Screenwriting : Script/story breaking down of the well-structured thriller ‪Prisoners by Dimi Nakov

This is a great script to breakdown...Has positives and negatives in my view. Can learn from each, of course.

Thanks for posting this analysis, Dimi. This is a film that's been on my list for a while as one to study. I just printed out the chart pdf to compare to my own findings, plus I have the screenplay. Now cue the movie. Lol! ;)

Be interested to hear your thoughts, Beth. Lots going on in that film...as mentioned, some of it works, some of it...meh.

Check out the BL. Scott Myers has broken this screenplay down scene by scene.

Hey, RB. :) Sure, I haven't seen the film—yet—although I'm about to sit down and watch it. I've heard about it, read about it, looked over the script... I have a feeling I may not like it, but I'm currently interested in dissecting thrillers because I'm tackling a couple of my own. I'll take a look at Scott Myers' breakdown as well, Michael—thanks!

Thank You Beth..I absolutely love reading posts like this and learning new things..

Dimi: Thanks, my friend. That is one great, disturbing, great cast, Hugh Jackman , excellent, psychological thriller /drama. Peace brother . BETH: Do your homework, go relax, cup of tea and enjoy.

Movie was ok, the great Roger Deakins is brilliant as always. Villenueve masterpiece is Sicario ( a script i would love to read)

Haha! Thanks, Jorge. :) Well, I just watched it... and, I think it's better on paper. Here's my two cents, RB, a review of sorts, not a scene by scene breakdown, no spoilers. I did read over the BL breakdown and the article analysis. Both break it down well, but give no real opinion or comment about the story. ...Okay, overall, written and on screen, I found it to be heavy-handed, contrived and way too long—in my humble opinion. I had my suspicions as I looked over the script. I assume the central driving question is: What would you do if your child was taken? What lengths would you take? Would you go against your own sense of morality or moral code? The slight religious overtone fell completely flat; it didn't really set up that moral conflict, nor did it hold any weight throughout the story or at the reveal at the end. If anything, this exploration of blind, stubborn certainty that can easily override reasonable doubt and one's humanity is one of its better subtle points—that perhaps acting as a vigilante isn't such a good idea. It was hard to be emotionally invested in this story because of the lack of character development, there's practically none. Keller (Hugh Jackman) is one-noted. He's just angry. What's missing is a true sense of dread, of desperation, of fear. I did not like the opening scene nor the beginning. The inciting incident is expected/obvious because of the story premise, therefore the whole beginning seemed heavy-handed, even ridiculous. It didn't really set up the story nor the characters, just that Keller is an intense, angry, weak man, who, I guess, is religious, has no sense of humor, likes Bruce Springsteen, loves America and is some sort of survivalist. It didn't give any notion that he really cares for his daughter only that he thinks "a man should be prepared." Okay? This whole thing felt overly "male" to a fault—I don't mean that judgmentally or in an accusatory way or that I thought it was sexist, not at all. The mothers were almost nonexistent. Two-dimensional. The lack of female presence or agency in this story about missing children made this even more contrived. The lack of action in the mothers was unbelievable, illogical. There's no real sense of who they are or a sense of these families. There's hardly any female perspective to this story, which is weird when we are presented with married people with kids. The missing girls were pretty much faceless, just a means for the story, a story about men. Even the big reveal at the end was rather, meh. ....Okay, so as a thriller for me to study, I consider it a "what not to do" example. There wasn't a build in tension or suspense or action. It wasn't even a slow burn. The plants of information weren't very clever, seemed just 'thrown in,' and again, very contrived: the whistle, the maze, the RV.... Meh. As the plot goes on there's different suspects, dark basements, gloomy exteriors, etc, but the story just wears on...

Sicario ending was classic

Lol! Thanks, Dan M. ;) I haven't seen Sicario and probably won't. After I heard/read that the "promise" of Emily Blunt's character shifts, changes, that she's sidestepped and the movie itself shifts, I lost interest.

Del toro character gets his revenge in a most classic way - Blunt character honest FBI agent is about too rat out the shady mission until she's face to face with an assassin ( Del toro) she crumbles, gives in- The scene, the end in her apartment - so good. And the theme of the movie is so good, the Mexican people held hostage by the cartel

@Beth. One can but surely look (Sicario) ? Always a good idea.

Yes, totally agree, David ...but I probably won't. LOL! Sicario just doesn't interest me. It did at one point, but then... I read enough about it to know I probably would be disappointed, and there's only so much time in the day. I understand others really liked it; it has some amazing action, great technical filming, great performances, fantastic cast, etc. I lost interest because of the narrative—the supposed protagonist (female) being passive, more of an observer. It almost seems like a marketing 'bait and switch'—oh, sorry, the movie is really about the male leads, not the protagonist. Anyway, I know I'm being unfair and reductive... Perhaps I will see it in passing someday. It took me a long time to finally see "Prisoners." I had little interest in it as well. It was hard to sit through. My only reason to view it was academic, to look at it as a 'thriller' example: How was it structured, did it work?

