I felt watching it that the torture being pointless was the point. Jackman's character can't trust the detective or help him and for that he goes on a pointless torture rampage on someone who's already a victim and almost died. The point of the movie is to contrast this two men
Exactly! Hes saying something is redundant when thats the point of the movie. The protagonist is sympathetic...he also did some horrible things in his frustration of feeling helpless. That's uncomfortable, that's the point. Its clear in his character that's hes a mans man, does everything on his own, can handle everything. But he finds himself in a situation where hes powerless to help the ones who depend on him most and he becomes so desperate to fix it he goes to a very dark and ugly place doing whatever it takes.
The sympathy for the guy who is tortured is misplaced in my opinion. Only for the sake of the movie is he innocent. The real-life analogue to this however is that child predators are often victims of predators in the real world. And in the real world, the fact that they are a victim in no way excuses the fact that they are monsters. And that makes for a far more symbolic loop I think. The child predator is a victim, and the father is a victim who becomes a predator because he is victimized. But it's in the interest of his child. There is no path forward or goal for a child predator. No justification whatsoever. In the father's case he is trying to find his daughter. Alex's innocence is just plot armor.
I don't think so it was pointless the fact is that Alex Jones was considered having an IQ level of a 10 year old child and that's why he was considered as an innocent in the whole movie. But if you haven't forgot he knew where the Kids were all this time. Even a ten year old child will spit the truth out after all this beating but he just kept dropping clues which annoyed Keller more and Alex Jones liked watching all this. Even if he wasn't harming those children and just wanted to spend time with them that's hella wrong, after all he had that much of brain to understand that he is dealing with the father of a child whose kid has been abducted by her own aunt. He is responsible as much as his Aunt for the kidnapping of those children and definitely deserved that beating. And speaking about Keller his suspicion was very much correct from the start of the movie and he is completely innocent in this case. In fact the case was solved because of Keller.
I like how the wife and Keller shows two different ways of dealing with the loss of their daughter: One violent and proactive, and one passive and accepting "of fate". I think this would have been lost if the wife was removed.
Also, having a mother would make the decision of turning himself in all about Keller’s ass and not his daughter’s. Could he live without his daughter’s love even if he did everything to save her? Taking the mother away would make Keller’s decision real easy. Having her stay and you have a more nuanced conflict. Also, having Joy’s parents being taken for not being complicit in Alex’s kidnapping would be a great gut punching twist.
@@AntonioKatan , but then, would Joy be taken away from her parents since Nancy and Franklin would be accomplices to the torture of Alex? Unless Keller decides to take the fall for them and say it was all him, and they had no involvement. Though, I don't see Alex saying that....
Great video! One quibble: 8:55 "Keller kidnapping and torturing, once again, a severely mentally disturbed victim of child abuse had absolutely nothing to do with Anna eventually being found alive." That's actually wrong because the reason why Loki went back to Holly's house was to inform Holly that her 'son' had been found after being tortured by Keller, and this is what put Loki in the position to save Anna. It's certainly not what Keller was intending, but his torturing of Alex did indirectly lead to Loki saving Anna.
Also the first time Keller visits Holly is only because Alex said “they’re in the maze” while being tortured. He goes there impulsively to question her but realizes he can’t outright say anything without revealing he’s kidnapped Alex, so in a roundabout way he brings up that “he has dreams of being trapped in a maze” hoping it will prompt Holly for more information. It’s during this first visit that Holly grows suspicious that Keller is onto her, as her and her husband would use the unsolveable maze puzzles to keep the children busy indefinitely before they are murdered, and wore the maze pendants. It’s also during this first visit that joy hears Kellers voice, so when she wakes up in the hospital and says “you were there” Keller realizes the only other place he’s been besides his home and torturing Alex is hollys place, leading him to flee from the hospital and Loki to find Alex which then leads him to Holly. Going back to the second visit with Holly, when Keller shows up again with a suspicious bag, she answers the door with a rag over her other hand, claiming that she “burnt her hand.” I suspect she is actually concealing her revolver under the rag which is how she draws on Keller so quickly. Moreover after dumping Keller in the pit, she goes through his belongings and finds his gun, and lets out a big sigh. I think that this is when she realizes for sure that Keller knows everything, and if Keller knows then the police (Loki) must know too, explaining why when Loki arrives she makes no attempt to talk to him or hide what she is doing when he knocks on her door, and then immediately engages him in a gun fight when he finds her injecting Keller daughter. So while Alex didn’t give any information that directly implicated Holly, his torture and kidnapping indirectly led to everything unravelling, Holly would not have been uncovered as the perpetrator had he not been kidnapped. I think this is on purpose, to make us reflect on if Keller’s actions were truly necessary. On one hand it’s revealed that alex is a victim himself all along, on the other hand he DID know where the kids were and without him being kidnapped they would have never found Anna. I disagree w the author of the video cuz its much better than having Alex either totally confess, or being totally innocent/his kidnapping not leading to anything. Either one of these would paint kellers actions as totally justifiable/unjustifiable, it’s much better in my opinion that it sits in this uncomfortable “dark gray” area.
I feel that Alex ending up being a victim himself of the same fate as Keller's girls is actually an extremely important element of the story. Mark Kermode actually noted the film as a potential parable of the war on terror and the ethics of torture, which at the time I thought was a stretch but on a second viewing of the film I started to agree with that parable more and more. Alex being a kidnapping victim himself is a strong analogy for certain victims of wartime torture, while they are indeed associated with forces of evil, they themselves are victims of a system they had no choice but to take part in, is it moral to engage in their torture despite that? In order to stop further suffering? And Keller's failure to get anything out of Alex after it all I think drives that parable home even further, it's not a dead-end in the story, it's pretty much the whole point of the story. I have no clue if that was the intention of the film but after I heard Mark Kermode make that comparison that's always how I interpret it.
I am very late but for the love of God you genuinely completely turned around the way I look at this movie. The commentary on the war on terror is very much there but hidden well
She wants other parents to feel the same pain she did of losing a child. That’s why she didn’t kill him. This movie is an incredible one, one of my favorites.
Right? Lmao. This guy doesn’t get it. She literally tells Keller that she’s gonna dump his daughters dead body in that pit with him. She WANTS him alive so he can feel that terrible loss.
@@danieln727the finding of the dead corpse was the pivoting point where it became detached from reality,I personally would have prefered a bit more realism throughout the second part too,but ut was still great
I really like the ending from a symbolic sense. Keller who has become a demon is in a pitt, while loki a God is gonna pull him out of the pitt giving him a chance at life again, after punishing him.
Lol I know this is (and hope it is only) a joke, but your parents would have had problems before you, so it's definitely not your fault and anyone in that situation shouldn't blame themselves
I wouldn’t say the torture scenes were so much redundant as we as the audience are supposed to understand the full extent to which a parent is willing to go to find their kid. Seeing Keller get progressively more severe with each torture tactic shows him diving deeper and deeper into that hole in order to find is kid. It doesn’t really matter that It didn’t directly have any connection to him eventually finding his kid due to Alex being placed as our prime suspect for most of the film
You said “she plans to put him in the hole and throw his dead daughter in there to make him suffer” “but I’m not sure why she doesn’t just kill him” YOU JUST SAID IT! it’s to make him suffer😂
1. Keller knew Alex was involved in the kidnapping, he taunted him in the parking lot. 2. The tortute is overkill but in Keller's mind he's running out of time and has to get the info out of Alex by any means before his daughter dies.
@@_YS27i watched the movie today and had that realization about what Alex said, he says "They only cried when i left" but to me that reads in retrospect as "i like those kids im not the one who did this" as if he was trying to defend himself but inadvertently he said something that could be easily misconstrued as a taunt, and leads to the keller spiral
@@milamberytconsidering the fact that he is mentally 11 i d say that phrase was likely trying to say he had no bad intentions, but it is indeed weird that alex was mentally 11 since he has a vehicle
@HhjHhhh-zz5ni Alex in the movie is shown to be developmentally impaired, to the point where his "mental age" is closer to that of a child than of someone who is in their 20s or 30s.
You're rewrite is very good but one of the key reasons that Keller went after Alex Jones was because of Alex saying "They only cried when I left them". If Alex wasn't the kidnapper then wouldn't have said this to Keller meaning Keller wouldn't have been as likely to kidnap Alex
@@anibala.moralessanchez8018 No we’re not removing the line. The rewrites make it a lesser/vanilla film. The rewrite turn the movie more into “Room(2015)”. This movie “Prisoners” isn’t dry nor does it beat you over the head, overacts or linger on its thematics. In no way does the story benefit from this rewrite
@@anibala.moralessanchez8018 nobody asked for the script to be punched up by some kid, It’s already critically acclaimed. It doesn’t make the film play any “better”, sorry guys. Write your own movie
@@clstuff1 Critically acclaimed by who? Critics? The audience? What a joke. This movie is far FAR from perfect. You don't like opinions opposite from yours? Well too bad you big baby.
I concede the third act is compromised by many contrivances in order to facilitate a speedy resolution, the issue with the second act on the other hand isn't so much length or what it introduces/explores but rather poor time management. Too much of the film is devoted to the establishment of the kidnappers motivations that it (to a degree) comes at the expense of the other story elements; both character wise and thematic. While I didn't mind the torture scenes as I found them exceptionally executed, harrowing, and (most importantly) furthered the descent of Keller's character (mainly his growing sense of guilt and desperation), there was perhaps a little more of it than was necessary. I also didn't find them exploitative as you did. Also the accusation of exploitativeness strikes me as a matter of personal taste/moral preference rather than an objective criticism. And finally while your proposed re-written version is fascinating and would've made for a masterful film if executed properly, surely the story beats as they are could have been rendered more effectively had they been consolidated in more concise and substantive manner? Regardless, this was an excellent video! Keep it up! Very much looking forward to the next episode, especially considering it centers on a film I have myriad issues with.
Well said. I think exploitative was perhaps not the best word. The torture scenes were definitely well done and insanely effective at making the violence in no way cathartic. I think my irkness with the torture scenes was since we never see Keller really face the consequences of said actions (with the film ending just before he does) it seemed like the torture scenes didn't serve any sort of greater purpose or rather weren't paid off. Even if it were a short scene with Keller meeting with his son and having to explain to him what he did, even if the film cut away right before he did, THEN the weight of his actions would be in a way paid off.
@@MacabreStorytelling it is a 911, thought experiment, maybe the third is a bit heavy handed but the fact that detective is called Loki, sets the tone of the film. In the medieval ages the laberynths were a way to pilgrimage. The end message for me is what if God is not a christ figure, that even if He hears your prayers, he would save you only to be punished.
Alex was NOT innocent. He was certainly a victim, and the RV ride may have been harmless, but he KNEW where the girls were the entire time and chose not to say anything. He could have saved himself, the two girls, and future kids by exposing Holly.
You have to remember he's got the mental capacity of a 10yo. His sense of morality is definitely not strong enough to override the fear of Holly he probably had and thus its impossible to know what his intentions were for this reason
Alex spoke very selectively, It’s told in the movie by his Aunt. Plus he was beat down to pulp, putting him to bed more traumatised. On top of that He already has underlying developmental issues with his brain.
@@kaheaisaac1 they kidnapped him as a child, drugged him probably multiple times, abused him and he most likely didnt get any education. Id say hes pretty much braindead so he doesnt know.
