship was hijacked by Somali pirates back in 2009. The emotional rollercoaster of a role of Phillips is handled with aplomb by two time Oscar winning actor Tom Hanks; he is instantly likeable as a simple every-man American and we soon find ourselves rooting for his survival.  Although ostensibly a story about Phillips and his crew's ordeal, the movie is also a story about two different ways of life coming into direct conflict; a direct collision in affairs between East and West, between developed countries and the third world. Both sides are just going about what is their typical state of affairs and this time unfortunately, their interests are at odds with each other. The film makes a point of showing the business-like nature of piracy in Somalia; there are very limited opportunities for work and men in the village are desperate to get a chance at the potential windfall piracy offers. We do get to know the Somali pirates but they're all just given vague characteristics and are more caricatures than people. There's an angry one and a young innocent one, but the only one given any kind of depth is their leader, Muse (Abdi). A man who lives in a hard world where you have to take what you want by force, he accepts the cost of his way of life and by the film's end, he finds himself in over his head with no choice but to proceed; there is no alternative. Phillips attempts to befriend the pirates and reach some kind of common ground but that soon proves to be impossible. Claiming to just be fishermen and nothing more, Muse assures Phillips multiple times that everything will be resolved and everyone will soon go home even when things are quickly falling apart. In desperation, Phillips asks Muse if there isn't some other way of making a living where people's lives don't have to be threatened and where firing guns isn't necessary. But Muse dismisses him with a very simple response: "Maybe in America."

While this movie is essentially a tale of survival, "Captain Phillips" is layered with ideological subtext. Early on, we witness the almost laughable sight of a tiny little boat with 4 emaciated men on board attempting to take over a multi-million dollar behemoth of a a cargo vessel. Director Paul Greengrass proceeds to highlight this unsettling contrast more than once throughout the film. As the situation escalates, the characters become part of a larger battle when the American military gets involved with express instructions to prevent the pirates from succeeding at all costs. And the ensuing show of force and military might is astounding and intimidating. In a chilling and almost sinister presentation of proceedings, we observe the vast difference in resources and material at the disposal of each side. We see darkened communications rooms full of the latest high-tech equipment, highly trained Navy seals, infra-red cameras, high powered sniper rifles, and massive ships of war all trained against men armed with simple AK-47s and practically nothing else. The intentions of the film-makers in this regard are unclear to say the least as the uncomfortable situation that unfolds soon makes us beg the question of who the victim in this story truly is. In a heated intense moment when he realizes that there will be no backing down, Phillips repeats to Muse in despair: "You're not just a fisherman! You're not just a fisherman!" It is at this very moment where the two ideologies truly separate. In Phillips' eyes, these are men who know that they are doing a wrong thing and yet remain willing to get him and themselves killed. In a throwaway line very early on, he muses to his wife about how the world has changed and shares his fears about how unprepared their son is for this new ultra-competitive and cut-throat world. Because of this, we wonder how much Phillips understands about the pirates' motivations and to what extent he speaks for all those people who can't comprehend how piracy can become a normal and routine occupation.

"A Hijacking" has two main protagonists and spends roughly an equal time with both of them. Peter (Malling) is the CEO of the shipping company who receives the terrible news of the ship's capture and against expert advice, he decides to handle negotiations with the hijackers personally. Mikkel (Asbaek), the ship's cook, speaks English and is forced to deal with the hostage takers' translator and negotiator (Interestingly enough, a large portion of the dialogue in "A Hijacking" is in English as it is the only common language between the two negotiators). And while "A Hijacking" focuses on the trying and testing ordeal of the long and drawn out hostage crisis that ensues, it does not focus on the chase aspect of the story whatsoever (unlike "Captain Phillips", which devotes a substantial amount of time on it). As for the Danish version, we find out about the hijacking from Peter's perspective and by the time we return to Mikkel's side of the story, the crew has already been captured and the ship has already been taken. In fact, we don't see any real action sequences whatsoever in "A Hijacking", and any on-screen action happens in an instant and is over very quickly. While everything in "Captain Phillips" occurs in a matter of days, the hostage situation in "A Hijacking" eventually become an ordeal that drags out interminably for months.