Did anyone here like The Hurt Locker? I loved that movie and the director. Wow. Amazing job! She should've directed both, Prisoners and Sicario.

Completely agree on SICARIO...Passive protagonist who also disappears for about 25 minutes in the latter stages of the film.

Back in the '80s, '90's when ever I heard critics say this, say that or deeply do and analysis on movies , movies they hated of course because they were the so called experts on every department, e.g. direction, production, screenwriting. Exhausting! Well, these were the movies I went and watched. I loved them. Flashdance, butchered by the critics. Loved it. My point, as a screenwriter if I'm going to over think every story, I would never start or it would take years to finish one single screenplay and wouldn't be able to move on to my next one. My critics are my readers, my audience. Once I type FADE OUT, next!!

Nope, as I said, William, I have not seen Sicario. Generally speaking, I do make decisions about films before I watch them, regardless of character gender. Again, there's only so much time in the day. Lol! But this film in particular set up an expectation and didn't quite deliver—as I've read and been told by others who have seen it. :)

Getting back to "Prisoners," I felt a huge problem with the story and film was that it did not seem authentic. It was too "shallow" in its portrayal of child abduction and how it deeply affects parents/adults/society. I began to wonder: Are the creators of this film even parents themselves?! Do they have any personal insights? It was that "off" to me, as if it's just someone's abstract idea of what it is to be a parent and what it would be like to face a parent's worst fear. It just did not build the expected sense of dread, or create enough stress/triggers upon the characters for this moral debate to occur—to torture another human being or not. There really wasn't a point where Keller questioned his actions. He made his choice with little presser, very easily, very quickly. Plus, there really wasn't any major push back by other characters, only a little from the parents of the other missing girl. They were way too passive. Keller's wife could have added much to this film, instead she's pretty much absent. I view her as a missed dramatic opportunity. Plus that bad beginning... I felt it could have started at a different point in the story, the premise set up is already known. So perhaps it could have begun with the two little girls already abducted, seen okay, but clutching onto each other in fear, looking at someone looming off screen. Get the audience to be absolutely emotionally invested in those girls right away. Get us to care. We hardly see them in this film. We may not condone Keller's actions, but get us to sympathize/empathize with him. That way after all the reveals we feel guilt for what he's done. The inciting incident could have been the news that the first suspect is being released. Keller and/or both sets of parents are then so distraught/angry by the news, they debate/argue about kidnapping the suspect to get answers themselves. And then the debate of the film begins... Anyway, the actions of Keller seem so illogical, even as a father wanting to know where his missing daughter is. As Detective Loki continues on with his investigation, making different connections, finding other thrown-in clues, suspects, it made Keller seem even more illogical and his story line tiresome—what's the point here, again? I think they could have done a better job building tension, and then pull that huge moral rug out from under Keller. There could have been this huge moment. Again, just my two cents. ;)

RB - the protagonist confidence slowly disappears, she's breaking down - maybe I'm wrong - I enjoyed the movie - Happy Father's Day to all the dads

William, I'd like to add (in my lame defense, LOL!) that personal taste is also a factor. Sicario is just not something I would naturally gravitate towards, so Emily Blunt's character did spark my interest. And knowing that she's passive kind of changes things for me (a passive protagonist is a story issue.). And, sorry, but we all make decisions about whether we're going to watch a film or not. We generally choose genres/subjects we like, the title may spark our interest, the story premise, the logline, the cast, the writer, the director, a trailer, a poster, the hype about a film, etc... You certainly don't have to read critics reviews to make a decision. I prefer to make my own decisions, form my own opinion, as I'm sure you do. To each their own! :)

Prisoner's budget was $46 mil. made $122 mil. I'm sure everyone's happy. We should be so lucky. Peace.

While I appreciate that "Prisoners" did well at the box office, we're breaking down the structure and talking about the story. Did you feel the structure/story worked for you, Jorge? :)

Character wise, I like Hugh Jackman's character and what he did with it, considering what you said about his character. Maybe like you said, it's a matter of taste. So I agree with you, Beth, when you say Sicario is not a film you would enjoy, me neither. Don't care for that type of stories, even if a favorite actor was in it.

Don't see it, Vince. Everything happens to her, not by her. Don't think she came in with a world of confidence. But, hey, one man's opinion.

She was insecure I worded it wrong - they just broke her down even more - Stage 32 I love this sight - love the feedback and discussions

The word best describes Sicario, manipulation - Del toro just used everyone (Revenge)

The dirty cop was hired by the cartel because when Blunt busted the women at the bank ( money Lauder ) the FBi froze the cartel money and Emily blunt was seen on the bank's video, security tapes - cartel wanted revenge they hired the cop - Del toro was not a lawyer he was a hitman for the Columbians hired by the CIA. Dan you have watch the movie again you are way off