I think cutting out the other kid's parents would have been to it's detriment, without them being like "hey wolverine this is super fucked up" then I don't think the conflict would be as interesting as torture would be presented at the only way to handle this grief and fear. I'd vote keep them in and involve them in the new 3rd act conflict because they're also complicit. I also think that if Alex was a victim of complete circumstance it would make the film less engaging - the ever hanging question is "is this torture ever justified, is it ever justifiable to do this to anyone in any state of presumed guilt" - if Alex had nothing to do at all with the crime, it would suggest that if he *had* been guilty, then it *would* have confirmed been okay. Also (spoilers) the suitcases being full of snakes made me laugh so hard, I'd hope any rewrite kept them hissy bois 🐍
I personally loved the 'War on God' part. I think it adds explanation, and it plays into a more morally black and white theme. Not every great movie with complex characters has to be morally grey. The point of the war on God is to explain how seemingly completely morally white characters can BECOME morally grey, in a slippery slope towards the morally black. I think this was perfectly displayed through Keller, a powerful moment where he can't bring himself to say "forgive those who trespass against us" - struggling with forgiveness as he becomes completely insane due to the kidnapping of his daughter. Notice it or not, the film is all about people becoming morally black, like Holly Jones. We see it even with Eliza and Franklin, being complicit, even if not completely comfortable, and being driven practically insane alongside Keller obviously as a result of the loss of their children. On Thanksgiving, we see how normal everyone is, how morally good they are as people. This is lost during late Act 1 and Act 2, when their child is missing. And finally, they get back to being relaxed, normal and morally white in Act 3 when Joy is returned to them. It's the most clear example of how the 'War on God' works. They take away their children, and make them into demons, as the clearly mentally unhinged couple feel the need for vengeance against God who they believe took their son away from them. Keller clearly has some religious devotion, and his struggle to pray in the same way in that first scene is representative of his decline. The love for his children is morphed into a distorted violence against all others, although his actions aren't completely evil and done cold heartedly, they are demonstrable, and could be seen as his evolution into a demon complete with the merciless torture of a mentally handicapped man. Maybe I could've articulated my thoughts better, but this 'War on God' I think adds moral complexity to the film, whilst maintaining complex characters and a black and white moral reality simultaneously, much like the approach that Tolkien took with his story, and the corruptable kings, Boromir, etc., - or even Saruman. However, instead of using a selfish vision of their use of power as being most beneficial to society, it is a selfish vision of using power to retrieve his loved ones. Both tales fall into an area where the characters go on a slippery slope from morally white, to morally grey, to morally black. The 'War on God' is a theme not only seen in Prisoners but in many other films and books, LOTR being my favourite example.
I'm 3 years too late, but I just watched this movie and just found this video! And I think your rewrite kinda misses the point - 'Prisoners', the title, refers to EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in this movie. There are literal prisoners - Alex Jones, first as Holly's victim, then as Keller's; the two missing girls; Bob the snake guy and another of Holly's victims; Holly Jones's missing husband who was imprisoned and/or killed by the priest; and lastly, Keller, in the pit. To a lesser extent, the older sister and the older brother become prisoners in their own homes after their younger siblings go missing. The Birch girl is literally forgotten about in her own home, by her own parents; and Keller insists his son stays with his mother and not leave the house. And then there are prisoners of circumstance - Loki, who seems to be WAY too overqualified to be a detective in backwater Pennsylvania - seems trapped there by a backstory we don't entirely know, working for an asshole boss who doesn't have his back. Notice Loki says 'yeah' at the end of a lot of his sentences - Pennsylvanians don't talk that way, that's British or Australian, and his coworkers don't act very chummy around him, even other detectives. I also looked up "Loki" as a last name on Ancestry - it's British or Irish, and there are a lot of Loki's in Pennsylvania! So maybe the detective is half American, half British. In any case, an outsider and maybe an exile or a prodigal son of some sort, spending Thanksgiving alone. Then there's Keller, perhaps trapped in grief (and guilt?) over his father's suicide - there doesn't seem to be any real reason he couldn't fix up the old apartment building and help his family financially. He owns a REPAIR business, fixing up the apartment building wouldn't be THAT expensive, that's literally his job! Keller's son is right with that one. Fix that source of income, and Keller's family would be better off. Probably why he went crazy with torturing Alex - on some level, he knew he failed as a father, provider, and protector of his children. His motto was 'be prepared', and when push came to shove, he wasn't. He was furious at himself, and took it out on Alex. Then there is Keller's wife Grace, trapped in the passive wife role in relation to her macho husband (She says to Keller -'You said you would always protect us!') and then imprisons herself in drugs. Then you got the pedophiles, (rightfully) trapped /imprisoned in the legal system no matter where they go. Finally, the Birches, who are surely going to prison since they helped Keller imprison Alex. No way Franklin is keeping his mouth shut - we already know he can't. And you can argue Holly is a prisoner of her insanity/evil. In other words, every character is an example of imprisonment, so every character is necessary to the story. Bob had to be a victim, because despite living a seemingly normal life in a seemingly normal town, he was a prisoner in plain sight, doomed to relive his own trauma over and over, trapped in his past. Plus, you mentioned more than once that Alex was an innocent victim, and yes, up to a point. Keller was as good a detective as Loki, because Keller was RIGHT about Alex - he knew where the girls were. What Keller didn't know was that Alex was also Holly's victim, imprisoned with the mind of a child. He saw two other children, and yes, maybe innocently wanted to be friends with them, since they are all emotionally the same age. Or maybe Holly kept Alex alive to use him as bait for other kids from the beginning. And he would never tell what he knew to Keller because Holly probably threatened him and would punish him, not to mention that's the only life he knows. And the 'War on God' stuff was bullshit, IMO. Literally. Holly is an unreliable LUNATIC. There is NO reason to believe her story, or her reasons for kidnapping children. There is NO EVIDENCE, any where, that she had a son. Every other person who lost a child in this movie is OBSESSED with their lost kid - Bob's mother literally watched a video of him every single day since he went missing, the Birches and Dovers have their daughters' pictures and things all over their houses - Holly has NONE of that. Not even a PICTURE of her dead son who died of 'cancer'. Pretty vague cause of death if you ask me. A real grieving parent would say 'leukemia' or a 'brain tumor.' The only picture she has is of her missing husband. I doubt 'Jones' is even her last name. That is the most anonymous name out there, right up there with 'Smith'. Holly isn't in a war with God, she thinks she IS God. Even her name, Holly, means 'holy'. That end monologue was to display her God-complex, no more or less. Her husband left because he felt GUILTY about what they were doing, he went to a priest for forgiveness. Holly was an unredeemable monster, pure evil. So, IMO, having Keller decide whether or not to kill Alex is beside the point. The minute Keller kidnapped Alex at gunpoint he was going to prison, because Loki is a good detective. Keller was as bad as the real kidnappers, and he knew it. He didn't care, because all he cared about was getting his daughter back alive. To rescue her and be the good father he was pretending to be. Which is why he didn't fight Holly at the end. He had to keep himself alive to rescue his kid, be the hero. I never found Keller sympathetic, however. He was a bit of a dick towards Franklin at Thanksgiving, and his toxic masculinity was rubbing off on his son, who calls his sister a 'dope' right at the beginning of the movie. Keller was ending up in a pit, one way or the other. When the worst happened, he turned on his fellow man instead of working WITH the good cop, and in the end didn't even save his daughter after all - a failed hero, now, too. So, the final act's final decision isn't Keller's to make, it's Loki's. Was Keller's actions justified, like Grace said? WAS he a 'good man?' Or does he deserve to die in the hell of his own making, and suffer the consequences of his own bad decisions? And is it true the only person you can save from death is yourself? Apparently, Keller was wrong about that too, because his life is in Loki's hands. THAT's the final conflict. Keller is in prison, either way, and that's the theme of the movie. He another prisoner in a world of prisoners, up to and including the literal rat in the cage at the beginning of the movie! Some people walk into their own prison, others are imprisoned by others. And sometimes both is true. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk!
I'd argue the only flaw to a movie like this and others like it is that the movie is only truly effective the first time around. If you're not attuned to the emotional impact of the scenes your watching, the second and third act will feel drawn out and muddled. Unfortunately, repeated viewings will not allow you to experience the movie the way it was intended. The knowledge of how the story is laid out and what the ultimate conclusion is will taint your ability to invest yourself in the story, especially if you didn't connect with the story the first time around. Every viewing that follows becomes an exercise in indulging in one's own biases.
That's interesting. I've watched this movie twice and it's one of my favourite movies to the date. After the first time I saw it I had some kind of emotional breakdown, this movie made me _feel_. And I like this about movies, the ability of the movie to make a strong emotional connection with viewer is what I value the most in films in general (feeling scared, broken, sad, confused, happy or inspired after the movie already ended is priceless imo). But, again, this video is interesting. I never thought of that and plotlines never bothered me really in any way. But I see where you are coming from and your rewrite is pretty cool! Keep up the good work, sir! You've got yourself a new subscriber
I like the keller's moral dilemma rewrite and it would work good, but i feel like it would make the film kind of forgettable for me because it feels a very little cliche. Prisoners just feels so much different from most of the films in its genre that even after many years i remember the film quite well.
That rewrite is epic. Then you can still leave a cliffhanger of does he kill Alex or let him live. The audience walks out of the theatre discussing what they would do in that position and now people are talking nonstop about your movie for the next year. I love this series you are doing.
wow watched this a long time ago and had the exact some discomfort with the final act, but didn't know what it was that bothered me. This put it perfectly into words. The "war on God" aspect from a seemingly random creepy old lady felt so out of left field.
Keller kidnapping Alex did lead to the rescue of Anna because Loki went to the Jones’s house to tell her they found Alex. Also, Alex was technically involved in the kidnapping of the girls by taking them in the RV! Keller will most likely get a reduced sentence because of that!
Keller doing that to Alex didn’t directly allow the girls to be found. But it indirectly led to them being found because she usually would put kids in the maze underground but didn’t with Anna and Joyce because she was lonely since Alex was gone. She decided to let them come up the house with her and that is how Joyce got out.
I completely disagree with you. The whole war on god subplot is what glues the film together. Without it, it's not clear just how pointless Alex's torture is, and the detective work would lack any connection with the father's own investigation. Furthermore, all the information given by the villain could, eventually, be unearthed by investigators, just not in a thrilling and interesting manner. And letting a handcuffed guy alive under a secret tunnel is the least risky mannouver that character makes. Last but not the least: it's not really a war against God if God isn't fighting back, through subtle and confusing means. It's just plain awesome that a movie about two kids disappearing is actually about a literal battle between good and evil.
This is a great concept - it's so true that a single flaw can send a whole film (or book, or any story) off course. Looking forward to future episodes!
I really enjoyed both scenarios you set up for the movie. As a fan of Rian Johnson's work, I'm really looking forward to your Looper rewrite. I also really appreciate your more level-headed and tactful approach in these videos, as opposed to the Game of Thrones rewrites when dealing with D&D. Not to say I don't understand why or that its unwarranted, its very funny material and works for those videos. But I appreciate that you address this material with a degree of fairness. Keep up the good work, and I'm looking forward to the next couple of videos you put out as always.
@@MacabreStorytelling I realized that somewhere in the fourth Trilogy of rewrites. Again it's not a Bash. It really went well with the comedy that you were laying down for the rewrites. But I really do think you've come into your own with your voice and your writing style with the finale comparisons and with this fatal flaw series that you started. I also like your thematic style, I noticed in this rewrite, The Departed video, and Jon Snow's rewrite that you seem to be fond of tragic irony. Really good stuff
Prisoners belongs to the category of realistic movies ie realistic dialogue behaviours characters. And this gets derailed towards the end with the reveal which might work if you like convoluted stories but detracts from the genuine drama and tension. Instead of the movie focusing on maybe the ethics of torture and how times of crisis can warp anyone it gets derailed by an absurd climax.
Making Bobby Taylor the kid napper wouldn't make sense because the only reason Keller abducted alex was because he said they only cried when I left them
Great video! I would have never guessed that trimming the fluff would make the film better. I hope you become a script doctor for works that are in turnaround. Can’t wait to see what you do next!
Your rewrite is exactly what i thought the movie was gonna be ... but they went the convoluted way. It would be very much relevant to our times with more and more vigilantism and people playing judge and jury fed by internet bubbles... too bad
8:47 I feel like that moment where Kellars wife is trying to justify wjat he has done, I always felt her logic was under cut by the film cutting to the blank shot of Loki, who just stares through her. Like "we both know that's not true, don't we", and I think the look on Gyllenhaal's face is enough to sell that. Just what i took away
Man, I love that rewrite. I don't understand why some people are so defensive in the comments. You didn't say the film is bad, you just addressed imperfections which really lowered the quality. I love this movie but still see the flaws you put forward. Anyway, your rewrite would be awesome, especially if they wouldn't show what keller decides to do at the end.