Where the tension lies is in the pressure cooker world that both Peter and Mikkel find themselves thrown in. The performances here are subtly powerful and emotionally charged; some of the best scenes to be found in both films are the simple ones in "A Hijacking" that just give us a realistic peek into the lives of characters caught in such extreme circumstances. Separated from his wife and young daughter and with no end to the situation in sight, Mikkel slowly and steadily unravels as conditions on the ship worsen and the constant unrelenting stress begins to get to him. Peter, on the other hand, finds his entire life consumed by a pressure of a different kind. A tough negotiator who has the can-do attitude of someone used to being in control and taking problems head on, the pressure on him soon becomes more than he can handle. With the lives of the hostages in his hands and with the questions and concerns of the hostages' families tormenting him, he desperately tries to rein in his urge to do anything to save the hostages, especially when that desperation risks harming them. "A Hijacking" also handles the Somalis in a different approach that works effectively for its purposes, keeping them at a distance as volatile and seemingly irrational captors who treat Mikkel and the rest of the crew like dogs. Much like Phillips, Mikkel also tries to find some kind of common understanding with the pirates, and much like Phillips again, he fails miserably for the most part.  

Verdict: The most interesting aspect of watching two movies about a cargo ship hijacking is just how completely different they are in terms of what they decide to show on screen and which aspect of their respective stories they focus on.The clear thing to be taken from watching both films is that "A Hijacking" is much more grounded in reality. Greengrass brings the uniquely intense and pulsating action style to "Captain Phillips" that he perfected in the latter two Bourne flicks and in "United 93". But even though it is an entertaining and engaging film, "Captain Phillips" exists in a fantasy world where everything seems realistic but very little rings true. Violence is much more commonplace in "Captain Phillips" but it's much more shocking and unsettling when it occurs in "A Hijacking". Both film handled different dramatic dimensions of their stories and while the Hollywood version relishes in the frenetic and nerve-wracking excitement of the hostage situation, "A Hijacking" requires more patience as it recounts a more realistic version of events. Poignant and sobering, it contains no manipulative quick edits, no massive action set-pieces, and no overdone heroic feats. It's up for debate which method makes for a better movie experience, but in the end, it all depends on what the audience prefers to spend two hours of their time watching.

A Hijacking: B+

Captain Phillips: B

Trailers:

A Hijacking 

Movie info:

Runtime: 103 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

Cast: Pilou Asbaek, Soren Malling, Dar Salim

Director: Tobias Lindholm

Screenplay: Tobias Lindholm

Cinematography: Magnus Nordenhof Jonck

Captain Phillips

Movie info:

Runtime: 134 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi, Faysal Ahmed

Director: Paul Greengrass

Screenplay: Billy Ray

Cinematography: Barry Ackroyd

12 Years a Slave Review

When a movie about slavery starts with the disclaimer of “Based on a True Story”, there are always fears of exaggeration, melodrama, and emotional manipulation that films ranging from Steven Spielberg’s “Amistad” to Edward Zwick’s “Glory” have all been guilty of, but “12 Years a Slave” does no such thing. “12 Years a Slave” comes with a story that is just ripe for the Hollywood glamorization treatment and could have easily taken that road, but in the hands of British director Steve McQueen, it will surely go down as one of the greatest anti-slavery movies of all time. 

As Quentin Tarantino proved with “Django Unchained” last year, even a tough subject such as slavery can be turned into a mainstream box office hit if handled in a certain way but Tarantino’s uber-violent action flick cannot come even close to the resonating power of the harrowing and unflinchingly realistic “12 Years a Slave”. A much more palatable film experience, “Django Unchained” generally occurs in a fantasy world of over-the-top action and wise-cracking characters that exchange witty banter in between trying to kill each other, but “12 Years a Slave” holds nothing back and paints no such fairytale picture.  “12 Years a Slave” is not an easy movie to watch and those looking for a two hour diversion that can be instantly forgotten will go somewhere else, a fact that may prevent it from achieving the commercial success of “Django Unchained”.

