The clues are a little slow, and it feels like the rhythm. The first half is a bit difficult for the impatient, and I deserted countless times during the period. Several times I watched the backs of Hugh Jackman and Jack Gyllenhaal getting out of the car, and the OS in my heart was: Brother, can you walk faster? The play is two and a half hours, and there are not as many details as Zodiac. If it is more compact, it should be able to be done in two hours.
The story itself is still good. The story is very complete, and the suspense and thriller are also done. After reading it, I look back and think that the key clues were actually thrown out very early. The most irrelevant or inexplicable point of all the details is often the breakthrough point, but because of the clever "unexpected branches" blurred focus, it is still told the story. People walked by the nose, and only guessed the answer towards the end. Hugh Jackman (the father of the missing child) and Jack Gyllenhaal (the police) are also very well structured as two lines, because of the lack of communication and trust they are unaware of the useful information the other has obtained, until at the end the two each find the answer not quite. Relying on rational reasoning, think about the many accidental factors; but as the audience, we can see all the details, it depends on whether we can organize various associations and piece them together into a reasonable whole. The suspenseful stories that I have always thought are powerful, not only to hide the answer deeply, but also to provide the viewer with the possibility to reach the end one step earlier than the protagonist, which probably means "unexpected and reasonable".
A suspenseful story for the sake of suspense is not a good story. Suspense is the way of telling a story, the joy of the people who watch it, but it should have some meaning in addition to the way and the fun, right? (Self-questioning: not all, some people's stories can be purely fun, but this is another high level! Anyway!) In addition to the plot, there are other things to remember about this story. The IMDB plot mentioned a sentence How far would you go to protect your family? Yes, some people do evil in order to find their loved ones, but to different degrees. (It's hard not to spoiler)
Let's talk about actors. Hugh Jackman's role is very good, the script gives him a lot of space, but the role itself is not likable, and I have always disliked actors who are too manly, because I always feel that acting is brute force (prejudice is terrible); slightly biased He said that Jack Gyllenhaal was fine, nothing to be picky about; and Paul Dano was a surprise.
View more about Prisoners reviews