I don't think the priest was a pedo. iirc Loki HAPPENED to find a bunch of pedos while looking around for the kidnapper and he does allude to having been abused by priests at the priest's old workplace, but the murderous priest is a good guy, I think, given that he killed Holly's husband because of his crimes against children
Alex wasn’t innocent, he just didn’t know what he was doing. He literally kidnapped two girls. He even said “They didn’t cry until I left them,” and I’m guessing he was competent enough to know that the girls were crying because they were scared, he was just too scared to act out against his “aunt”
Subscribed. All your criticisms of the movie are spot on. Most of the characters and subplots were completely pointless, go nowhere, drag out the total run time, distract from the main plot, and make what could have been a solid story needlessly convoluted and absurd. As soon as I saw the credits roll I was incredulous and I promptly looked up videos to try and understand what happened, because I was very confused. I saw 2 other videos before yours and they spent most of the time explaining the premise (which everyone saw and understood) and only explained that the implication was that the cop found Keller, which is obvious. Nobody even bothered to explain what the hell happened in the scene where Joy said "you were there", you were the first one to even attempt it. Speaking of which, I see that as the cherry on top of this mess. The entire plot hinges on Joy escaping, being found, and giving Keller a clue that helped him realize the true kidnapper's identity, but let's really think about the details here. What was the clue? "You were there." Keller was there? What, at the aunt's house? How did Joy even know that? Sure, she was at the house, probably in that ditch under the car, but if that's true, how did she know Keller was there? Did she hear his voice? How? He never yelled or anything. That doesn't make any sense. Even if she heard a male voice for 5 minutes, that was days ago. As soon as she woke up, the first thing she said was "you were there." This is absurd, maybe she would have remembered that hours later, but there's no way that would be the FIRST thing she said upon waking up. Even if we accept all of this, why did Keller promptly run out of the hospital without telling anyone? Why did he go there ALONE with his weapon inside a bag where he couldn't access it? Why did he turn his back to the dangerous monster who kidnapped his own daughter and say "I don't want to hurt you" clearly tipping his hand to her? What did he expect was going to happen? Why didn't he bust her door down and demand to know where his daughter was? Why didn't he just blast her away and then search the property on his own? Why didn't he tell the cops what he figured out, where his daughter was, the prime suspect, hell he could have gone over there WITH the cops. Because Keller is a dumbass, we must introduce more absurd coincidences like the cop just so happened to go to her house, he just so happened to find a picture of her husband who just so happened to be wearing that symbol, and just so happened to find the aunt red handed just as she was injecting the daughter with drugs. The last third of this movie is dogshit, and that's such a shame, because this could have been an amazing movie.
Sounds like someone doesn’t listen to true crime. Also, the theme isn’t “turning parents into demons” it’s torture is bad, even when it seems right. The cycle of violence, that’s what it’s commenting on.
Dude, I was not with you at all until you explained the reasoning at the end. Jesus, that suggested 3rd act is what I wish they had made, would have been gut wrenching and brutal. Great stuff!
Just because you think a movie is deserving of a rewrite, doesnt mean that your version is THE version. It doesnt seem like you grasped alot of the visual stimulation throughout the film. All of the characters were prisoners, not just the children, not just Alex. But every single one of them. Your version of the film needs a different title, because its no longer the same movie. I couldnt agree with a single point you shared throughout but i do very much like your difference of perspective. Id see your movie, I just wouldnt swap out the original for what you offered, I really enjoyed Prisoners as someone who doesnt even care for thrillers or horror. It was a well rounded film that I personally had no hang ups about.
Loki makes a reference to having been abused at a school for boys when he was a kid, which I'm assuming meant he was a foster kid. In your rewrite, that element could be kept in, thus maybe Loki discovers that Keller kidnapped Alex Jones, but understands that he did it it to save his children. Ironically by doing so, he'd be abandoning them to the foster care world. So he could be faced with a dilemma himself here too. I actually really do love this film, but that was one part I wished had been elaborated on-the pasts of these characters-Keller's father committing suicide and the trauma Loki went through. I like your rewrite idea, and if it kept those characters' past traumas as story elements, it would drive home the point about being a "prisoner" of something. Intriguing idea you have there
This is an interesting re-write, and I would watch this film as well and probably really enjoy it. However, it would be a lot different genre wise and I don't think it would be objectively better. Minimalism isn't always better, and I would argue that this is one of the cases where it isn't. The parts of the film getting the most criticism here seem to be red herrings/misdirection and the additional characters to get it done. This usually fills the second act of these films, which is why I think they lose their quality after the first watch. Red herrings are extremely common plot devices in crime stories, especially crime mysteries, and without some misdirection the audience isn't left with much to "figure out". I agree that some of the misdirection can feel a bit more "contrived" than it has to on successive watches, however this ends up being the case for most crime mysteries--It's a necessary flaw to create the experience in the first place. In your rewrite, everything is pretty plain and obvious throughout, and you are left watching an interesting story unravel rather than engaging with a mystery like the original (The mystery ends in the second act). This invariably is what you are left with when you remove most of the misdirection and red herrings. Don't get me wrong, it has the capacity to go deep into characters and it would be a really good movie in its own way, however they are totally different movie theater experiences for the audience to have. Another overused device in film and television is exposition, and when you watch a lot of movies it becomes pretty nauseating when over used. Similar to completely leaving out red herrings/misdirection, leaving out exposition entirely can result in a great, original film. However, it becomes quite esoteric at the same time--especially at the extreme--which reduces commercial success. As bad as exposition can be, it's still necessary for a film to function (unless the point of the film is to put a spotlight on exposition use) and needs to be carefully placed to avoid "on the nose" explanations (Holly's speach is pretty "on the nose" and could have been done better IMO). In this context, I would argue that you need a bit more (carefully placed) misdirection to achieve a similar narrative feel with the tighter plot that you're trying to achieve. In reality, police do pursue dead end leads so misdirection isn't completely contrived. The difference between your story and the original kind of reminds me of the difference between Jeff Nichols' work and conventional hollywood films. Jeff's films are very original (IMO) and successfully so because of his focus on the characters and realistic interactions between them over satisfying a predetermined plot. I enjoy these films a lot, however they definitely aren't the same adrenaline fueled experience that I would argue Prisoners really did bring. At the end of the day, I think Prisoners is a fantastic example of a film that balances great film making with general audience success. I would argue that this is harder to pull off than most indie artistic/esoteric films or run of the mill hollywood films (in a writing sense). Some plot devices that seem repetitive to film connoiseurs have to be present to make that work, and I don't think that's entirely a bad thing. Great channel by the way. I enjoy the depth you go into with your analyses of films and it makes for fun thought experiments. If you happen to have a crime/mystery film recommendation that doesn't suffer as much from the "second act trap" pass it along.
In a very roundabout messed up way, if the father didn’t take Alex, Holly wouldn’t have taken the girls out of the hole. She said she should’ve left them down there but Alex was gone. Being out of the hole allowed Joy to escape. They were definitely down there originally. Anna’s whistle was down there. So I don’t think taking Alex was meant to serve absolutely no purpose. It was indirect, but it did help the girls survive. And, in a way, the dad was correct. Alex did know where the girls were. And for most of the film, that’s what he says. That he believes Alex knows where they are. He actually did. He was just too afraid of holly to do anything about it.
Your argument is solid, but there's the thing- the moments with the red herring at the memorial, and the snakes were two of the most genuinely scary and thrilling moments in the movie. They legit made me sit up straighter in my seat, and isn't that a big part of why we like these movies? So many thrillers are lacking the visceral experience; not this one.
Keller only went to Holly’s to find out more information about Alex that he could use to interrogate him, so his torture of Alex does in fact lead to his discovery of Holly’s guilt. And then Loki goes there because he finds Alex imprisoned. So it’s false to say the kidnap of Alex didn’t lead to the conclusion.
The pointless torture is the point lol. He's essentially doing the same thing that's happening to his daughter, he's taken someone prisoner. The torture is not about a ticking-clock, it's about contrasting the protagonist with the villain and putting the audience in his shoes. The movie is asking if we would do the same thing if we were in his position. It is gratuitous or "exploitative" in the same way that good horror movies are: it's to make us horrified. Horrified in the evil that what we are capable of in this case. Edit: also it makes sense that she wouldn't immediately kill Keller and would hold him hostage and torture him instead. It's in line with her character because she didn't kill his daughter immediately either, she doesn't really have any use for keeping her alive. She's really just that level of evil. Also your suggestion of having the third act being about Keller deciding between turning himself in vs killing Alex could be a really good third act, but it's as you say a completely different conflict/moral dilemma. Kind of just sounds like you want to see a more fast-paced movie with a different theme. The actual movie's third act is great because it's foreshadowed by the first act, specifically the literal opening scene of the movie which establishes the conflict between faith and evil.
‘One fatal flaw’ more like I don’t like the meaning behind the film. The point of the ending that it doesn’t matter whether they find Keller. If they find him he goes to prison, his daughter will see him a man who tortured an innocent person, the opposite of before she was abducted. The war on god is really the war on traditional/family goodness, which doesn’t ‘take over the narrative’ it’s the thesis of the first second and third act. Also your rewrite of the script, removing the original victim of the aunt and making him a child molester again removes all purpose for him being in the film. This is a bad video I enjoy the others but this film is pretty damn air tight. You missed all of the meaning and purpose of all of the character choices and themes. Your rewrite is changing the film from conceptual thriller to a run of the mill shock value moral dilemma. You missed all of the points how the script earns finding the kids and the character of Loki isn’t even touched on in this video. All you say is ‘contrived’ but Loki is a slow methodical investigator who you see I constantly slowly looking over each aspect of his surroundings and what relevent or not. You should have don’t that with this video. ‘Trim the fat’ get out of here bro the video is the fat
@@MacabreStorytelling hell ye man i appreciate the reply, i just really didnt like the video cos i think its one of the best detective thrillers kinda like 7 but the darkness is everywhere with everyone. You have 2 investigators on the same side of the coin. Loki who is a slow methodical, bends the rules but wont break them, but he himself has ego and wants to solve every case. Then you have the father who only breaks the rules to investigate, ergo he is a demon, he cant find the path to his daughter, trapped in a maze. The path he goes down leaves him either in a hole in the ground or in a prison cell. I also think, tho extremely unconfortable, the scenes where keller tortures paul dano are important to show that the he and villain of the film are both just human and that good values can lead down the same path as malicious ones. Which is why the birch family are also important to contrast keller's decision to continue. He only continues out of hope that he may get his daughter back. Loved your Amadeus analysis would love to hear your thoughts on what ive said. Prisoners is one of my favourite Villeneuve films thats why i was mad bro mb
If you would have worded your criticism like an adult I probably would agree but the way you worded it sounds so protective that I can't but dislike it. And yes, you don't have to care but I had to comment this.
This movie was very hyped up for me before I watched it, and even though I really enjoyed it, it felt like it was missing something, some kind of punch and you explained perfectly what I felt about it. Your rewrite is pretty brilliant and I agree would've made this movie more memorable and the story more gripping!
Really gotta disagree with your takes on this film. The only real criticism I can give this film is the Bob Taylor character not really translating well to the audience and feeling like a blatant red herring thrown in to keep us and the characters guessing. Otherwise, this is a masterful screenplay, and it seems like you really missed the point of the movie with all the things you wanted to remove. You turned it into a more generic story and took away many of the scenes that give these characters nuance and depth
Not really. Most of the maze stuff was superfluous and didn’t add anything to the story. Most of it was simply fluff to hint at something more complex.
Best part of the video is that rewrite segment, tasty conflicts. Sometimes I wonder whether writers just extremely overthink their plot/characters or they just don't think about those simple scenes/subplots that could immesely improve their work. And as usual, your videos are well worth the wait 👌🏻
Agreed. Sort of goes back to what I said in the beginning about the film not having a huge "hook". Hooks are great to get studio execs interested, but I'd argue most audiences just want a story told well, regardless of how "hooky" it is. Whiplash is always a film I go back to when I argue that a simple story told EXTREMELY well beats a film that has a really unique premise but fails to execute.
I know this is super late. I'm a new writer and I'm currently writing something in my head that at first was just about someone dealing with loneliness and within 4 minutes turned into the main character dealing with 5 very different unrelated things 🤷♀️
Prisoners is a movie, where the plot on the surface is a bit lackluster, but when considering all symbolisms, it very much tells a complete story. Fairy tales do this quite commonly, where it only gives you full understanding of the story when you know the meaning of the symbols it employs.
