Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Prisoners w/Jackman & Gyllenhaal

81% at Rottentomatoes so far. Anyone going to see it?

If not, can we at least discuss any hanky panky on the set?

by Anonymousreply 10802/27/2015

Shot in Atlanta., I read for small crappy role, ha, no idea who got it. Never heard one word about the production once they were here -- except that was when Jake G was spotted on the plane in that infamous thread. :)

by Anonymousreply 109/18/2013

I don't think Gyllenhaal is Jackman's type, though they both have a tight grip on their closet doors. That's where they match up.

by Anonymousreply 209/18/2013

Variety and EW gave raves to Hugh Jackman. I know he's a divisive figure on DL but I'm happy for him.

by Anonymousreply 309/18/2013

I'll call Viola and ask (btw what does she play, I don't want o offend her again by assuming she plays another maid)

by Anonymousreply 409/18/2013

The previews look great. I'd like to see it.

by Anonymousreply 509/18/2013

[quote]- except that was when Jake G was spotted on the plane in that infamous thread. :)

Details please.

by Anonymousreply 609/18/2013

I'll watch it for Jackman. Gyllenhaal makes my skin crawl. Just another example of a marginally talented, average-attractive white male gettin shot to stardom. His pandering to the gay/bi crowd disgusts me and I hate his voice. No charm, no charisma.

Jesus fucking Christ Hollywood, you gave us Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Bogart and Brando once.

by Anonymousreply 709/18/2013

Prisoners? Yeah, prisoners of lust! Jake and I had some pretty wild times on the set! Just don't tell Deb, okay?

by Anonymousreply 809/18/2013

[quote]Prisoners? Yeah, prisoners of lust! Jake and I had some pretty wild times on the set! Just don't tell Deb, okay?

Jeez Hugh, I was only asking if there was hanky panky on the set between Len Cariou and Viola Davis.

by Anonymousreply 909/18/2013

Hugh was just on The Daily Show and looking fine as hell.

by Anonymousreply 1009/18/2013

There was a famous DL thread where a guy was posting live sitting next to Jake G on a flight from ATL to NYC, I think. Funny stuff, a play by play as Jake tried not to be noticed. It was when he was shooting that film.

Try to find thread, it was funnier than it sounds. :)

by Anonymousreply 1109/18/2013

They seemed to have hit it off pretty well.

by Anonymousreply 1209/18/2013

I liked it, but I wish someone could fill me in onthe second suspect with the clothes. Was he related?

by Anonymousreply 1309/22/2013

Prisoners debuted at #1 this week - maybe Hugh and Jake can have a private celebration. Jake can admire Hugh's "tits and ass"

by Anonymousreply 1409/22/2013

It's AMAZING. A very, very, very good movie. Go see it.

by Anonymousreply 1509/22/2013

R 13- Yes, he was related, but I can't explain it on here without giving away too many spoilers.

Just think about it.

by Anonymousreply 1609/22/2013

I wouldn't call it amazing, but it's good. I didn't think it's worth all of the buzz it's getting. Jake's good and Jackman's a little over the top. Poor Viola Davis hardly has anything to do in it. It's way too long and complicated.

by Anonymousreply 1709/22/2013

Forget Prisoners, what you think of Deb's new hairdo/don't?

by Anonymousreply 1809/22/2013

Saw it this weekend. A perfect example of a very talented director making a solid script seem much better than it is. It's grim stuff but it's never dull even though it runs 2 1/2 hours.

Jackman seems to have taken his cue from Sean Penn in MYSTIC RIVER, and then some (there are times he seems to be channeling Wolverine too). He's overwrought too much of the time, but he does have some first class scenes too when he quiets down (one involving his looking at some photos at the station is his best moment in the film). Unfortunately, he's not a great actor - an exceptional talent would have given more dimension to a character who could easily be seen as a monster.

Gyllenhaal is better than he's been in most of his other films, but the role is thinly written and JG doesn't really project the unusual level of intelligence that his character is supposed to have.

Davis is largely wasted. Melissa Leo is almost unrecognizable at first and Dano is heartbreaking.

The director Denis Villeneuve made a superb film a couple of years ago called INCENDIES, which I heartily recommend.

by Anonymousreply 1909/22/2013

Fassbender was offered the role that Jackman plays. I wonder why he turned it down? Conflicting schedule? It always looked like a hot thing. The script is one of those Black List scripts (list of the best scripts in development).

by Anonymousreply 2009/23/2013

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 2109/23/2013

Agree with R 19. An example of powerhouse directing. Completely confident without interfering. The tension is sustained from start to finish. The screenplay is well-constructed but familiar and could have been cheesy in the wrong hands. Boy did the director elevator this material to new heights. Can't wait to see what he does next.

by Anonymousreply 2209/23/2013

Saw it yesterday, really liked it. It's Hugh Jackman's best role. Very wonderful cast. Very tense. It's worth the hype.

Wonder if Jackman can get an Oscar nod or if this movie will be forgotten by next month.

by Anonymousreply 2309/24/2013

"The screenplay is well-constructed but familiar and could have been cheesy in the wrong hands."

100% right, especially when you consider the scriptwriter's last film was the Mark Wahlberg vehicle CONTRABAND.

by Anonymousreply 2409/24/2013

Director already has his next movie done, and it's with Jake Gyllenhaal again. Guess Jake did something he liked.

by Anonymousreply 2509/24/2013

"Guess Jake did something he liked."

Blow jobs?

by Anonymousreply 2609/24/2013

Terrence Howard should've played Jackman's role. He would've been a natural.

by Anonymousreply 2709/24/2013

I also saw "Incendies" and thought this Villeneuve was a MAJOR talent. Was hoping to see more of his work and now thrilled he's been "let in" to Hollywood (he's French- Canadian). I loved "Prisoners" -- intriguing film from beginning to end! Excellent acting. This director will get top Hollywood actors eager to work with him once they see this film.

by Anonymousreply 2809/24/2013

Dano & the 'other guy' ,with the clothes, were both perfect in their creepy roles.

by Anonymousreply 2909/24/2013

We touched each other.

by Anonymousreply 3009/24/2013

[quote]Wonder if Jackman can get an Oscar nod or if this movie will be forgotten by next month.

Let's see how much the box office holds over the next weekend. If word of mouth is good there won't be much dropoff, which will increase grosses and better Jackman's Oscar chances.

I think this grossed over $40 million last wkend? Very nice.

by Anonymousreply 3109/24/2013

Deb and I held hands at the premiere

by Anonymousreply 3209/24/2013

Jake must give some pretty good blowjobs.

Just imagine cum dripping down those lips.

by Anonymousreply 3309/24/2013


To those who saw it, was it implied that Jackman's father was the cop who committed suicide in that news story? And if so, why bring it up in an already convoluted red herring filled movie. The minute the priest thing happened, I sort of knew something of how it ultimately played out.

by Anonymousreply 3409/24/2013

FUCK OFF r34 Stop spoiling you shit.

by Anonymousreply 3509/24/2013

um r35...did you not see the spoiler sign?

by Anonymousreply 3609/24/2013

Yikes, Jackman is looking old for 44. I wonder when he'll have his eyes done.

by Anonymousreply 3709/25/2013

"Dano & the 'other guy' ,with the clothes, were both perfect in their creepy roles."

Yes, they were a bit "creepy" but by the end you how tragic/damaged they are.

When I first saw the 'other guy' character, I thought it was Lee Pace in the role. At certain angles it looked like him.

On IMDB there are some major assholes who think Jackman's character shouldn't get jail time for what he did, and that his actions were perfectly justified. Scary.

by Anonymousreply 3809/25/2013

Excellent film. Was totally riveted right from the start. Both Jackman and Gyllenhaal were terrific. (What was up with JG and the shirt buttoned up to the neck? Just a strange fashion statement?)

My only problem with the whole movie was that the Melissa Leo character spoke so softly and so strangely that I had a really difficult time hearing what she was saying, particularly toward the end.

Anyhow, highly recommended.

by Anonymousreply 3909/25/2013

Wow. I must've seen a different film because I thought it was AWFUL.

The screenplay by Aaron Guzikowski wants to be a serious meditation on morality as well as a complex mystery, but it's a complete failure on both fronts -- the morality is muddled due to simplistic characters and unresolved motivations while the mystery element isn't very mysterious -- a half an hour into the film, I turned to my companions and offered up my theory on a solution, and wouldn't you know I was exactly right! Possibly an unintended consequence of this is that the characters come off as unbelievably stupid (not to mention unlikable), particularly Gyllenhaal's detective, who is said to have solved every case prior, but based on his actions portrayed in this film, he's a direct descendent of Mack Sennett's Keystone Kops; but even Jackman's character does some pretty stupid stuff, especially in his final confrontation with the villain; the result is that the film creaks from flimsy plot-point to flimsy plot-point, making it almost unintentionally silly.

Nevertheless, director Denis Villeneuve is cleary very talented: working with legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins, he's created some gorgeously photographed set pieces that are a model of how to make a technically impressive movie (also worth noting: the Oscar worthy make up effects); Villeneuve just needs to learn how to pick better scripts and rein in the more excessive qualities of his actors (Jackman spends most of the movie screaming his lines).

by Anonymousreply 4009/25/2013

Tell us the ending. Who's the bad guy?

by Anonymousreply 4109/25/2013

SPOILER for r41:























It's the Aunt (Melissa Leo) of the Paul Dano character. Dano's character was kidnapped 24 years earlier by Leo and her dead husband and emotionally, physically and probably sexually abused, as well as used to lure other children.

I suspected it the moment Dano mutters to Jackman "They didn't start crying until I left them." I knew it when Gyllenhaal learned about the boy who had been kidnapped 24 years earlier from the empty house where the RV was seen the day the little girls disappeared.

by Anonymousreply 4209/25/2013

R 40--- When I saw this film people were constantly turning to their companion to 'whisper' theories about how it ends. Glad you're proud to be right, but if I was your companion or sitting near you, I would have been pissed.

I'm in my 20's and I'm shocked at how middle-aged people have no attention can you not sit through a movie without speaking?!?

And, considering you mentioned how good the directing is, I don't know why you would call it "awful"?

by Anonymousreply 4309/25/2013

Jake's blinking tic drove me crazy

by Anonymousreply 4409/26/2013

r43 - I haven't seen it, but the scenery chewing in the trailer alone had me rolling, and the whole vengeful father rip-off of Mystic River was extra. It's still possible it's a well-directed movie but a POS overall.

by Anonymousreply 4509/26/2013

[quote]Jake's blinking tic drove me crazy

It's his overtures to closet-hugging that drive me crazy. That 'tits and ass' comment was about as embarrassing as it gets and especially as he's supposed to have a nice new beard whose family must be thrilled to have her referred to as such (though when men haven't had tits and asses I dunno, but he knew what he was doing).

It came at a time when this film was gaining Oscar buzz. He's pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 4609/27/2013

^ Jackman's as bad a well. Bringing up gay gossip with no prompting so he can deny it or have his wife screech on the front page of People.

Ridiculous, all of these people.

by Anonymousreply 4709/27/2013

Based on the trailer Jackman is trying to emulate Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston.

by Anonymousreply 4809/27/2013

I really liked the film a lot. Probably the first trip to the movies that I didn't regret since Pacific Rim came out. (I go a lot.)

I actually didn't figure out it was the ***SPOILERS*** aunt until she answered the door with a very obviously concealed weapon. Part of the was that I didn't recognize that it was Melissa Leo playing her. I thought it was just some random bit actress. If I knew she was played by "a name" I would have been more suspicious of that character.

Jackman was good, but nothing special. As usual for him.

Gyllenhaal continues to be the most miscast actor in the history of film. His performance wasn't bad except for the unnatural blinking, but it was not the character the writer/director had imagined. The character was supposed to be this prison-tattooed, guido-haired motherfucker, and there was Gyllenhaal being his usual sensitive man-boy self. Other than that, I thought he did a good job.

by Anonymousreply 4909/29/2013

Suspenseful film but stretches the realm of believability to outer space! Loved Jake's twitches.

by Anonymousreply 5009/29/2013

R49, how do you know Gyllenhaal's character "was not the character the writer/director had imagined." I saw two interviews and watched two interviews and it was very clear that Jake & the director developed the back story for the character together,complete with nervous tic, tattoos, and buttoned up shirt.

*possible spoiler*

Jake's character mentions that he spent 6 years in a boys' home when he was going after the priest, whom he called a "piece of shit" since the priest was on the list of known sex offenders.

I felt like there was an aura of tragedy or sadness surrounding his character. He was grim. The very first time we see him, in his first scene in the movie, tells you a lot about him. I thought he did an excellent job.

by Anonymousreply 5109/29/2013

Meant to say, I read two or three interviews and saw a couple of clips of them talking on TV. I recall very specifically, that they said the writer had one line in the script about Jake's character being in a boys' home, and that he and the director worked together to develop the character, giving him the personality, nervous tic, the tattoos and the buttoned up shirt. It seemed pretty obvious to me what they were going for.

by Anonymousreply 5209/29/2013

So pathetic ----DL constantly attacking Gyllenhaal who is as good an actor to come along in the past two decades as any other -- and there are certainly FEW really outstanding ones in recent years. He tackled a difficult, daring role in "Brokeback" and was just as outstanding as Heath but I guess since he didn't die from drugs (or whatever) after making the film he will continue to be attacked by DL forever. And stop with the shit about he's attacked because he refuses to come out of the closet --no one knows whether he is gay or not and you just have to live with that, bitches.

by Anonymousreply 5309/29/2013

I heart R53.

by Anonymousreply 5409/29/2013

I disagree with r53 about Brokeback Mountain - I thought Heath's performance was miles above Gyllenhaal's. That said, I do really dig Jake Gyllenhaal as an actor. And I thought he was great in this. Understated. Brooding. Repressed. But an absolute powder keg under the right circumstances.

Really solid movie. Not mind-blowing, but still gripping and seriously creepy all the same.

by Anonymousreply 5509/29/2013

Oh, FFS! I enjoyed Prisoners. I thought Jackman and Gyllenhall did an excellent.

by Anonymousreply 5609/29/2013

r51, I totally agree. It's the best thing Gyllenhaal has ever done. I got the sense of a very complicated backstory when he uttered the line about being in the boys home for 6 years. The facial tics, tattoos, and the clothing seemed to be choices that were intended to be indicative of someone who was a victim of long and sustained sexual abuse. In fact, the whole movie had some very dark things to say about relationships between children and parents.

Days later, I find myself thinking long and hard about Gyllenhall's performance. It won't be recognized as such, but I truly believe it's something special in a movie filled to the brim with great performances (although I don't believe Hugh Jackman's was one of them. He seemed very one-note).

I'm really trying not to sound like a Jake fangirl and I'm not, but I think he's a talent that is going to get better with age and that it's hard for male actors in Hollywood to survive the 20's because there aren't very many interesting roles for men in their 20's. Note that Best Actress AA winners are on average 20-30 years younger than their male counterparts in the Actor category.

by Anonymousreply 5709/29/2013

R31 Prisoners grossed $20,817,053 last weekend when it opened. To date it has grossed an estimated $38,954,000 (Domestic).t

by Anonymousreply 5809/29/2013

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 5909/29/2013

r59 She isn't pretty. It doesn't matter so much if an old(er) woman is pretty, so that's why she's really only broken out in the past five years. She is extremely talented, though. Best performance in the movie, by far.

As a Viola fanboy, it's a shame she wasn't given anything to work with. Her one scene in the bathroom with the mentally unbalanced guy was really emotionally gripping.

by Anonymousreply 6009/29/2013

It was actually pretty good.

by Anonymousreply 6109/29/2013

She was doing TV, R59. Check out Homicide: Life on the Street.

by Anonymousreply 6209/29/2013

It's true Viola Davis' role was not much compared to others in cast (including Terrence Howard's role) but I bet she and Howard saw the importance of those roles as the neighbors. The fact they were African-American neighbors forced to come to terms with how much to take it upon themselves to torture and persecute the Dano character without more proof he was guilty...that takes on a different challenge for blacks that have experienced so much injustice themselves. I thought Davis and Howard really made the roles work on a much more subtle level.

by Anonymousreply 6309/30/2013

Oh, fuck off, r43.

I turned to my companions and whispered "Can I tell you how I think it will end?" If they'd said "No," I would've respected their choice and not said anything. But they said, "Sure, go ahead."

And it was whispering, not talking; the person on the other side of me could not hear what we were saying. And it was the only time we said anything to each other

A movie can be marvelously directed from a technical perspective and still be an awful film in terms of writing and acting. This is a prime example.

by Anonymousreply 6409/30/2013

Trust me R64, the people around you can hear you. Even if you are whispering. People need to learn how to spend 2 hours in a theatre without needing to hear their own voice.

by Anonymousreply 6509/30/2013

No, they didn't. Because I turned to them and apologised and they said they didn't hear me (they were people we knew).

Please die in a grease fire at the bottom of an outhouse pit, r65.

by Anonymousreply 6609/30/2013

I love you, R43. There are assholes of every age.

R64, yesssssssssssssss, the people around you can hear you whissssssssssssssspering, you rude Pieccccccccccccccccce of Shhhhhhhhhhhhhit on legsssssssssssss. I pray for your imminent demise.

by Anonymousreply 6709/30/2013

What was particularly clever is that for most of the run of the film they don't tip their hand too much on Paul Dano. When Jackman tackles him in the parking lot the audio is pitched just low enough that you can ALMOST hear what he hears Dano say - I heard it, and was listening hard - but it was discreet enough in the sound mix that as time goes on, and Jackman's torture of the kid becomes unspeakable, that I, like Jackman, began to doubt what I heard, because it was deliberately pitched so low.

by Anonymousreply 6809/30/2013

I agree with R68! And they also made it hard to understand him when he was speaking from inside the box HJ created for him. Very smart decisions that don't undermine the audience's intelligence.

by Anonymousreply 6909/30/2013

I agree that it was "smart" movie, but at a certain point I wanted to shake Gyllenhall's detective and scream at him, because I felt like I was putting things together a couple steps ahead of him. Except, I had no idea it would take the turn it took.

I mean. I put a couple of things together and I was right. but then it took a turn and a twist I didn't see coming. Good movie. I like good, smart thrillers. Usually everything is obvious and stupid.

by Anonymousreply 7009/30/2013

I didn't predict anything except for the significance of the maze necklace on the dead body, however, that's because I recognized it from the graphics in the trailers. It was a case of advertising inadvertently giving something away. The minute I saw the necklace I recognized it.

by Anonymousreply 7109/30/2013

r64/66, you're a fucking asshole. Everybody can hear you. Case closed. And the other poster was right about the fact that people who cannot SHUT THE FUCK UP for a few hours are ruining it for everyone. It's the reason I now go to see every "serious" movie in an early show during a weekday. I can do that because I'm a freelancer. People like you are destroying the theatrical experience. It's also why I prefer to do a movie alone. Outside of a big, stupid action movie or a big, stupid horror movie watching a movie is not a social experience. I'd rather meet up with friends over drinks or a dinner than sit in the dark for two hours with them and watch a movie.

by Anonymousreply 7209/30/2013

I believe Paul Dano did say what he said, and it still makes sense in the movie after all is revealed.

