or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Prisoners - Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, Paul Dano
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prisoners - Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, Paul Dano - Page 2

post #31 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

The only time 1.85:1 A/R should be used is for docs like Super size Me, National Geographic, concerts, sporting events.

Movies should always be 2.35:1 mandatory. If not it feels like I'm watching a friggin TV show.

I agree with Zoey smile.gif
post #32 of 74
Just finished this and wow! Powerful movie with brilliant performances all the way around. I've read some complaints about the ending but I thought it was perfect and wouldn't change a thing.

Also I think the tall trees and general backdrop benefited from the AR.
post #33 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

The only time 1.85:1 A/R should be used is for docs like Super size Me, National Geographic, concerts, sporting events.

Movies should always be 2.35:1 mandatory. If not it feels like I'm watching a friggin TV show.
I only have a 73" screen.
IF I had something say....90+ inchers, I would feel the same.

IMO, with 73" sometimes 2:35 seems a little vertically challenged....
Yeah, I know....I need to get a bigger screen.frown.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Kenobi View Post

Just finished this and wow! Powerful movie with brilliant performances all the way around. I've read some complaints about the ending but I thought it was perfect and wouldn't change a thing.

Also I think the tall trees and general backdrop benefited from the AR.
Glad you enjoyed it!
It's a shame the word didn't get out on this when it was in the theaters.
post #34 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

The only time 1.85:1 A/R should be used is for docs like Super size Me, National Geographic, concerts, sporting events.

Movies should always be 2.35:1 mandatory. If not it feels like I'm watching a friggin TV show.

Hmmm I feel some movies do well with a 1.85 framing. The one movie I felt that looked good on was Avengers as the DP felt it was necessary as all the characters were of different heights.
post #35 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Hmmm I feel some movies do well with a 1.85 framing. The one movie I felt that looked good on was Avengers as the DP felt it was necessary as all the characters were of different heights.
I prefer fantasy-type (superheroes, etc.) stuff to be 16x9.
post #36 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I prefer fantasy-type (superheroes, etc.) stuff to be 16x9.

The BD was in 1.77 though biggrin.gif
post #37 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

The BD was in 1.77 though biggrin.gif
Oh, sorry...I meant full frame.tongue.gif
post #38 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I prefer fantasy-type (superheroes, etc.) stuff to be 16x9.
Most definitely!! an action movie of any type, be it Sci-Fi, western, etc absolutely should be 2.35 to achieve that "real widescreen" look.
post #39 of 74
Watched this last night on BD via Redbox, largely based on what you guys have said in this thread. Glad I did, this is really a terrific movie. oink's original post was spot on. You guys touched on all the general themes so here are a few spoiler thoughts: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The scene at the end where Jake lets himself into the house was, for me, literally pulse pounding. Movies rarely build that sort of tension. I really thought she was going to get the jump on him. The drive to the hospital kept it up.
Regarding the ending: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I am generally a dullard who likes things to be tied up nicely, but I actually found the level of ambiguity just about right. I was more "worried" about what happened to the girls, that they'd find the real perpetrator, etc so I was less invested in Hugh making it out alive. I do disagree with oink's idea that Jake should have been shown deliberately leaving after hearing it - I think he'd be as likely to suspect that it was another victim somewhere vs Hugh? He might suspect it was him but given what we've seen of Jake's character I think he'd have stayed.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The reveal at the end that Melissa Leo's character was the real perpetrator had a sort of "Law and Order"-esque vibe to me for some reason. So I thought the aspect ratio was fitting tongue.gif

jeff
post #40 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post


Regarding the ending: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I do disagree with oink's idea that Jake should have been shown deliberately leaving after hearing it - I think he'd be as likely to suspect that it was another victim somewhere vs Hugh? He might suspect it was him but given what we've seen of Jake's character I think he'd have stayed.

jeff

Agreed.

Being an avid reader of thrillers, which means I'm trying to figure out who the villain is from the get-go, I was lead astray by
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
the house down the street that Dano parked in front of that was for sale/rent. They made it a point of showing the house was vacant. Later, while standing in front of the house and talking on his cell, Jake was saying they needed to get in touch with the owner. That never went anywhere. That was the end of it. So that lead me early on to conclude that was where the girls were being stashed. That the house had no relevance to the abductions, and they never addressed talking to the owner, I'm at a loss as to the need for those scenes other than to lead people like me astray.

I didn't find any ambiguity with the ending. Detectives are notoriously inquisitive and don't let things go. No way he leaves that property until he finds the cause of that whistle.