For instance, fundamentally the movie Nightcrawler is about Riz Ahmed‘s character working for the devil and his fate when he tries to strongarm him. The „fun“ then is, approaching the movie with this key and seeing how it all checks out, for instance, after Riz Ahmed gets shot, the criminal looks at Jake Gyllenhaal filming him with a bewildered expression, and then just stumbles away. Now, you can explain this particular moment away or have a different interpretation, but when you approach movies with some knowledge of „occult“ symbols, it often checks out to a degree, that makes coincidence seem like the less plausible explanation.
Great video dude. I love this film but it’s always interesting to see a different perspective on things you enjoy. Side note, how long till the Bran and the Night King video? Man needs his GOT Rewrite fix.
To me the biggest flaw is that the movie shows that Keller has some sort of tactical training as he creates that super complicated torture device and is aware of the aunt and when the detective is following him he is aware at all times and comes up with quick solutions. But he goes to the aunts house at the end not ready to fight. He kidnapped Alex violently and he didn’t go the aunts house already shooting her or something. He’s a jacked male man, he could easily unarm that skinny old lady
“the one fatal flaw with prisoners is the entire point of the film” great work dude. it’s blues brothers. this movie is blues brothers. hes “on a mission from god”. its literally the point of the whole thing, that child abduction is satanic. thats why the cop gets to the hospital while hes blind. spending the first hour and a half of the movie watching him torture this guy is supposed to get grating and bring your own suspicions back and forth. and ultimately discovering the demon plot contextualizes that. it’s literally the core idea of the film. if you take that away there’s no motive for anything that happens, not for the torture, not for the kidnapping.
What's really funny is that I remember watching this film but I forgot everything about the war on God plot. But you're right that movies now have interesting setups and then over convolute the story and drag it out longer than necessary. Writers really underestimate building characters and simple premises especially in crime thrillers and then think people want overly complicated plot twists. Maybe this should be called the Silence of the Lambs effect (failing to make a layered plot from a movie that succeeded in it).
My complaint was when she held him at gun point my entire thought process was let her shoot you in the driveway, she can’t hide the brains scattered in the driveway before sun comes up someone will likely look outside at the gunshot noise in their small town, if she shot him in the kitchen it’d be easier to clean up but still missing persons and Loki would’ve informed her of her son after finding Alex in the old house looking for Keller. Why she didn’t shoot him after he got in the hole however didn’t make sense to me.
Good analysis and you make a lot of good points. I had the same problem with this movie on some subconscious level (but not to the same degree) - I just felt that the plot became too contrived and overcomplicated after the second act. Still like this movie, though. Your rewrite is very interesting but I think this movie would be too dark and have way less mass appeal.
Good insights but establishing motive for the killers is a good aspect. Imagine if the killer became evil from being abandoned and put through the foster system. So if Keller let's Alex free he would be putting his kids in the same position
Bravo, i want more of this!! There are so much movies that could be good but terrible due to small stuff. Also movies seems perfect but wanna see your opinion to make is even better!
I had to roll my eyes at Loki, risking himself and Anna, by driving like a maniac, while partially blinded, to get her to the hospital. Wasn't his obligation to call the police and an ambulance? But, parents DO become demons when they lose a child, like my mother.
Personally I didn't particularly like the 'happy ending' of the movie, cause happy endings make movies fairy tailish. So after having watched it, one idea came to my mind. I started to think about 'Dyatlov pass incident' and why until now is it still a mystery. There are dozens of versions as to what happened to them, yet none of them satisfactory answers all questions. Obviously only one 'something' must have happened to them. And I started to think that fact misinterpretation is one of the obstacles. I applied this idea to the third act of this movie. Example: Girls managed to run away together yet the second girl couldn't keep up and hid in Keller's old house. The found girl tells in hospital that Keller was there. He is running away to the kidnapper lady. She forces him jump under the ground. Loki arrives at Keller's old house and finds second girl and Alex. Keller is being kept under the car and dies. Everyone/most of people thinks Keller was the kidnapper, since 1) the first girl said about him being there and even if they (girls) say something else later no one would believe them saying they were too traumatised, 2) he ran away and disappeared, 3) obviously Alex and the second girl were found in his house, and 4) parents of the second girl will confirm he was torturing Alex (would be difficult decision for them). So, viewers know the truth, everyone else in the movie too. Yet, the mystery remains what were the motives behind Keller's kidnapping including his own daughter.
I really like your rewrite. Although I do think the final scene of the movie was kind of haunting (despite the ridiculousness of the murderer’s explanation and also the buried alive part being kinda a weak copy of the end of the Dutch classic The Vanishing), so much of the movie in the second half was cluttered and confused, like you say. For me I was riveted and all on board until the moment they started with the snakes and weird patterns and Loki looking into all this, it totally lost me there. But I do think it’s a solid movie overall still, with the cinematography and direction doing its best to elevate a somewhat mediocre script. The plot is pretty typical for the whole string of post-Se7en, visually and thematically dark and Gothic Hollywood thrillers about serial killers… but it’s shot and directed with a European arthouse stillness and patience that’s not usually seen in these films outside of something like Manhunter or some John Carpenter or Polanski films etc.
Therre are so many movies there can be a video about in this way but this is not one of them all the points you made about how to make it better are more cliche than what the movie ended up being.
7:43 keller ran away because he thought that the police may misinperet the information and accuse him to kidnap the girls, or helping those who kidnapped them. This is why cops also chased him. They wanted to question keller first.
Prisoners is my favorite film of all time. I think it's reassuring when I can watch this video and comfortably argue every critique of it. That said, this is a remarkable video essay, and you're really great at making these. You've earned a subscriber :)
You literally said all the things that I have been saying about this movie, and I thought I was going crazy that I was the only one with these views. Love the video.
Like your videos, but fundamentally disagree with your points: the film being overly long, simplifying the film is better, and changing the 3rd act being better. As is clear, the symbolism in the film is inherently critical to the film and its themes, by making a parable, which adds intrigue but more importantly moral and theological quandries for the characters to sort out throughout the runtime. - The concept of the maze is integral to understanding why the film is as long as it is, and leading the film to become convoluted purposefully, but to me not in an annoying way. Like The Big Lebowski, the individual details at times are not important to the story. The point of things becoming convoluted is for the characters to wade through a series of situations, trying to find the way out of the labyrinthinian maze. Except, by trying hard enough and sacrificing everything, Keller and Loki are able to wade through and save the final girl. Also, the exploitative nature of the torture I firmly believe is intentional, to really drive home how evil Dover's actions are and make you feel it for an extended time. Vilenevue's skill as a director comes from exploring these symbols to their fullest, and driving home the extreme nature of the choices the characters make. - Your 3rd act, claiming that Dover should need to choose between killing Alex or turning himself in, gives him the choice, but in the final film, he's already done the evils and cannot make that choice, showing that he's already completely fallen and become a demon. His saving grace is doing everything possible to save his daughter, which is good enough because to him his family is all that matters. And he ends up being saved by an angel (Loki). Having Alex be totally innocent also makes what Dover is doing being completely evil, without any room for him to have some benefit of the doubt. Alex did kidnap the girls, and also told Dover in the police station parking lot 'they only cried when I left them', which definitely makes his believing Alex did it being understandable, and Alex not completely innocent. Simplifying the film to the extent that you put forward removes many aspects that add a human element, and also the symbolism that is so important to the finished film. Having Loki be the savior as well as Dover becoming the demon, lends credence to the beliefs that the characters have - Dover believing in God and family, and Loki needing to be a savior - raises the films themes from pure realist to belief reigning over all. The War on God plot element is ultimately integral to all themes of the film and your recommendations seem to be attempting to remove every important theme explored by the film. Dover's moral dilemma is thoroughly explored already, and dropping him into the pit feels like his ultimate conclusion based on the path he was going down, and his rescue by Loki also feels like divine intervention, saving Dover because he had only love in his heart for family.
The idea of that guy torturing somebody and then submitting to some granny and jumping in a hole knowing that his daughter is there is so stupid. That guy would have ate bullets running at that granny, taking her down before he dies for sure. But he would’ve came in way to hot and heavy on her in the first place, before she even knew he was there.
I understood what the film was pushing from a thematic level but it was hamfisted into the plot of the film. Ironically I’ve seen other pieces of media criticized for this relentlessly.
OH MY GOD. I hated the War on God plot. It came out of fucking nowhere, was completely ridiculous and cheapens everything that came before it. My idea: the girls are never found. Jackman descends into barbarity and becomes the monster. It's not Shakespeare, but personally, I would find it more on brand with what the film seemed like it was going for.
I won’t lie even before I finished it, it felt icky watching this man beat a severely disabled man period. The cop said he had an iq of a ten year old and could barely process questions, at that point it felt like exploitative child abuse scenes even though it was an adult man. I agree that that should have been shorter, like we get it Keller isn’t good but I didn’t need that much film of it. Also I think there was a shorter way to get to the point in act 2 that would have simplified act three and made the ending less busy. Although I think the point was to keep it busy I can’t really tell tho. Starting the film off with some mass burial sight where that body was found and then maybe making the priest found as the murder and in jail (less detail) would have tied the first and second act tie in better like maybe showing the priest watch tv for a bit and then saying he has info about one of his murders, like him simply saying “he killed those who he felt fit of needed judgement” and that would’ve made a more cohesive story line. And I don’t mind the maze thing but again it being established earlier would’ve made it more important. Like I think the first part was over simplified for how much the director wanted to fit into this movie, he would need to make the first part more busy to even out the second and last act.
@@MacabreStorytelling If Hugh jackman kills Alex there will be a new case for the cops. I guess only if they find the body though, since hes marked as missing already
I felt watching it that the torture being pointless was the point. Jackman's character can't trust the detective or help him and for that he goes on a pointless torture rampage on someone who's already a victim and almost died. The point of the movie is to contrast this two men
Exactly! Hes saying something is redundant when thats the point of the movie. The protagonist is sympathetic...he also did some horrible things in his frustration of feeling helpless. That's uncomfortable, that's the point. Its clear in his character that's hes a mans man, does everything on his own, can handle everything. But he finds himself in a situation where hes powerless to help the ones who depend on him most and he becomes so desperate to fix it he goes to a very dark and ugly place doing whatever it takes.
The sympathy for the guy who is tortured is misplaced in my opinion.
Only for the sake of the movie is he innocent.
The real-life analogue to this however is that child predators are often victims of predators in the real world.
And in the real world, the fact that they are a victim in no way excuses the fact that they are monsters.
And that makes for a far more symbolic loop I think. The child predator is a victim, and the father is a victim who becomes a predator because he is victimized. But it's in the interest of his child.
There is no path forward or goal for a child predator. No justification whatsoever.
In the father's case he is trying to find his daughter. Alex's innocence is just plot armor.
@@MasterMote The protagonist becomes a "Demon" by torturing an inocent, so the War on God is actually true.
I don't think so it was pointless the fact is that Alex Jones was considered having an IQ level of a 10 year old child and that's why he was considered as an innocent in the whole movie. But if you haven't forgot he knew where the Kids were all this time. Even a ten year old child will spit the truth out after all this beating but he just kept dropping clues which annoyed Keller more and Alex Jones liked watching all this. Even if he wasn't harming those children and just wanted to spend time with them that's hella wrong, after all he had that much of brain to understand that he is dealing with the father of a child whose kid has been abducted by her own aunt. He is responsible as much as his Aunt for the kidnapping of those children and definitely deserved that beating. And speaking about Keller his suspicion was very much correct from the start of the movie and he is completely innocent in this case. In fact the case was solved because of Keller.
It was hardly pointless, the dude still knew where the kids was and decided to protect the monsters instead of doing the right thing
I like how the wife and Keller shows two different ways of dealing with the loss of their daughter: One violent and proactive, and one passive and accepting "of fate". I think this would have been lost if the wife was removed.
Also, having a mother would make the decision of turning himself in all about Keller’s ass and not his daughter’s. Could he live without his daughter’s love even if he did everything to save her? Taking the mother away would make Keller’s decision real easy. Having her stay and you have a more nuanced conflict. Also, having Joy’s parents being taken for not being complicit in Alex’s kidnapping would be a great gut punching twist.