A free black man in 1840s pre-civil war America, Solomon Northup is a wealthy and prosperous member of the community along with his wife and two children but in an instant, all that is taken away from him. Finding himself inexplicably in chains, Solomon realizes soon enough the horrible fate in store for him. In the first of many gut-wrenching scenes, Solomon takes the full brunt of a slaver’s hatred and anger that all slaves of that era experienced time and time again. Struggling to figure out how to survive, Solomon is initially torn on whether to fight back and risk it all or suffer in silence and wait for the right opportunity. Solomon gets shunted off from plantation owner to plantation owner, finding difficulty in suppressing his nature and exhibiting a staunchly defended indignant defiance that gets him in hot water on multiple occasions. Initially in the service of Ford (Cumberbatch), a kind but weak plantation owner, Solomon eventually ends up in the hands of the vile and despicable Epps (Fassbender).

The sense of injustice at what happens to Solomon and all of these other slaves is what makes a film like this hard to digest. Even to those desensitized by violent video games and movies, it is the brutal nature of the violence and the harsh and terrible injustices on display that make “12 Years a Slave” so unforgettable. We watch as slaves get whipped on a daily basis for failing to pick a certain amount of cotton, but when a white man also fails to do so, he simply gets told not to do it again. We watch as a slave girl whose children have been taken away from her get told to stop wailing and that they will soon be forgotten. And the most horrifying thing about it is the status quo business-as-usual nature of all those terrible proceedings. The film captures the general sense that slavery is just something that has always been done, something that is ingrained in the culture of the land, and we soon begin to see why people who still feel that something is terribly wrong with all this (such as Ford) are afraid to rock the boat and just allow it all to happen. And it is that bizarre and tragic rationalization that is at the heart of the terrible endeavour of using slave labour that the film takes on as well. We witness how society’s key concepts of justice and morality become twisted and perverted, and the hypocrisy of those using religion to rationalize and gloss over their horrendous actions. Both of Solomon’s masters preach scripture and extol the “good” teachings of the Bible, but while Ford and Epps are complete opposites in almost every respect, both of them hypocritically ignore those very teachings.

The irrational and all-consuming hatred of the slavers, plantation owners, and overseers that Solomon encounters pulsates through the screen, vividly brought to life by a cast that all excel in their roles. Michael Fassbender taps into the dark and ugly recesses of human nature for his role as a lustful and violent man who becomes drunk on the power he holds over his small group of slaves that he proudly exclaims “are his property”. Paul Giamatti, Paul Dano, and Sarah Paulson capture the shocking indifference of generations of racist Americans and their blatant disregard for another person’s basic right to their humanity. And in the midst of it all is a once in a lifetime performance by British actor Chiwetel Ejiofor, previously known for his great performance in the underrated “Dirty Pretty Things” and supporting roles in “American Gangster” and “Children of Men”. The powerful yet suppressed emotions of anger and fear, boiling under the surface and threatening to erupt at any moment, are the best aspects of Ejiofor’s character, a performance that takes on the whole spectrum of human emotion. He is a man who refuses to give up his dignity and tries to hold on to every shred of it as possible. And in order to survive over the years, he has to discard, piece by piece, almost every fragment of his humanity; his freedom and survival come at a terrible price. We see him beaten and degraded, yet he remains combative and defiant. There are moments where he gives in to his fears, where he begins to question if his humanity exists anymore, but it isn’t some great speech or some one big heroic act that makes Ejiofor’s Solomon so inspiring. It is the little nuances that grip your attention, it is his constant and unwavering willingness to try and cling to his dignity and his humanity inspite of everything that has happened to him and all the terrible things that he has done that make it such a powerful role. 

Steve McQueen, director of Hunger and Shame (both of which starred Fassbender), has always shown a willingness to tackle difficult and challenging subject matter in the past, but what he has done with “12 Years a Slave” is quite the achievement. The unharmonious juxtaposition of the beautiful surroundings of the Louisiana swamplands and the peaceful and serene plantations of the South with all the violence and human suffering behind it all is what McQueen does best with “12 Years a Slave”. He doesn’t need an emotionally charged soundtrack or false grand-standing performances from his actors; he takes out all the unnecessary frills and simply tells the story and the rest is taken care of. And while the movie does suffer from pacing problems and loses its focus slightly during the second act, it’s hard to believe that another American film will be able to top “12 Years a Slave” in the Oscars race. 

