Prisoners deserves more recognition, as both a good performance by Hugh Jackman and as a good movie by Denis Villeneuve

I watched Prisoners when it came out in 2013 simply because of Hugh Jackman. To me he had always been the Wolverine and I hadn’t seen him in anything else other than the X-men movies and Les Miserables, so I was definitely interested in seeing him in what seemed to be a down-to-earth mystery thriller. Little did I know that not only would that be one of Hugh Jackman’s best performances, but that the movie would be the stepping stone for one of the best directors working today, Denis Villeneuve.

It is a bit tricky watching a movie like this again after a long time. On one hand, I already know the twist and how the movie is going to end. So the suspense may not be there as much during the movie and certain events may lack impact. On the other hand, watching the movie for a second time, this time with a more critical mind, might shine light on some details that I missed the first time or make me appreciate it more.

The best aspect movie is something that didn’t change on my second viewing: the acting. This is one of Hugh Jackman’s best performances, right up there with his performance in Logan. While portraying Wolverine, Hugh Jackman has put forward different performances in the numerous movies he has been in, with each one slightly different and emphasizing different aspects of the character. This is to say that with that role Hugh has flexed his acting muscles quite a bit and has shown range in terms of physicality and emotions of the character. While as Wolverine he has demonstrated anger, frustration and anxiousness many times, in Prisoners it hits different because he is not playing a superhero. He is playing an ordinary man, a father who in order to find his daughter is willing to cast aside his morals and ethics. Two aspects of the character are shown pretty much immediately as the movie starts: he is a devout Christian, and is a man who believes in being prepared for everything. These are important because they are put to the test by the abduction. How can you prepare for something such as the abduction of your child? Will you be able to hold on to your faith in such a trying time when your prayers seem to bare no fruit? With such challenges to the fundamental beliefs of a character, that person is going to be shook, disoriented at the beginning. Hugh shows this perfectly, as he at times fails to form complete sentences and has to catch his breath in order to talk to detective Loki for the first time. As time goes on, frustration builds and affects how he behaves towards his family, with him at times feeling distant from his wife and son as his only concern and priority is finding his daughter. Frustration leads to Anger as Alex is released from custody and the police focus on other leads. What Alex says to Keller seals his fate, as Keller decides to watch him close and catches him as he recites the song Anna was singing before disappearing. The scene where Keller punches Alex and then threatens him with the hammer is one of the most memorable moments of the movie. The wrath of a father mixed with desperation leads to what is a scary moment, as we see Keller cast aside his humanity and that of Alex. Something that caught my attention this time is how this frustration and anger sort of goes down and gives way to desperation and helplessness, as we see Keller just quietly and slowly turning on the water to burn Alex. I am pointing out all this because the dynamics of Keller’s emotions is something I will come back to.

While Hugh’s performance is the showstopper, Jake Gyllenhaal also puts on a good performance. He is no stranger to detective/cop roles, neither is he to characters with manic behaviours who at times lose control. What I noticed this time are the more subtle details of his acting, specifically how his blinking a lot of times seems intense. Even if you don’t notice this, I think unconsciously you get the impression that something is off with this man and that he is holding himself back. Detective Loki is not a character with a deep personality, nor are we given an interesting backstory about him, but Jake’s acting does a lot of heavy lifting.

Something similar can be said for Maria Bello and Viola Davis, who play the mothers of the missing daughters. Even though they do not have a lot of screen time, they make it count. Not only do the convincingly portray mothers with missing daughters, but they show how different mother can react differently. While Nancy seems to hold it together despite her grief, Grace loses herself in it and resorts to medication in order to sleep. She never lashes out but she points to other such as Keller and Loki for the blame of what is going on in order to make sense of all of it.

Terrance Howard is in this movie. At this point in time (2025) he is best known for two things probably: 1. being replaced by Don Cheadle as War Machine, and 2. spouting pseudoscience nonsense on the Joe Rogan podcast. However, there was a time where he was a decent and respected actor. In Prisoners not only does he put on a decent performance, but his character highlights something in Keller. In portraying Franklin, Terrance shows vulnerability and how the weight of the situation almost literally weighs him down. After the thanksgiving scene at the beginning of the movie he barely speaks loudly again and has his head tilted down most of the time, showing defeat in the face of the situation. While the helplessness bring Franklin down, it brings Keller up and pushes him to do the things he will end up doing, thus outlining the difference between the two fathers and their approach to life.

