Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  Prisoners  >  Reviews  >

Eric Eisenberg’s “Prisoners” Is Full of Synonyms but Not Much Else

In response to Eric Eisenberg’s 836‑word review of Prisoners on

By ,

Eric Eisenberg’s “Prisoners” is every bit as uninspired as its title might suggest. And to couple with that, its delivery is every bit as insipid as you would expect, but secretly hoped against.

There are many words like “beautiful,” “captivating” and “awe-inspiring” thrown around, but in the end, this excess of adjectives doesn’t help to paint any clearer of a picture about the movie. Criticism doesn’t succeed by throwing around compliments, it succeeds by explaining why a film works on several different levels and that is not done adequately here.

Continuing in his tradition of overstating things to the point of banality, Eisenberg’s opts against including an argument for why the film fails or succeeds, and chooses instead to list all the good things about the film. They are systematically rattled off like some automatic ticker that reads of pros and cons ad infinitum, only this one only has pros.

If you feel like having the movie spoiled for you then look no further. This extended synopsis carefully lays out the groundwork for every character and essentially reveals the fate of the villain in the film.

There really is no excuse for such an atrociously written review. Eisenberg’s “Prisoners” will have many a reader begging for a prison break.    

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation