Come gather round children, as I shakily sip a cup of 'erbal green tea in my chesterfield, stuttering as I regale the tale of
It started off fairly normal. I didn't think much when that Naera of a man, Scott Gentry, invited me to see Prisoners, with such favorites as Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal. I thought that it started quite generically, and I spent most of my time deliberating as to whether or not it was a horror movie or not. I like to think that it was slightly aware of itself in that respect, and I appreciated the role-reversal.The plot was solid and gripping, with more red herrings than a House Tully banner (I know their sigil is a Trout, just let me have it) and as many shocking scenes. It's always made me laugh, that the British public can quite comfortably watch a man be decapitated, but shirks at the sight of a dog in the rain. Or a dolly from the 1830's. Be forewarned, you animal-lovers, there are about six seconds of animal-cruelty that made a lot of people in the audience (myself included) inhale slightly with horror.
The characters were morally ambiguous, which is always a good concept to explore. The only thing that annoyed me slightly--you know how passive I am, right?-- was JAKE GYLLENHAAL'S SODDING TWITCH God! I don't know if it's a serious problem, or a supposed acting "talent", but it really got on my nerves. He was a bit of a faceless, two-dimensional bastard. However, he thawed slightly toward the end--slightly, mind--and became a little bit more than a stock character only here to entertain the groundlings at the latest commedia dell arte.
All in all, it had a pretty solid storyline and a fairly good cast. It's the proud winner of the Jon Petre award for the Best Cliffhanger since Inception. Although, to be honest, there haven't been that many convicincing cliffhangers since then.
Four Increments/Stars out of Five
∆∆∆∆
No comments:
Post a Comment