While so far the acting has been ranging from Great to decent, there are some performances that fall short. Paul Dano doesn’t lack range, but there is something to his acting that can be seen almost in all his roles. A lot of his characters come off either as pathetic or pitiful, and it is no different with Alex. It doesn’t help that there is barely any acting involved with portraying Alex. Yes I know that it is the point, the emphasize how Alex is still a child and is vulnerable in that way, but it doesn’t change the fact that Paul had to be quiet and act awkward most of the time for this character. There are small moments where something gets through, such as his screams when being burned and his stillness and silent terror when Keller is with the hammer, but they are too little to raise the acting to a level where it can be deemed praise worthy. Same thing with David Dastmalchian, who while playing a small role with little screen times, acts like a character that you feel like you’ve seen before in another movie. Not to say these are bad performances, but that they simply ok or passable as compared to the rest of the performances.

While the acting is as good as I remembered, many other elements of the movie surprised. The music for example, or rather the lack thereof. There is barely any music in this movie, with almost all of the soundtrack consisting of strings and ambient sounds to add to the atmosphere. Even in the more exciting parts of the movie the music is just in the background and it stays there, never being so loud or too outstanding. In recent years the use of music, specially licenced music, has reached a point where there is always some type of music in the background, so it was almost like a whiplash. The choice is involve as little music as possible is something that I can appreciate but it is still basic when it comes to the music. Even the cinematography seems basic in some way as there are no crazy shots or camera movements. Most of the scenes consists of the camera being in a fixed position or slowly moving to follow a character. The setting is a boring rural town with nothing of significance. These are not necessarily weaknesses of the movie nor do they bring it down, what it means is that it falls on the rest of the elements of the movie to keep you invested during the 2.5 hour runtime. This is why the acting is more important and does a lot of the heavy lifting, specially as a lot of scenes lack music and our focus will be 110% on the characters and their actions.

Other than the acting, it is the writing and story that will make up for the basic making of the movie. The movie is a slow burn through and through and there are little to no exciting segments, yet I was never bored during the movie. This is because either the story or the character are dynamic and always moving. Each scene and dialogue is just a long as it needs to be, just to get the necessary information across. There is not time wasted, no aimless interactions, and no pointless shots. So while the movie is a slow burn, it doesn’t feel as if it is crawling or as if it ever comes to a stop. In addition to that, the story itself and the mystery of the abduction are written well. What I appreciate the most is that the parts of the movie that seem to be misdirect that are intended to take your suspicion away from Alex actually end up painting the full picture. The corpse in in the basement of the Father and the man obsessed with mazes are connected to those responsible for the abduction of the daughters and are not just means to install doubt in you. The mystery itself is good, with little bits and pieces given to you during the movie until the revelation is made pretty much at the end of the movie, with only 30 minutes it finishes. While the motivation of the kidnapper seems generic at first, being about doing something against God and faith, it is made significant as it ties to Keller. Holly says that her War against God is to bring out the demon in faithful, to demonstrate how they cast aside their beliefs in moments of despair. And she accomplishes that. The movie doesn’t shy away from showing the brutality of Keller not just in torture, but in the way he doesn’t see Alex as a human anymore, just an obstacle between him and finding his daughter.

I have been singing the praise of the movie so far. Does it mean it is perfect? No, no movie is. The aspects of the movie that are basic, at the end of the day, are still that and can be criticized so. Other than that, there are small nit-picks here and there. For example, when Grace criticizes Loki and says he should be out there helping Keller look for Anna, while Loki is there because Grace called him, so it doesn’t make sense. Or when Loki loses Bob Taylor as he was chasing him in a very abrupt way. Why didn’t Alex do or say anything the first time Loki came into the abandoned building? Why did Loki just leave the boxes open for the snakes to come out, or why did he just leave his suspect on the floor to go alone inspecting the house? These are small things that I noticed because it was my second viewing and I was paying more attention. They don’t bring the movie down in a significant way though as I do consider them nit-picks.

Lastly, let’s talk about the director. I think Denis demonstrates something that he will come to perfect further down his career: competence. The ability to take the material and script and make a movie to do it justice. With Prisoners he doesn’t do anything extraordinary, but later with Blade Runner and the Dune movies, he goes beyond to make sure the movies are impact and truly memorable. So maybe competence isn’t the correct word, but rather an understanding as to what needs to be done in order to make a movie that can be objectively considered great in technical terms, while satisfying the viewers and making their money worth. In Prisoners Denis keeps things simple and it works to the movie’s favor as it gives the stage to the actors and their acting. The title drop is probably the best example of this. There is no buildup, no music, nothing. The title just drops before the movie begins. Simple because it is sufficient, enough for what the movie is trying to be.

To wrap things up, Prisoners is such a solid movie. It is simple yet very good. With it we get some of Hugh Jackman’s best acting with a solid job by most of the cast, a decent mystery thriller with twists and turns, and an appreciation for the basics of movie making and the things that can make a movie memorable and good.