Edited by Aliens - 2/7/14 at 8:37am
post #41 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

Regarding the ending: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I am generally a dullard who likes things to be tied up nicely, but I actually found the level of ambiguity just about right. I was more "worried" about what happened to the girls, that they'd find the real perpetrator, etc so I was less invested in Hugh making it out alive. I do disagree with oink's idea that Jake should have been shown deliberately leaving after hearing it - I think he'd be as likely to suspect that it was another victim somewhere vs Hugh? He might suspect it was him but given what we've seen of Jake's character I think he'd have stayed.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I was more interested in the girls too....the sense of urgency was palpable.
I felt Hugh, ultimately, had to pay for his sins somehow.

All thru the movie Hugh was making Jake's job harder, to the point of being a pain in the ass.
There certainly wasn't a lot of love between them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

Agreed.

Being an avid reader of thrillers, which means I'm trying to figure out who the villain is from the get-go, I was lead astray by
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
the house down the street that Dano parked in front of that was for sale/rent. They made it a point of showing the house was vacant. Later, while standing in front of the house and talking on his cell, Jake was saying they needed to get in touch with the owner. That never went anywhere. That was the end of it. So that lead me early on to conclude that was where the girls were being stashed. That the house had no relevance to the abductions, and they never addressed talking to the owner, I'm at a loss as to the need for those scenes other than to lead people like me astray.

I didn't find any ambiguity with the ending. Detectives are notoriously inquisitive and don't let things go. No way he leaves that property until he finds the cause of that whistle.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Like most investigation of this nature, there are false leads.
I think the house was probably just a red herring.

If there was no deliberate ambiguity from the filmmaker, why didn't we see Jake rescue Hugh?
It would have been closure...
post #42 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

If there was no deliberate ambiguity from the filmmaker, why didn't we see Jake rescue Hugh?
It would have been closure...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Then the movie would have been extended another 15-30 minutes while Hugh explains how he got there; the whole Dano thing, and on and on. As it was, at least to me, Jake rescues him and we don't have to spend the time knowing what we already know; Hugh is going down.

The abduction was the driving plot of the movie and we got a resolution to that. To extend the movie in order to see Hugh brought down would have added nothing. With the ominous music and the tension throughout, it would have been anticlimactic and ruined the perfect ending we were given. There would have been no tension bringing Hugh down, and tension was the theme of this movie from beginning to end. JMO.
post #43 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Then the movie would have been extended another 15-30 minutes while Hugh explains how he got there; the whole Dano thing, and on and on. As it was, at least to me, Jake rescues him and we don't have to spend the time knowing what we already know; Hugh is going down.

The abduction was the driving plot of the movie and we got a resolution to that. To extend the movie in order to see Hugh brought down would have added nothing. With the ominous music and the tension throughout, it would have been anticlimactic and ruined the perfect ending we were given. There would have been no tension bringing Hugh down, and tension was the theme of this movie from beginning to end. JMO.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Closure would have been simply a shot of Jake lifting the lid of the spider hole.
Cut, roll credits.
Not seeing something like this is an ambiguous ending to the film IMO.
post #44 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Closure would have been simply a shot of Jake lifting the lid of the spider hole.

That is a valid point. But let me add
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I think that is exactly what happened, only we didn't get to see it.

Edited by Aliens - 2/7/14 at 12:06pm
post #45 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

That is a valid point. But let me add
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I think that is exactly what happened, only we didn't get to see it.
Because we didn't see it, it leaves somewhat of an ambiguity in that the viewer can just fill in the blank anyway they wish to.wink.gif
post #46 of 74
It appears the screenwriter agrees with you, oink.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
How do you interpret the ending?
I like keeping the end ambiguous for myself. We flirted with extending that scene to give audiences more closure but I like a little bit of mystery. In most movies, everything needs to be tidily wrapped up and I like that you’re not quite sure at the end of this one, even if you assume that [redacted] hears what he hears.

But as I've stated, I'm not ambiguous about the ending. tongue.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Because we didn't see it, it leaves somewhat of an ambiguity in that the viewer can just fill in the blank anyway they wish to.wink.gif

Yep, and I filled it in precisely. biggrin.gif
Edited by Aliens - 2/7/14 at 12:44pm
post #47 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

It appears the screenwriter agrees with you, oink.
I just don't understand why OTHER screenwriters don't....tongue.gif

Quote:
Yep, and I filled it in precisely. biggrin.gif
Well....there you go.biggrin.gif
post #48 of 74
'Prisoners' gave me quite the white knuckle experience (well, as white as my browness would go). A gripping thriller from a Canadian director that makes ponder what you would do in that situation.

For those interested, this film is spectacularly shot by Roger Deacons. Not just the lighting, but the shot selections are brilliant. Had 'Gravity' not come out this year, 'Prisoners' would have had the lock on the cinematography Oscar.

P.S. This is not for the squeamish.
post #49 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

'Prisoners' gave me quite the white knuckle experience (well, as white as my browness would go). A gripping thriller from a Canadian director that makes ponder what you would do in that situation.

For those interested, this film is spectacularly shot by Roger Deacons. Not just the lighting, but the shot selections are brilliant. Had 'Gravity' not come out this year, 'Prisoners' would have had the lock on the cinematography Oscar.

P.S. This is not for the squeamish.
+1

Glad you liked it, David.

FWIW, I found it to be the most "gripping" thriller of recent vintage I can recall.
It's a damn shame it didn't receive more attention from the public.
post #50 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

+1

Glad you liked it, David.

FWIW, I found it to be the most "gripping" thriller of recent vintage I can recall.
It's a damn shame it didn't receive more attention from the public.

I agree about the last scene. I would have done it differently too.
post #51 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

I agree about the last scene. I would have done it differently too.
Another possibility would be where Jake obviously recognizes the voice, walks over to his OWN car, leans against it, lowers his head, and ponders what to do next as the credits roll by.....wink.gif
post #52 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Another possibility would be where Jake obviously recognizes the voice, walks over to his OWN car, leans against it, lowers his head, and ponders what to do next as the credits roll by.....wink.gif

That would be interesting as it would go against his nature.
post #53 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

That would be interesting as it would go against his nature.
He is a man in pursuit of justice....wink.gif
post #54 of 74
Generally, I like movies with an ambiguous ending. In this instance I thought it was used more as a "gimmick" (being as we've been discussing gimmicks tongue.gif) than a did he or didn't he. Not to be redundant with what I posted earlier, but if the writer knew anything about detectives, Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
he would know a detective would never leave that property until he found the source of that noise - it would wear on him.
Detectives will work for 20 years, or however long it takes, to solve a cold case file because they just can't let it go.

I'm not nitpicking an excellent thriller, I'm just saying if the writer thought he was leaving me with an ambiguous ending, he didn't. Because this is what any good detective would have done.

Quote:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Closure would have been simply a shot of Jake lifting the lid of the spider hole.
Cut, roll credits.

That ending wouldn't have changed my opinion of the movie one iota, and I don't believe anyone would have given it a second thought. I'm okay with the ending, just don't expect me to be intrigued.

YMMV.
post #55 of 74
All the spoilers i can't read in this thread got me excited about this movie, should be here tomorrow, can't wait!
post #56 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

All the spoilers i can't read in this thread got me excited about this movie, should be here tomorrow, can't wait!
Please report back with a review.smile.gif
post #57 of 74
Watched it last night, liked it a lot but did not love it. It felt a little long in the middle. Definitely Gyllenhaal's career best performance. Jackman was very convincing as tortured, grief-stricken, desperate parent, willing to go to Hell in order to rescue his daughter. Loved how everything tied together in the end without tipping off the audience. Perhaps too neatly for some apparently.

I can't seem to post spoiler tags from the phone so I'll post later to address issues others have brought up.
post #58 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

Watched it last night, liked it a lot but did not love it. It felt a little long in the middle. Definitely Gyllenhaal's career best performance. Jackman was very convincing as tortured, grief-stricken, desperate parent, willing to go to Hell in order to rescue his daughter. Loved how everything tied together in the end without tipping off the audience. Perhaps too neatly for some apparently.
Glad you enjoyed it.

I am going to buy the BD when it gets down to a decent price.
post #59 of 74
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post
Being an avid reader of thrillers, which means I'm trying to figure out who the villain is from the get-go, I was lead astray by Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
the house down the street that Dano parked in front of that was for sale/rent. They made it a point of showing the house was vacant. Later, while standing in front of the house and talking on his cell, Jake was saying they needed to get in touch with the owner. That never went anywhere. That was the end of it. So that lead me early on to conclude that was where the girls were being stashed. That the house had no relevance to the abductions, and they never addressed talking to the owner, I'm at a loss as to the need for those scenes other than to lead people like me astray.

I didn't find any ambiguity with the ending. Detectives are notoriously inquisitive and don't let things go. No way he leaves that property until he finds the cause of that whistle.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I thought that house was where Dano lived before his kidnapping. He parks the RV there because he has fragments of memory.

I also agree with you on the ending; don't see what the big deal is.

post #60 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

I also agree with you on the ending; don't see what the big deal is.
It isn't a "big deal."
It's still a good ending.
My point was I think it could have been even better.wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Prisoners - Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, Paul Dano