by Anonymousreply 7309/30/2013

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 7409/30/2013

I read the storyline online and laughed out loud. What a stupid plot.

by Anonymousreply 7509/30/2013

This movie was highly overrated, but I wonder if it's just because Hollywood is so out of ideas when a film with mediocre writing and acting comes along it's suddenly "brilliant." Hugh Jackman was pretty good but I thought Jake was flat and his character had no depth. I figured out the basic plot early on. I hope the film year gets better.

by Anonymousreply 7609/30/2013

I tried to recount the story to a friend at dinner. He saw exasperated because I had to jump for plot to plot because they don't really even when it's supposed to. What was so important about snakes? And why did the guy break into the houses?

by Anonymousreply 7710/02/2013

If you can hear a person whispering into another person's ear, then you're from Krypton. What the hell are you doing on Datalounge, shouldn't you be out saving Lois Lane or something?

by Anonymousreply 7810/03/2013

r78 - Give it up. You already admitted you were addressing your companions (plural), not whispering in someone's ear. Just pipe down next time.

by Anonymousreply 7910/03/2013

I enjoyed the movie because it had a great plot with lots of twists and turns, but Hugh Jackman's character was very predictable. He did exactly what I expected him to do.

Jake Gyllenhall was almost like a robot. He was just phoning it in. The only two people I thought were really outstanding, were Paul Dano and Melissa Leo. They really inhabited those characters. Maria Bello was very predictable, Viola Davis and Terrence Howard didn't have enough to do, especially Viola.

Oh, yeah, when you whisper in the theatre, I can hear you. I may not hear exactly what your saying, but I hear the whispers and it is very annoying. Just because no one called you out about it doesn't mean it didn't bother them.

by Anonymousreply 8010/03/2013

We saw it last night and we likes it a lot. Gyllenhaal is not the greatest of actors but he gives a good enough performance. He would not have been my first choice for the part of the detective. As for Jackman, since I never saw him in a movie, I had no expectations and I thought he did a fine job. I recommend the movie but some of the people in the theater were not happy about the ending. I'm talking about the very last scene

by Anonymousreply 8110/13/2013

[/quote] It put tape on our mouths.

Saw it last night On Demand. It was a little to long but we enjoyed it. Any idea why the little girl used the term "It"?

by Anonymousreply 8212/22/2013

I rented this the other night and thought it was alright.

I was impressed with Jackman just because his character was so different than anything he's ever done and so different than his personality in real life (or at least the one he wants us to think he has in the media).

If I hadn't seen Jackman in anything before and wasn't a fan I probably wouldn't have thought his performance was that great though.

The biggest shocker for me was that Jackman's character was friends with black people. I mean all the things he does like teaching his son to kill animals, being a small business owner, being super religious, and stockpiling survival supplies scream racist Tea Partier to me. There might as well have been a scene with him handcrafting a tin foil hat.

I did appreciate that the black folks were "kind of" the voice of reason, but hated that it was more of "let's turn a blind eye and not be involved so the horrible [spoiler] still happens, it just won't be our fault." I get their daughter was missing so they must have been conflicted, but they still didn't do the right thing.

by Anonymousreply 8312/22/2013

I just watched this, and wondered if Jake's character figured out what happened to Hugh at the end?

Boyfriend didn't seem so bright.

Jackman was really good.

by Anonymousreply 8412/31/2013

R84, I think he was figuring it out as the final credits rolled. Although, I agree, it was rather vague. I loved the ending.

by Anonymousreply 8512/31/2013

Why this isn't getting MAJOR awards praise I simply don't know. How anyone can say this and HER aren't heads and shoulders above GRAVITY and AMERICAN HUSTLE, I really don't know... Too bad.

by Anonymousreply 8601/11/2014

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 8701/11/2014

Jackmans acting was pretty awful and try hard. I am never really impressed with Gyllenhall but he was actually good in this one. Leo and Dano were excellent. Too bad Viola did have little to do here. Movie was great though, although a bit too long.