@@AntonioKatan Brilliant!!
@@AntonioKatan , but then, would Joy be taken away from her parents since Nancy and Franklin would be accomplices to the torture of Alex? Unless Keller decides to take the fall for them and say it was all him, and they had no involvement. Though, I don't see Alex saying that....
Great video! One quibble: 8:55 "Keller kidnapping and torturing, once again, a severely mentally disturbed victim of child abuse had absolutely nothing to do with Anna eventually being found alive." That's actually wrong because the reason why Loki went back to Holly's house was to inform Holly that her 'son' had been found after being tortured by Keller, and this is what put Loki in the position to save Anna. It's certainly not what Keller was intending, but his torturing of Alex did indirectly lead to Loki saving Anna.
Yeah but let’s be honest here, Alex kidnapped the kids
Also the first time Keller visits Holly is only because Alex said “they’re in the maze” while being tortured. He goes there impulsively to question her but realizes he can’t outright say anything without revealing he’s kidnapped Alex, so in a roundabout way he brings up that “he has dreams of being trapped in a maze” hoping it will prompt Holly for more information. It’s during this first visit that Holly grows suspicious that Keller is onto her, as her and her husband would use the unsolveable maze puzzles to keep the children busy indefinitely before they are murdered, and wore the maze pendants. It’s also during this first visit that joy hears Kellers voice, so when she wakes up in the hospital and says “you were there” Keller realizes the only other place he’s been besides his home and torturing Alex is hollys place, leading him to flee from the hospital and Loki to find Alex which then leads him to Holly.
Going back to the second visit with Holly, when Keller shows up again with a suspicious bag, she answers the door with a rag over her other hand, claiming that she “burnt her hand.” I suspect she is actually concealing her revolver under the rag which is how she draws on Keller so quickly.
Moreover after dumping Keller in the pit, she goes through his belongings and finds his gun, and lets out a big sigh. I think that this is when she realizes for sure that Keller knows everything, and if Keller knows then the police (Loki) must know too, explaining why when Loki arrives she makes no attempt to talk to him or hide what she is doing when he knocks on her door, and then immediately engages him in a gun fight when he finds her injecting Keller daughter.
So while Alex didn’t give any information that directly implicated Holly, his torture and kidnapping indirectly led to everything unravelling, Holly would not have been uncovered as the perpetrator had he not been kidnapped. I think this is on purpose, to make us reflect on if Keller’s actions were truly necessary. On one hand it’s revealed that alex is a victim himself all along, on the other hand he DID know where the kids were and without him being kidnapped they would have never found Anna.
I disagree w the author of the video cuz its much better than having Alex either totally confess, or being totally innocent/his kidnapping not leading to anything. Either one of these would paint kellers actions as totally justifiable/unjustifiable, it’s much better in my opinion that it sits in this uncomfortable “dark gray” area.
except the ending could have been entirely avoided if keller just told the cops instead of going to confront her in act of vigilantism.
@@finna1002you can't commit a crime that you don't understand.
Exactly!
I feel that Alex ending up being a victim himself of the same fate as Keller's girls is actually an extremely important element of the story. Mark Kermode actually noted the film as a potential parable of the war on terror and the ethics of torture, which at the time I thought was a stretch but on a second viewing of the film I started to agree with that parable more and more.
Alex being a kidnapping victim himself is a strong analogy for certain victims of wartime torture, while they are indeed associated with forces of evil, they themselves are victims of a system they had no choice but to take part in, is it moral to engage in their torture despite that? In order to stop further suffering? And Keller's failure to get anything out of Alex after it all I think drives that parable home even further, it's not a dead-end in the story, it's pretty much the whole point of the story.
I have no clue if that was the intention of the film but after I heard Mark Kermode make that comparison that's always how I interpret it.
I agree. I thought that was quite clearly the point lol. Thats why I don’t really get the criticism of that particular point in this video
I am very late but for the love of God you genuinely completely turned around the way I look at this movie. The commentary on the war on terror is very much there but hidden well
She wants other parents to feel the same pain she did of losing a child. That’s why she didn’t kill him. This movie is an incredible one, one of my favorites.
Right? Lmao. This guy doesn’t get it. She literally tells Keller that she’s gonna dump his daughters dead body in that pit with him. She WANTS him alive so he can feel that terrible loss.
Yeah it’s completely consistent with her character, I agree. But her whole motivation just come across as quite cartoonish I think.
I think just in general the ‘War on God’ idea is quite heavy handed and it distracts from the realism of the first half
@@danieln727the finding of the dead corpse was the pivoting point where it became detached from reality,I personally would have prefered a bit more realism throughout the second part too,but ut was still great
@@danieln727 to be fair, there are real outlandish cases like these in the real world.
I really like the ending from a symbolic sense. Keller who has become a demon is in a pitt, while loki a God is gonna pull him out of the pitt giving him a chance at life again, after punishing him.
next episode do the fatal flaw of my parents marriage (hint it was me :( )
Big ooof
😤😂😂😂
Lol I know this is (and hope it is only) a joke, but your parents would have had problems before you, so it's definitely not your fault and anyone in that situation shouldn't blame themselves
This is 16 minutes of, “I missed the entire point of the film.”
I don’t get it seems like a really good reason to dislike something
What was the entire point of the film that the person posting the video missed?
I wouldn’t say the torture scenes were so much redundant as we as the audience are supposed to understand the full extent to which a parent is willing to go to find their kid. Seeing Keller get progressively more severe with each torture tactic shows him diving deeper and deeper into that hole in order to find is kid. It doesn’t really matter that It didn’t directly have any connection to him eventually finding his kid due to Alex being placed as our prime suspect for most of the film
You said “she plans to put him in the hole and throw his dead daughter in there to make him suffer” “but I’m not sure why she doesn’t just kill him” YOU JUST SAID IT! it’s to make him suffer😂
1. Keller knew Alex was involved in the kidnapping, he taunted him in the parking lot.
2. The tortute is overkill but in Keller's mind he's running out of time and has to get the info out of Alex by any means before his daughter dies.
keller was not purposefully taunting him, he's mentally 11
@@_YS27i watched the movie today and had that realization about what Alex said, he says "They only cried when i left" but to me that reads in retrospect as "i like those kids im not the one who did this" as if he was trying to defend himself but inadvertently he said something that could be easily misconstrued as a taunt, and leads to the keller spiral
@@milamberytconsidering the fact that he is mentally 11 i d say that phrase was likely trying to say he had no bad intentions, but it is indeed weird that alex was mentally 11 since he has a vehicle
Df is mentally 11???
@HhjHhhh-zz5ni Alex in the movie is shown to be developmentally impaired, to the point where his "mental age" is closer to that of a child than of someone who is in their 20s or 30s.
You're rewrite is very good but one of the key reasons that Keller went after Alex Jones was because of Alex saying "They only cried when I left them". If Alex wasn't the kidnapper then wouldn't have said this to Keller meaning Keller wouldn't have been as likely to kidnap Alex
That would have to be removed as well. The line only exists to add suspense and keep the audience guessing.
@@anibala.moralessanchez8018 No we’re not removing the line. The rewrites make it a lesser/vanilla film. The rewrite turn the movie more into “Room(2015)”. This movie “Prisoners” isn’t dry nor does it beat you over the head, overacts or linger on its thematics. In no way does the story benefit from this rewrite
@@clstuff1 Oh I'm sorry, did YOU make the movie? What's this "we" stuff? We all have opinions you internet baby. Learn to adapt.
@@anibala.moralessanchez8018 nobody asked for the script to be punched up by some kid, It’s already critically acclaimed. It doesn’t make the film play any “better”, sorry guys. Write your own movie
@@clstuff1 Critically acclaimed by who? Critics? The audience? What a joke. This movie is far FAR from perfect. You don't like opinions opposite from yours? Well too bad you big baby.
12:28 “He was just a run of the mill child abducter” that phrasing though 😂
As opposed to an exceptional one lulz
I concede the third act is compromised by many contrivances in order to facilitate a speedy resolution, the issue with the second act on the other hand isn't so much length or what it introduces/explores but rather poor time management. Too much of the film is devoted to the establishment of the kidnappers motivations that it (to a degree) comes at the expense of the other story elements; both character wise and thematic. While I didn't mind the torture scenes as I found them exceptionally executed, harrowing, and (most importantly) furthered the descent of Keller's character (mainly his growing sense of guilt and desperation), there was perhaps a little more of it than was necessary. I also didn't find them exploitative as you did. Also the accusation of exploitativeness strikes me as a matter of personal taste/moral preference rather than an objective criticism. And finally while your proposed re-written version is fascinating and would've made for a masterful film if executed properly, surely the story beats as they are could have been rendered more effectively had they been consolidated in more concise and substantive manner? Regardless, this was an excellent video! Keep it up! Very much looking forward to the next episode, especially considering it centers on a film I have myriad issues with.
Well said. I think exploitative was perhaps not the best word. The torture scenes were definitely well done and insanely effective at making the violence in no way cathartic. I think my irkness with the torture scenes was since we never see Keller really face the consequences of said actions (with the film ending just before he does) it seemed like the torture scenes didn't serve any sort of greater purpose or rather weren't paid off. Even if it were a short scene with Keller meeting with his son and having to explain to him what he did, even if the film cut away right before he did, THEN the weight of his actions would be in a way paid off.
@@MacabreStorytelling it is a 911, thought experiment, maybe the third is a bit heavy handed but the fact that detective is called Loki, sets the tone of the film. In the medieval ages the laberynths were a way to pilgrimage. The end message for me is what if God is not a christ figure, that even if He hears your prayers, he would save you only to be punished.
Alex was NOT innocent. He was certainly a victim, and the RV ride may have been harmless, but he KNEW where the girls were the entire time and chose not to say anything. He could have saved himself, the two girls, and future kids by exposing Holly.
You have to remember he's got the mental capacity of a 10yo. His sense of morality is definitely not strong enough to override the fear of Holly he probably had and thus its impossible to know what his intentions were for this reason
What part of Alex being a "victim of abduction and reduced mental capacity " that you don't understand?
@@simp2.06810 year Olds know murder is wrong
Alex spoke very selectively, It’s told in the movie by his Aunt. Plus he was beat down to pulp, putting him to bed more traumatised. On top of that He already has underlying developmental issues with his brain.
@@kaheaisaac1 they kidnapped him as a child, drugged him probably multiple times, abused him and he most likely didnt get any education. Id say hes pretty much braindead so he doesnt know.
I think cutting out the other kid's parents would have been to it's detriment, without them being like "hey wolverine this is super fucked up" then I don't think the conflict would be as interesting as torture would be presented at the only way to handle this grief and fear. I'd vote keep them in and involve them in the new 3rd act conflict because they're also complicit.
I also think that if Alex was a victim of complete circumstance it would make the film less engaging - the ever hanging question is "is this torture ever justified, is it ever justifiable to do this to anyone in any state of presumed guilt" - if Alex had nothing to do at all with the crime, it would suggest that if he *had* been guilty, then it *would* have confirmed been okay.
Also (spoilers) the suitcases being full of snakes made me laugh so hard, I'd hope any rewrite kept them hissy bois 🐍
For your first question, they could have the one kid from 13RW to essentially replace the other kid's parents
I personally loved the 'War on God' part. I think it adds explanation, and it plays into a more morally black and white theme. Not every great movie with complex characters has to be morally grey. The point of the war on God is to explain how seemingly completely morally white characters can BECOME morally grey, in a slippery slope towards the morally black. I think this was perfectly displayed through Keller, a powerful moment where he can't bring himself to say "forgive those who trespass against us" - struggling with forgiveness as he becomes completely insane due to the kidnapping of his daughter.
Notice it or not, the film is all about people becoming morally black, like Holly Jones. We see it even with Eliza and Franklin, being complicit, even if not completely comfortable, and being driven practically insane alongside Keller obviously as a result of the loss of their children. On Thanksgiving, we see how normal everyone is, how morally good they are as people. This is lost during late Act 1 and Act 2, when their child is missing. And finally, they get back to being relaxed, normal and morally white in Act 3 when Joy is returned to them.
It's the most clear example of how the 'War on God' works. They take away their children, and make them into demons, as the clearly mentally unhinged couple feel the need for vengeance against God who they believe took their son away from them. Keller clearly has some religious devotion, and his struggle to pray in the same way in that first scene is representative of his decline. The love for his children is morphed into a distorted violence against all others, although his actions aren't completely evil and done cold heartedly, they are demonstrable, and could be seen as his evolution into a demon complete with the merciless torture of a mentally handicapped man.
Maybe I could've articulated my thoughts better, but this 'War on God' I think adds moral complexity to the film, whilst maintaining complex characters and a black and white moral reality simultaneously, much like the approach that Tolkien took with his story, and the corruptable kings, Boromir, etc., - or even Saruman. However, instead of using a selfish vision of their use of power as being most beneficial to society, it is a selfish vision of using power to retrieve his loved ones. Both tales fall into an area where the characters go on a slippery slope from morally white, to morally grey, to morally black. The 'War on God' is a theme not only seen in Prisoners but in many other films and books, LOTR being my favourite example.
I'm 3 years too late, but I just watched this movie and just found this video! And I think your rewrite kinda misses the point - 'Prisoners', the title, refers to EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in this movie.
There are literal prisoners - Alex Jones, first as Holly's victim, then as Keller's; the two missing girls; Bob the snake guy and another of Holly's victims; Holly Jones's missing husband who was imprisoned and/or killed by the priest; and lastly, Keller, in the pit. To a lesser extent, the older sister and the older brother become prisoners in their own homes after their younger siblings go missing. The Birch girl is literally forgotten about in her own home, by her own parents; and Keller insists his son stays with his mother and not leave the house.
And then there are prisoners of circumstance - Loki, who seems to be WAY too overqualified to be a detective in backwater Pennsylvania - seems trapped there by a backstory we don't entirely know, working for an asshole boss who doesn't have his back. Notice Loki says 'yeah' at the end of a lot of his sentences - Pennsylvanians don't talk that way, that's British or Australian, and his coworkers don't act very chummy around him, even other detectives. I also looked up "Loki" as a last name on Ancestry - it's British or Irish, and there are a lot of Loki's in Pennsylvania! So maybe the detective is half American, half British. In any case, an outsider and maybe an exile or a prodigal son of some sort, spending Thanksgiving alone.
Then there's Keller, perhaps trapped in grief (and guilt?) over his father's suicide - there doesn't seem to be any real reason he couldn't fix up the old apartment building and help his family financially. He owns a REPAIR business, fixing up the apartment building wouldn't be THAT expensive, that's literally his job! Keller's son is right with that one. Fix that source of income, and Keller's family would be better off. Probably why he went crazy with torturing Alex - on some level, he knew he failed as a father, provider, and protector of his children. His motto was 'be prepared', and when push came to shove, he wasn't. He was furious at himself, and took it out on Alex.
Then there is Keller's wife Grace, trapped in the passive wife role in relation to her macho husband (She says to Keller -'You said you would always protect us!') and then imprisons herself in drugs. Then you got the pedophiles, (rightfully) trapped /imprisoned in the legal system no matter where they go.
Finally, the Birches, who are surely going to prison since they helped Keller imprison Alex. No way Franklin is keeping his mouth shut - we already know he can't.
And you can argue Holly is a prisoner of her insanity/evil.
In other words, every character is an example of imprisonment, so every character is necessary to the story. Bob had to be a victim, because despite living a seemingly normal life in a seemingly normal town, he was a prisoner in plain sight, doomed to relive his own trauma over and over, trapped in his past.
Plus, you mentioned more than once that Alex was an innocent victim, and yes, up to a point. Keller was as good a detective as Loki, because Keller was RIGHT about Alex - he knew where the girls were. What Keller didn't know was that Alex was also Holly's victim, imprisoned with the mind of a child. He saw two other children, and yes, maybe innocently wanted to be friends with them, since they are all emotionally the same age. Or maybe Holly kept Alex alive to use him as bait for other kids from the beginning. And he would never tell what he knew to Keller because Holly probably threatened him and would punish him, not to mention that's the only life he knows.
And the 'War on God' stuff was bullshit, IMO. Literally. Holly is an unreliable LUNATIC. There is NO reason to believe her story, or her reasons for kidnapping children. There is NO EVIDENCE, any where, that she had a son. Every other person who lost a child in this movie is OBSESSED with their lost kid - Bob's mother literally watched a video of him every single day since he went missing, the Birches and Dovers have their daughters' pictures and things all over their houses - Holly has NONE of that. Not even a PICTURE of her dead son who died of 'cancer'. Pretty vague cause of death if you ask me. A real grieving parent would say 'leukemia' or a 'brain tumor.' The only picture she has is of her missing husband. I doubt 'Jones' is even her last name. That is the most anonymous name out there, right up there with 'Smith'. Holly isn't in a war with God, she thinks she IS God. Even her name, Holly, means 'holy'. That end monologue was to display her God-complex, no more or less. Her husband left because he felt GUILTY about what they were doing, he went to a priest for forgiveness. Holly was an unredeemable monster, pure evil.
So, IMO, having Keller decide whether or not to kill Alex is beside the point. The minute Keller kidnapped Alex at gunpoint he was going to prison, because Loki is a good detective. Keller was as bad as the real kidnappers, and he knew it. He didn't care, because all he cared about was getting his daughter back alive. To rescue her and be the good father he was pretending to be. Which is why he didn't fight Holly at the end. He had to keep himself alive to rescue his kid, be the hero.
I never found Keller sympathetic, however. He was a bit of a dick towards Franklin at Thanksgiving, and his toxic masculinity was rubbing off on his son, who calls his sister a 'dope' right at the beginning of the movie. Keller was ending up in a pit, one way or the other. When the worst happened, he turned on his fellow man instead of working WITH the good cop, and in the end didn't even save his daughter after all - a failed hero, now, too.
So, the final act's final decision isn't Keller's to make, it's Loki's. Was Keller's actions justified, like Grace said? WAS he a 'good man?' Or does he deserve to die in the hell of his own making, and suffer the consequences of his own bad decisions? And is it true the only person you can save from death is yourself? Apparently, Keller was wrong about that too, because his life is in Loki's hands. THAT's the final conflict. Keller is in prison, either way, and that's the theme of the movie. He another prisoner in a world of prisoners, up to and including the literal rat in the cage at the beginning of the movie! Some people walk into their own prison, others are imprisoned by others. And sometimes both is true.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk!
This is a great series idea, can't wait to see more
I feel like you missed the point. Keller becoming a ‘demon’ was the point.
He totally missed the point
I'd argue the only flaw to a movie like this and others like it is that the movie is only truly effective the first time around. If you're not attuned to the emotional impact of the scenes your watching, the second and third act will feel drawn out and muddled. Unfortunately, repeated viewings will not allow you to experience the movie the way it was intended. The knowledge of how the story is laid out and what the ultimate conclusion is will taint your ability to invest yourself in the story, especially if you didn't connect with the story the first time around. Every viewing that follows becomes an exercise in indulging in one's own biases.
That's interesting.
I've watched this movie twice and it's one of my favourite movies to the date. After the first time I saw it I had some kind of emotional breakdown, this movie made me _feel_. And I like this about movies, the ability of the movie to make a strong emotional connection with viewer is what I value the most in films in general (feeling scared, broken, sad, confused, happy or inspired after the movie already ended is priceless imo).
But, again, this video is interesting. I never thought of that and plotlines never bothered me really in any way. But I see where you are coming from and your rewrite is pretty cool!
Keep up the good work, sir! You've got yourself a new subscriber
I like the keller's moral dilemma rewrite and it would work good, but i feel like it would make the film kind of forgettable for me because it feels a very little cliche. Prisoners just feels so much different from most of the films in its genre that even after many years i remember the film quite well.
That rewrite is epic. Then you can still leave a cliffhanger of does he kill Alex or let him live. The audience walks out of the theatre discussing what they would do in that position and now people are talking nonstop about your movie for the next year. I love this series you are doing.
why do people want cliffhangers, am I going insane?
No cliffhangers please. That makes a movie lose its rewatch value. It seems lazy and tease to thr viewer. Respect the viewers entertainment
The fact that the first creepy bad dudes name is Alex Jones is suuuuper subtle
🐸 🌈
This film is perfect for me.
wow watched this a long time ago and had the exact some discomfort with the final act, but didn't know what it was that bothered me. This put it perfectly into words. The "war on God" aspect from a seemingly random creepy old lady felt so out of left field.
She wanted him to feel the same pain she felt what are you not getting??
Keller kidnapping Alex did lead to the rescue of Anna because Loki went to the Jones’s house to tell her they found Alex. Also, Alex was technically involved in the kidnapping of the girls by taking them in the RV! Keller will most likely get a reduced sentence because of that!
Eh
Exactly‼‼‼
Keller doing that to Alex didn’t directly allow the girls to be found. But it indirectly led to them being found because she usually would put kids in the maze underground but didn’t with Anna and Joyce because she was lonely since Alex was gone. She decided to let them come up the house with her and that is how Joyce got out.
Regardless, this doesn’t excuse what Keller did and doesn’t necessarily mean the girls wouldn’t have been found regardless.
I completely disagree with you. The whole war on god subplot is what glues the film together. Without it, it's not clear just how pointless Alex's torture is, and the detective work would lack any connection with the father's own investigation.
Furthermore, all the information given by the villain could, eventually, be unearthed by investigators, just not in a thrilling and interesting manner. And letting a handcuffed guy alive under a secret tunnel is the least risky mannouver that character makes.
Last but not the least: it's not really a war against God if God isn't fighting back, through subtle and confusing means. It's just plain awesome that a movie about two kids disappearing is actually about a literal battle between good and evil.
Let’s not forget that Alex choked the dog.
I actually love this movie. Yeah, maybe It over too soon, and maybe the ese on god was Dumb. But I really like It ñ.ñ
Same.
I usually can't stand "let me rewrite this movie" videos, but this is really great
This is a great concept - it's so true that a single flaw can send a whole film (or book, or any story) off course. Looking forward to future episodes!
I am addicted to your entertainment media analysis you make everything seem like it could have been waaay better
❤
The torturing gave him the information to find his daughter. Calling it pointless is a big leap.
But that… then that seems to imply torture produces results?
I really enjoyed both scenarios you set up for the movie. As a fan of Rian Johnson's work, I'm really looking forward to your Looper rewrite. I also really appreciate your more level-headed and tactful approach in these videos, as opposed to the Game of Thrones rewrites when dealing with D&D. Not to say I don't understand why or that its unwarranted, its very funny material and works for those videos. But I appreciate that you address this material with a degree of fairness. Keep up the good work, and I'm looking forward to the next couple of videos you put out as always.
Thanks! Yeah I sort of reeled off D&D a bit as the rewrite series went on just cuz I felt it wasn't adding anything.
@@MacabreStorytelling I realized that somewhere in the fourth Trilogy of rewrites. Again it's not a Bash. It really went well with the comedy that you were laying down for the rewrites. But I really do think you've come into your own with your voice and your writing style with the finale comparisons and with this fatal flaw series that you started. I also like your thematic style, I noticed in this rewrite, The Departed video, and Jon Snow's rewrite that you seem to be fond of tragic irony. Really good stuff
Prisoners belongs to the category of realistic movies ie realistic dialogue behaviours characters. And this gets derailed towards the end with the reveal which might work if you like convoluted stories but detracts from the genuine drama and tension. Instead of the movie focusing on maybe the ethics of torture and how times of crisis can warp anyone it gets derailed by an absurd climax.
Well said!
Making Bobby Taylor the kid napper wouldn't make sense because the only reason Keller abducted alex was because he said they only cried when I left them
Great video! I would have never guessed that trimming the fluff would make the film better. I hope you become a script doctor for works that are in turnaround. Can’t wait to see what you do next!
"Prisoners is one of my least favorite films."
Me: "I feel like you just stabbed me with a knife"
Your rewrite is exactly what i thought the movie was gonna be ... but they went the convoluted way. It would be very much relevant to our times with more and more vigilantism and people playing judge and jury fed by internet bubbles... too bad
8:47 I feel like that moment where Kellars wife is trying to justify wjat he has done, I always felt her logic was under cut by the film cutting to the blank shot of Loki, who just stares through her. Like "we both know that's not true, don't we", and I think the look on Gyllenhaal's face is enough to sell that. Just what i took away
Man, I love that rewrite. I don't understand why some people are so defensive in the comments. You didn't say the film is bad, you just addressed imperfections which really lowered the quality. I love this movie but still see the flaws you put forward. Anyway, your rewrite would be awesome, especially if they wouldn't show what keller decides to do at the end.
I don't think the priest was a pedo. iirc Loki HAPPENED to find a bunch of pedos while looking around for the kidnapper and he does allude to having been abused by priests at the priest's old workplace, but the murderous priest is a good guy, I think, given that he killed Holly's husband because of his crimes against children
Dammit. Now I really wish that were the way the script was written.
Alex wasn’t innocent, he just didn’t know what he was doing. He literally kidnapped two girls. He even said “They didn’t cry until I left them,” and I’m guessing he was competent enough to know that the girls were crying because they were scared, he was just too scared to act out against his “aunt”
Subscribed. All your criticisms of the movie are spot on. Most of the characters and subplots were completely pointless, go nowhere, drag out the total run time, distract from the main plot, and make what could have been a solid story needlessly convoluted and absurd.
As soon as I saw the credits roll I was incredulous and I promptly looked up videos to try and understand what happened, because I was very confused. I saw 2 other videos before yours and they spent most of the time explaining the premise (which everyone saw and understood) and only explained that the implication was that the cop found Keller, which is obvious. Nobody even bothered to explain what the hell happened in the scene where Joy said "you were there", you were the first one to even attempt it.
Speaking of which, I see that as the cherry on top of this mess. The entire plot hinges on Joy escaping, being found, and giving Keller a clue that helped him realize the true kidnapper's identity, but let's really think about the details here. What was the clue? "You were there." Keller was there? What, at the aunt's house?
How did Joy even know that? Sure, she was at the house, probably in that ditch under the car, but if that's true, how did she know Keller was there? Did she hear his voice? How? He never yelled or anything. That doesn't make any sense. Even if she heard a male voice for 5 minutes, that was days ago. As soon as she woke up, the first thing she said was "you were there." This is absurd, maybe she would have remembered that hours later, but there's no way that would be the FIRST thing she said upon waking up.
Even if we accept all of this, why did Keller promptly run out of the hospital without telling anyone? Why did he go there ALONE with his weapon inside a bag where he couldn't access it? Why did he turn his back to the dangerous monster who kidnapped his own daughter and say "I don't want to hurt you" clearly tipping his hand to her? What did he expect was going to happen? Why didn't he bust her door down and demand to know where his daughter was? Why didn't he just blast her away and then search the property on his own? Why didn't he tell the cops what he figured out, where his daughter was, the prime suspect, hell he could have gone over there WITH the cops.
Because Keller is a dumbass, we must introduce more absurd coincidences like the cop just so happened to go to her house, he just so happened to find a picture of her husband who just so happened to be wearing that symbol, and just so happened to find the aunt red handed just as she was injecting the daughter with drugs. The last third of this movie is dogshit, and that's such a shame, because this could have been an amazing movie.
Sounds like someone doesn’t listen to true crime. Also, the theme isn’t “turning parents into demons” it’s torture is bad, even when it seems right. The cycle of violence, that’s what it’s commenting on.
Dude, I was not with you at all until you explained the reasoning at the end. Jesus, that suggested 3rd act is what I wish they had made, would have been gut wrenching and brutal. Great stuff!
❤
Just because you think a movie is deserving of a rewrite, doesnt mean that your version is THE version. It doesnt seem like you grasped alot of the visual stimulation throughout the film. All of the characters were prisoners, not just the children, not just Alex. But every single one of them. Your version of the film needs a different title, because its no longer the same movie.
I couldnt agree with a single point you shared throughout but i do very much like your difference of perspective. Id see your movie, I just wouldnt swap out the original for what you offered, I really enjoyed Prisoners as someone who doesnt even care for thrillers or horror. It was a well rounded film that I personally had no hang ups about.
Really love the got rewrites , and Really love the way you branch out. Keeps things interesting.
Loki makes a reference to having been abused at a school for boys when he was a kid, which I'm assuming meant he was a foster kid. In your rewrite, that element could be kept in, thus maybe Loki discovers that Keller kidnapped Alex Jones, but understands that he did it it to save his children. Ironically by doing so, he'd be abandoning them to the foster care world. So he could be faced with a dilemma himself here too. I actually really do love this film, but that was one part I wished had been elaborated on-the pasts of these characters-Keller's father committing suicide and the trauma Loki went through. I like your rewrite idea, and if it kept those characters' past traumas as story elements, it would drive home the point about being a "prisoner" of something. Intriguing idea you have there
This is an interesting re-write, and I would watch this film as well and probably really enjoy it. However, it would be a lot different genre wise and I don't think it would be objectively better.
Minimalism isn't always better, and I would argue that this is one of the cases where it isn't. The parts of the film getting the most criticism here seem to be red herrings/misdirection and the additional characters to get it done. This usually fills the second act of these films, which is why I think they lose their quality after the first watch.
Red herrings are extremely common plot devices in crime stories, especially crime mysteries, and without some misdirection the audience isn't left with much to "figure out". I agree that some of the misdirection can feel a bit more "contrived" than it has to on successive watches, however this ends up being the case for most crime mysteries--It's a necessary flaw to create the experience in the first place.
In your rewrite, everything is pretty plain and obvious throughout, and you are left watching an interesting story unravel rather than engaging with a mystery like the original (The mystery ends in the second act). This invariably is what you are left with when you remove most of the misdirection and red herrings. Don't get me wrong, it has the capacity to go deep into characters and it would be a really good movie in its own way, however they are totally different movie theater experiences for the audience to have.
Another overused device in film and television is exposition, and when you watch a lot of movies it becomes pretty nauseating when over used. Similar to completely leaving out red herrings/misdirection, leaving out exposition entirely can result in a great, original film. However, it becomes quite esoteric at the same time--especially at the extreme--which reduces commercial success. As bad as exposition can be, it's still necessary for a film to function (unless the point of the film is to put a spotlight on exposition use) and needs to be carefully placed to avoid "on the nose" explanations (Holly's speach is pretty "on the nose" and could have been done better IMO).
In this context, I would argue that you need a bit more (carefully placed) misdirection to achieve a similar narrative feel with the tighter plot that you're trying to achieve. In reality, police do pursue dead end leads so misdirection isn't completely contrived.
The difference between your story and the original kind of reminds me of the difference between Jeff Nichols' work and conventional hollywood films. Jeff's films are very original (IMO) and successfully so because of his focus on the characters and realistic interactions between them over satisfying a predetermined plot. I enjoy these films a lot, however they definitely aren't the same adrenaline fueled experience that I would argue Prisoners really did bring.
At the end of the day, I think Prisoners is a fantastic example of a film that balances great film making with general audience success. I would argue that this is harder to pull off than most indie artistic/esoteric films or run of the mill hollywood films (in a writing sense). Some plot devices that seem repetitive to film connoiseurs have to be present to make that work, and I don't think that's entirely a bad thing.
Great channel by the way. I enjoy the depth you go into with your analyses of films and it makes for fun thought experiments. If you happen to have a crime/mystery film recommendation that doesn't suffer as much from the "second act trap" pass it along.
Fantastic comment. Thank you.
*A story element that Macabre dislikes*
"A lie take it out"
In a very roundabout messed up way, if the father didn’t take Alex, Holly wouldn’t have taken the girls out of the hole. She said she should’ve left them down there but Alex was gone. Being out of the hole allowed Joy to escape. They were definitely down there originally. Anna’s whistle was down there. So I don’t think taking Alex was meant to serve absolutely no purpose. It was indirect, but it did help the girls survive. And, in a way, the dad was correct. Alex did know where the girls were. And for most of the film, that’s what he says. That he believes Alex knows where they are. He actually did. He was just too afraid of holly to do anything about it.
Your argument is solid, but there's the thing- the moments with the red herring at the memorial, and the snakes were two of the most genuinely scary and thrilling moments in the movie. They legit made me sit up straighter in my seat, and isn't that a big part of why we like these movies? So many thrillers are lacking the visceral experience; not this one.
6:49 he did strangle that dog before wolverine grabbed him
Keller only went to Holly’s to find out more information about Alex that he could use to interrogate him, so his torture of Alex does in fact lead to his discovery of Holly’s guilt. And then Loki goes there because he finds Alex imprisoned. So it’s false to say the kidnap of Alex didn’t lead to the conclusion.
The pointless torture is the point lol. He's essentially doing the same thing that's happening to his daughter, he's taken someone prisoner. The torture is not about a ticking-clock, it's about contrasting the protagonist with the villain and putting the audience in his shoes. The movie is asking if we would do the same thing if we were in his position. It is gratuitous or "exploitative" in the same way that good horror movies are: it's to make us horrified. Horrified in the evil that what we are capable of in this case.
Edit: also it makes sense that she wouldn't immediately kill Keller and would hold him hostage and torture him instead. It's in line with her character because she didn't kill his daughter immediately either, she doesn't really have any use for keeping her alive. She's really just that level of evil.
Also your suggestion of having the third act being about Keller deciding between turning himself in vs killing Alex could be a really good third act, but it's as you say a completely different conflict/moral dilemma. Kind of just sounds like you want to see a more fast-paced movie with a different theme. The actual movie's third act is great because it's foreshadowed by the first act, specifically the literal opening scene of the movie which establishes the conflict between faith and evil.
The part I don't understand is why does Joy give a cryptic message in the hospital instead of just telling them everything and how how to find Ana?
‘One fatal flaw’ more like I don’t like the meaning behind the film. The point of the ending that it doesn’t matter whether they find Keller. If they find him he goes to prison, his daughter will see him a man who tortured an innocent person, the opposite of before she was abducted. The war on god is really the war on traditional/family goodness, which doesn’t ‘take over the narrative’ it’s the thesis of the first second and third act.
Also your rewrite of the script, removing the original victim of the aunt and making him a child molester again removes all purpose for him being in the film.
This is a bad video I enjoy the others but this film is pretty damn air tight. You missed all of the meaning and purpose of all of the character choices and themes. Your rewrite is changing the film from conceptual thriller to a run of the mill shock value moral dilemma. You missed all of the points how the script earns finding the kids and the character of Loki isn’t even touched on in this video. All you say is ‘contrived’ but Loki is a slow methodical investigator who you see I constantly slowly looking over each aspect of his surroundings and what relevent or not. You should have don’t that with this video.
‘Trim the fat’ get out of here bro the video is the fat
What’s going on big guy? You okay?
@@MacabreStorytelling hell ye man i appreciate the reply, i just really didnt like the video cos i think its one of the best detective thrillers kinda like 7 but the darkness is everywhere with everyone. You have 2 investigators on the same side of the coin. Loki who is a slow methodical, bends the rules but wont break them, but he himself has ego and wants to solve every case. Then you have the father who only breaks the rules to investigate, ergo he is a demon, he cant find the path to his daughter, trapped in a maze. The path he goes down leaves him either in a hole in the ground or in a prison cell. I also think, tho extremely unconfortable, the scenes where keller tortures paul dano are important to show that the he and villain of the film are both just human and that good values can lead down the same path as malicious ones. Which is why the birch family are also important to contrast keller's decision to continue. He only continues out of hope that he may get his daughter back.
Loved your Amadeus analysis would love to hear your thoughts on what ive said. Prisoners is one of my favourite Villeneuve films thats why i was mad bro mb
@@MacabreStorytelling Think the point of the film is 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'
If you would have worded your criticism like an adult I probably would agree but the way you worded it sounds so protective that I can't but dislike it. And yes, you don't have to care but I had to comment this.
@@tizib8784 ur right I don’t care. You’re also right, it is my opinion
This movie was very hyped up for me before I watched it, and even though I really enjoyed it, it felt like it was missing something, some kind of punch and you explained perfectly what I felt about it. Your rewrite is pretty brilliant and I agree would've made this movie more memorable and the story more gripping!