Spoilers:

For all the great things in “12 Years a Slave”, it still carries the trappings of a movie made in the Hollywood system and suffers slightly for it. In what is the typical case of historical revisionism in a Hollywood movie about slavery, the vindication of the black character or characters is usually due to the benevolent kindness of a white man who goes against his peers and decides to treat the black characters as human beings. Standing in as apologists for white people in modern day America, good examples of this are Matthew Broderick’s Colonel Shaw in the aforementioned “Glory” or Schultz in “Django Unchained”, where the white German played by Christoph Waltz rescues the black character, gives him his freedom and teaches him the tools of his trade. Brad Pitt (who perhaps unsurprisingly is also one of the producers of “12 Years A Slave”) plays the role of progressive white man and saviour this time and it is interesting and worth noting the persistent narratives and character hierarchies that certain Hollywood movies about sensitive subject matter tend to stick to.

A-

Movie info:

Runtime: 133 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

Cast: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyong'o, Benedict Cumberbatch

Director: Steve McQueen

Screenplay: John Ridley

Cinematography: Sean Bobbitt

Gravity Review

Gravity: A project that was stuck at a development standstill for years, with a budget that studios said was too big and needing technology that was not yet available. And yet here we are in 2013 and what has been a long time passion project for director Alfonso Cuaron has finally hit theatres as one of the most anticipated releases of the year. Cuaron's latest movie has been described as ground-breaking, exhilarating and as a cinematic milestone, and for the most part, the film lives up to all the hype.

"Gravity" is a survival story pure and simple. Whilst servicing the Hubble Space Telescope, astronauts Ryan Stone (Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (Clooney) find themselves in a perilous situation with their lives at danger and the chances of getting back to Earth minimal. Nothing more is needed to be told to enjoy this movie and there is minimal wastage in Gravity's hour and half runtime. Due to the intensive nature of the effects, every movement and every bit of dialogue has been carefully selected and placed in its appropriate place. This comes at a certain cost however. If you are a viewer who prefers the fantastical story and colorful characters that tend to populate sci-fi movies, there may be some slight disappointment because both elements are lacking in "Gravity". Put simply, the chief focus here is on the visuals. 

At a quick glance, it is a movie that is seemingly without limitation. The effects are seamless and without any noticeable flaws. We never question for a moment what we are witnessing and because of that, we are easily immersed into this familiar yet utterly different cinematic world. The majesty and sheer epic nature of the visuals are outstanding from the very start to the very finish, and aside from photographs and footage such as this, movies like "Gravity" may be as close as most people will come to experiencing the incredible feeling of isolation and wonder of being in space. The space in this realistic world is completely different than the space we witness in lighter sci-fi movies such as the Star Wars or Star Trek franchises. It is cold, it is dark; it is the certainty of death and the impossibility of life. It is callous and soulless and stretches out as far as the eye can see. And through the characters' eyes, we feel their helplessness and isolation, we realize what specks we are when we see the vast expanses of Earth taunting us before our very eyes, just beyond the reach of us mere mortals. Yet at the same time, the beauty of what Cuaron shows us is unparalleled. One might begin to question how much of the amazing things we witness is real and how much is just rendered in a computer but perhaps it's better not to know, maybe just accepting the fantasy that we are invited to experience is enough.

Bringing in accomplished cinematographer and frequent collaborator Emmanuel Lubezki on an unprecedented undertaking for both film-makers, what the masterminds of "Children of Men" and "Y Tu Mama Tambien" have done with "Gravity" is nothing short of brilliant. In an interesting parallel with "2001: A Space Odyssey" director Stanley Kubrick (whose superior 1968 space exploration film that doubled as a meditation on the the meaning of life will undoubtedly invite some comparisons), the interesting thing to note in Cuaron's decades long career is that his films are rarely similar. Much like Kubrick, Cuaron has never really made the same kind of movie twice, and his ambition with Gravity is admirable and his passion palpable. We get a taste of what made "Children of Men" so memorable here and his brilliance at executing pulsating and visually unique action set pieces are on full display as well. George Clooney, whose recognizable voice and calming presence gives us something comforting to hold on to in "Gravity", does a great job in what would have been a less effective role with a different actor. A long time veteran on his last expedition, Kowalski is a guiding spirit of sorts for Stone,  a doctor on her first expedition whose inner demons come to the fore when things go awry. The physically and emotionally taxing role that Sandra Bullock plays in "Gravity" is perhaps the most challenging role of her career, and much more interesting than her various romantic comedy roles or her Oscar-winning performance in "The Blind Side".