by Anonymousreply 8801/21/2014

Great movie, underrated. Will definitely develop a devoted following. BTW, I think it clearly indicates that Jake's character is gay and is deeply repressed.

by Anonymousreply 8901/21/2014

LMAO...people were talking about all kinds of Oscars for Prisoners when it first came out, but it barely made a blip on the radar (and not a single nomination).

by Anonymousreply 9001/21/2014

The movie was not mainstream enough for an Oscar buzz.

by Anonymousreply 9101/21/2014

Yeah, it wasn't mainstream enough. I mean, the principle cast only had an Oscar winner and 4 former nominees...

by Anonymousreply 9201/21/2014

Funny that after years of playing american characters Jackmans accent still sounds so off. He was almost laughably bad in Prisoners.

by Anonymousreply 9301/21/2014

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 9401/21/2014

I found Leo distracting. Once I realized it was her (which admittedly did take a second, she's so heavily done up) it became pretty clear that her role was more important than the movie wanted you to think it was at first.

And Gyllenhaal was ACTING too much. Twitching and flinching all over the place.

Gorgeously shot, though.

by Anonymousreply 9501/21/2014

Just saw it tonight. TOO long. Too many red herrings-and that ending! It would have been much better, given the "churchy" aspect of Hugh's character had he **SPOILER** died in the hole to atone for torturing the wrong man. Plus, the scene with the woman and Hugh in the kitchen before she entombs him was so drawn out and poorly acted by the actress that it was laughable. Plus, that poison she administered to the girl at the end was, quite possibly, the shortest acting poison on record. Lame.

by Anonymousreply 9601/28/2014

I thought Leo was channeling a Rachel Dratch SNL character from 10 years ago.

by Anonymousreply 9702/02/2014

I just saw this last night so forgive me for bumping; I saw no point in starting a new thread. That's the thing, R96, Jackman really wasn't torturing the wrong man. Dano's character was an accomplice, even if unwilling. He had just been so abused that he was almost an idiot by that point.

Also, I assumed that the guy stealing clothes (whom I actually found rather cute) was a victim of these people as well and he got away? That's how they explained the snakes? (Wouldn't those snakes have died locked up in those boxes?)

by Anonymousreply 9809/02/2014

"LMAO...people were talking about all kinds of Oscars for Prisoners when it first came out, but it barely made a blip on the radar (and not a single nomination)."

Actually, it did receive a single Oscar nomination in one of the technical categories.

by Anonymousreply 9909/02/2014

I believe it was nominated for cinematography.

by Anonymousreply 10009/02/2014

Between Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terrence Howard, and Maria Bello, this is a pretty damn gay/closet-y movie.

by Anonymousreply 10109/29/2014

How did I manage to never hear about this movie?

How did I manage to miss this thread?

It was exactly a year go... I can't remember ever hearing about this movie. Very weird, because I usually pay pretty close attention to the box office, and love both Jackman and Gyllenhaal.

Very strange.

by Anonymousreply 10209/30/2014

There are plenty of powerful women in Atlanta.

by Anonymousreply 10309/30/2014

All the adult characters in this movie (including Jackman and Gyllenhaal) are repulsive creeps.

by Anonymousreply 10409/30/2014

Jackman completely overacted in this movie. Really bad performance.

by Anonymousreply 10509/30/2014

Whoever posted that they liked seeing Paul Dano in distress MUST see "Prisoners."

I only saw it because of Jake. It was almost as dreary as his movie that followed it, "Enemy."

The one Jake got really thin for, "Nightcrawler," is coming out on Halloween. Horror flick?

by Anonymousreply 10609/30/2014

At some point, one of these actors who gets really skinny, is going to destroy his heart or kidneys while he's doing it. It's a stupid thing to do.

by Anonymousreply 10709/30/2014

the director of this film will direct the sequel to Blade Runner!

by Anonymousreply 10802/27/2015
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!