4:43 I think your logic is flawed my man, how can that fly over your head? I mean you just answered to it yourself
Really gotta disagree with your takes on this film. The only real criticism I can give this film is the Bob Taylor character not really translating well to the audience and feeling like a blatant red herring thrown in to keep us and the characters guessing. Otherwise, this is a masterful screenplay, and it seems like you really missed the point of the movie with all the things you wanted to remove. You turned it into a more generic story and took away many of the scenes that give these characters nuance and depth
Not really. Most of the maze stuff was superfluous and didn’t add anything to the story. Most of it was simply fluff to hint at something more complex.
Best part of the video is that rewrite segment, tasty conflicts.
Sometimes I wonder whether writers just extremely overthink their plot/characters or they just don't think about those simple scenes/subplots that could immesely improve their work.
And as usual, your videos are well worth the wait 👌🏻
Agreed. Sort of goes back to what I said in the beginning about the film not having a huge "hook". Hooks are great to get studio execs interested, but I'd argue most audiences just want a story told well, regardless of how "hooky" it is. Whiplash is always a film I go back to when I argue that a simple story told EXTREMELY well beats a film that has a really unique premise but fails to execute.
I know this is super late. I'm a new writer and I'm currently writing something in my head that at first was just about someone dealing with loneliness and within 4 minutes turned into the main character dealing with 5 very different unrelated things 🤷♀️
Really like your vids and the effort you put into making them, you are clearly passionate about them, keep it up!
Duuuuude, you're very talented
Prisoners is a movie, where the plot on the surface is a bit lackluster, but when considering all symbolisms, it very much tells a complete story. Fairy tales do this quite commonly, where it only gives you full understanding of the story when you know the meaning of the symbols it employs.
For instance, fundamentally the movie Nightcrawler is about Riz Ahmed‘s character working for the devil and his fate when he tries to strongarm him. The „fun“ then is, approaching the movie with this key and seeing how it all checks out, for instance, after Riz Ahmed gets shot, the criminal looks at Jake Gyllenhaal filming him with a bewildered expression, and then just stumbles away. Now, you can explain this particular moment away or have a different interpretation, but when you approach movies with some knowledge of „occult“ symbols, it often checks out to a degree, that makes coincidence seem like the less plausible explanation.
Great video dude. I love this film but it’s always interesting to see a different perspective on things you enjoy.
Side note, how long till the Bran and the Night King video? Man needs his GOT Rewrite fix.
I think he said next week
Perhaps even Sunday night depending on how much weekend editing binge goes!
To me the biggest flaw is that the movie shows that Keller has some sort of tactical training as he creates that super complicated torture device and is aware of the aunt and when the detective is following him he is aware at all times and comes up with quick solutions. But he goes to the aunts house at the end not ready to fight. He kidnapped Alex violently and he didn’t go the aunts house already shooting her or something. He’s a jacked male man, he could easily unarm that skinny old lady
“the one fatal flaw with prisoners is the entire point of the film” great work dude. it’s blues brothers. this movie is blues brothers. hes “on a mission from god”. its literally the point of the whole thing, that child abduction is satanic. thats why the cop gets to the hospital while hes blind. spending the first hour and a half of the movie watching him torture this guy is supposed to get grating and bring your own suspicions back and forth. and ultimately discovering the demon plot contextualizes that. it’s literally the core idea of the film. if you take that away there’s no motive for anything that happens, not for the torture, not for the kidnapping.
What's really funny is that I remember watching this film but I forgot everything about the war on God plot. But you're right that movies now have interesting setups and then over convolute the story and drag it out longer than necessary. Writers really underestimate building characters and simple premises especially in crime thrillers and then think people want overly complicated plot twists. Maybe this should be called the Silence of the Lambs effect (failing to make a layered plot from a movie that succeeded in it).
My complaint was when she held him at gun point my entire thought process was let her shoot you in the driveway, she can’t hide the brains scattered in the driveway before sun comes up someone will likely look outside at the gunshot noise in their small town, if she shot him in the kitchen it’d be easier to clean up but still missing persons and Loki would’ve informed her of her son after finding Alex in the old house looking for Keller. Why she didn’t shoot him after he got in the hole however didn’t make sense to me.
Good analysis and you make a lot of good points. I had the same problem with this movie on some subconscious level (but not to the same degree) - I just felt that the plot became too contrived and overcomplicated after the second act. Still like this movie, though. Your rewrite is very interesting but I think this movie would be too dark and have way less mass appeal.
If the detective character heard the whistle and intentionally ignored it, that would have fixed a lot of it. Then you have change.
Why isn't Alex Jones played by Alex Jones?
Criminal
@@MacabreStorytelling He'd be a great fit XD
Good insights but establishing motive for the killers is a good aspect. Imagine if the killer became evil from being abandoned and put through the foster system. So if Keller let's Alex free he would be putting his kids in the same position
Noice!
Bravo, i want more of this!! There are so much movies that could be good but terrible due to small stuff. Also movies seems perfect but wanna see your opinion to make is even better!
I had to roll my eyes at Loki, risking himself and Anna, by driving like a maniac, while partially blinded, to get her to the hospital. Wasn't his obligation to call the police and an ambulance? But, parents DO become demons when they lose a child, like my mother.
Personally I didn't particularly like the 'happy ending' of the movie, cause happy endings make movies fairy tailish. So after having watched it, one idea came to my mind. I started to think about 'Dyatlov pass incident' and why until now is it still a mystery. There are dozens of versions as to what happened to them, yet none of them satisfactory answers all questions. Obviously only one 'something' must have happened to them. And I started to think that fact misinterpretation is one of the obstacles. I applied this idea to the third act of this movie. Example: Girls managed to run away together yet the second girl couldn't keep up and hid in Keller's old house. The found girl tells in hospital that Keller was there. He is running away to the kidnapper lady. She forces him jump under the ground. Loki arrives at Keller's old house and finds second girl and Alex. Keller is being kept under the car and dies. Everyone/most of people thinks Keller was the kidnapper, since 1) the first girl said about him being there and even if they (girls) say something else later no one would believe them saying they were too traumatised, 2) he ran away and disappeared, 3) obviously Alex and the second girl were found in his house, and 4) parents of the second girl will confirm he was torturing Alex (would be difficult decision for them). So, viewers know the truth, everyone else in the movie too. Yet, the mystery remains what were the motives behind Keller's kidnapping including his own daughter.
I really like your rewrite. Although I do think the final scene of the movie was kind of haunting (despite the ridiculousness of the murderer’s explanation and also the buried alive part being kinda a weak copy of the end of the Dutch classic The Vanishing), so much of the movie in the second half was cluttered and confused, like you say. For me I was riveted and all on board until the moment they started with the snakes and weird patterns and Loki looking into all this, it totally lost me there. But I do think it’s a solid movie overall still, with the cinematography and direction doing its best to elevate a somewhat mediocre script. The plot is pretty typical for the whole string of post-Se7en, visually and thematically dark and Gothic Hollywood thrillers about serial killers… but it’s shot and directed with a European arthouse stillness and patience that’s not usually seen in these films outside of something like Manhunter or some John Carpenter or Polanski films etc.
Therre are so many movies there can be a video about in this way but this is not one of them all the points you made about how to make it better are more cliche than what the movie ended up being.
7:43 keller ran away because he thought that the police may misinperet the information and accuse him to kidnap the girls, or helping those who kidnapped them. This is why cops also chased him. They wanted to question keller first.
Prisoners is my favorite film of all time. I think it's reassuring when I can watch this video and comfortably argue every critique of it. That said, this is a remarkable video essay, and you're really great at making these. You've earned a subscriber :)
How could Keller have known Alex was mentally disturbed? And he does tell him something when he was released... So there is point in torturing him
When are you gonna do midsommer?
Im curious, what 3 hour movie is "too short"?
Endgame for one lol
She walks him out there because she obviously isn't going to be able to carry him.
You can't say this already has a long plot and then say they needed to add things.... amongst other things that were off about your synopsis.
Nah I didn’t add that much and the additions wouldn’t be as much as the subtractions.
You literally said all the things that I have been saying about this movie, and I thought I was going crazy that I was the only one with these views. Love the video.
Like your videos, but fundamentally disagree with your points: the film being overly long, simplifying the film is better, and changing the 3rd act being better.
As is clear, the symbolism in the film is inherently critical to the film and its themes, by making a parable, which adds intrigue but more importantly moral and theological quandries for the characters to sort out throughout the runtime.
- The concept of the maze is integral to understanding why the film is as long as it is, and leading the film to become convoluted purposefully, but to me not in an annoying way. Like The Big Lebowski, the individual details at times are not important to the story. The point of things becoming convoluted is for the characters to wade through a series of situations, trying to find the way out of the labyrinthinian maze. Except, by trying hard enough and sacrificing everything, Keller and Loki are able to wade through and save the final girl. Also, the exploitative nature of the torture I firmly believe is intentional, to really drive home how evil Dover's actions are and make you feel it for an extended time. Vilenevue's skill as a director comes from exploring these symbols to their fullest, and driving home the extreme nature of the choices the characters make.
- Your 3rd act, claiming that Dover should need to choose between killing Alex or turning himself in, gives him the choice, but in the final film, he's already done the evils and cannot make that choice, showing that he's already completely fallen and become a demon. His saving grace is doing everything possible to save his daughter, which is good enough because to him his family is all that matters. And he ends up being saved by an angel (Loki). Having Alex be totally innocent also makes what Dover is doing being completely evil, without any room for him to have some benefit of the doubt. Alex did kidnap the girls, and also told Dover in the police station parking lot 'they only cried when I left them', which definitely makes his believing Alex did it being understandable, and Alex not completely innocent.
Simplifying the film to the extent that you put forward removes many aspects that add a human element, and also the symbolism that is so important to the finished film. Having Loki be the savior as well as Dover becoming the demon, lends credence to the beliefs that the characters have - Dover believing in God and family, and Loki needing to be a savior - raises the films themes from pure realist to belief reigning over all. The War on God plot element is ultimately integral to all themes of the film and your recommendations seem to be attempting to remove every important theme explored by the film. Dover's moral dilemma is thoroughly explored already, and dropping him into the pit feels like his ultimate conclusion based on the path he was going down, and his rescue by Loki also feels like divine intervention, saving Dover because he had only love in his heart for family.
The idea of that guy torturing somebody and then submitting to some granny and jumping in a hole knowing that his daughter is there is so stupid. That guy would have ate bullets running at that granny, taking her down before he dies for sure. But he would’ve came in way to hot and heavy on her in the first place, before she even knew he was there.
Many people explain why but I feel you missed the point of the film
I understood what the film was pushing from a thematic level but it was hamfisted into the plot of the film. Ironically I’ve seen other pieces of media criticized for this relentlessly.
Your third act rewrite is amazing
OH MY GOD. I hated the War on God plot. It came out of fucking nowhere, was completely ridiculous and cheapens everything that came before it.
My idea: the girls are never found. Jackman descends into barbarity and becomes the monster. It's not Shakespeare, but personally, I would find it more on brand with what the film seemed like it was going for.
He ends up a prisoner to the feeling of loss rather than a physical prison.
Rewatch it and you’ll see at no point did it come out of nowhere.
your rewrite is trash, sorry
That rewrite is great
I won’t lie even before I finished it, it felt icky watching this man beat a severely disabled man period. The cop said he had an iq of a ten year old and could barely process questions, at that point it felt like exploitative child abuse scenes even though it was an adult man. I agree that that should have been shorter, like we get it Keller isn’t good but I didn’t need that much film of it. Also I think there was a shorter way to get to the point in act 2 that would have simplified act three and made the ending less busy. Although I think the point was to keep it busy I can’t really tell tho. Starting the film off with some mass burial sight where that body was found and then maybe making the priest found as the murder and in jail (less detail) would have tied the first and second act tie in better like maybe showing the priest watch tv for a bit and then saying he has info about one of his murders, like him simply saying “he killed those who he felt fit of needed judgement” and that would’ve made a more cohesive story line. And I don’t mind the maze thing but again it being established earlier would’ve made it more important. Like I think the first part was over simplified for how much the director wanted to fit into this movie, he would need to make the first part more busy to even out the second and last act.
umm.. "kill alex and walk free"? how? the cops are going to look for him, he is not free
Look for who?
@@MacabreStorytelling If Hugh jackman kills Alex there will be a new case for the cops.
I guess only if they find the body though, since hes marked as missing already