Something that goes almost without saying is that "Gravity" should be watched in theatres, preferably in IMAX or 3D. While this reviewer generally considers 3D movies a gimmick designed to push up ticket prices (The Last Airbender and Clash of the Titans come to mind), "Gravity" was designed with the widescreen 3D viewing experience in mind. Viewed at home on a smaller screen,  one can't help but feel that the film may lose some of its power when its lack of fully developed characters or of anything more than a very basic linear narrative becomes more noticeable.

A-

Movie info:

Runtime: 90 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Cast: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney

Director: Alfonso Cuaron

Screenplay: Alfonso Cuaron, Jonas Cuaron

Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki

Prisoners Review

Coming with a premise that at first glance seems like something you would find in a TV movie of the week, there was a risk that Prisoners could have been a dull and completely forgettable slog. Perhaps that would have been the case if this film had been in the hands of a less talented or less ambitious director but instead, we get a compelling and deeply thought-provoking beautifully shot film that comes in  what has been a very insipid September.

On an otherwise normal Thanksgiving Day, the two young daughters of Keller Dover (Jackman) and Franklin Birch (Howard) suddenly disappear without a trace, shaking up a small Philadelphia town and bringing Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) into the case. With no solid clues and the only real suspect being a man with the IQ of a 10 year old, Dover becomes convinced the man knows where his daughter is. This conviction and unrelenting belief takes Dover on a dark journey that the movie dares us to follow him on. 

While this may all sound like something you would hear in a random Criminal Minds or Without a Trace episode, Prisoners takes off from this premise and doesn't play it safe or conveniently package it for audiences expecting a simple play it by the numbers thriller.  Religious symbolism is rife in this film from the very onset, and the familiar words of the Lord's Prayer that you hear Jackman's character utter in the very beginning suddenly take on a very personal meaning when he says them later on. He is a man whose faith is being tested to the extreme. Not just his faith in God, but his faith in himself as a patriarch and father, and finally his faith in himself in being able to retain his humanity when all is said and done. One of the great successes in this movie is that it puts you in the uncomfortable position of being in these characters' shoes. Basic morality and the concepts of right and wrong are put into question here and we struggle with those questions much in the same way the characters do. When pushed to the extreme and feeling completely helpless, how far would you go to save the life of someone you love? How much of what makes you human and what you are would you dismantle and discard to get the answers you are looking for? Dover and the audience both ask themselves that very question.

This movie boasts a great ensemble cast, with award-winning actresses such as Melissa Leo, Viola Davis, and Maria Bello appearing in smaller roles but the clear star here is Hugh Jackman.  Jackman and Gyllehnaal do share roughly the same amount of screen time but it's Jackman who has the intense and emotionally charged big showcase performance in the movie. Jackman does some of the best work of his career in a performance that makes one wish he'd stop making all of those X-Men movies and focus on more interesting roles like his one here. In one of the few negatives to be taken from Prisoners, Jake Gyllenhaal plays the rather generic tough loner cop obsessed with solving the case that we've seen a million times before. 

With "Prisoners", French-Canadian director Denis Villeneuve makes his first foray into bigger budget Hollywood fare and A-list casts in what could be the beginnings of a very promising next step in his career. And although "Prisoners" may not pack as much of a powerful punch as Villeneuve's brilliant "Incendies", it still remains a great follow up and all the strengths and positives that made "Incendies" so captivating are all on display here. Villeneuve develops complex believable characters that possess visible deep reservoirs of contradicting emotions with astonishing ease here and much like in "Incendies", he takes advantage of this story to explore the fabric of a family torn apart by extraordinary circumstances and their ability to overcome those obstacles. 

Verdict: Villeneuve knows how to use visuals to tell a story and the atmosphere he builds in gloomy rural Pennsylvania is engrossing and captures the mood and tone of this film perfectly. We are quickly sucked in to this murky and morally ambiguous world and there is very little respite for the next two and a half hours or so of the runtime. Prisoners is a mature and riveting work that challenges its audience and avoids the pitfalls and mistakes of other films with a similar subject matter (such as Peter Jackson's inconsistent and tedious "The Lovely Bones") and elevates a simple and familiar premise into something much more substantial. 

B+

Movie info:

Runtime: 153 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Paul Dano, Terrence Howard, Melissa Leo

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Screenplay: Aaron Guzikowski

Cinematography: Rogers Deakins