Clumsy storytelling that ultimately ruins a potentially good movie

Rating: 5/10 (3 October 2013)

I had no expectations of this movie, as I was dragged along to see it by a mate with a Jake Gyllenhaal fixation, but was pleasantly surprised to find it was a bleak-seeming action/drama with Hugh Jackman too, who's generally excellent in everything he's in. The first 30 minutes or so of the movie were really promising. I liked the set-up of the 2 cozy families in their suburban idyll sharing a thanksgiving meal and discovering, to their horror, their kids had somehow gone missing. That part felt very real, very "based on a true story" and had me on the edge of my seat. As the film went on though, the clunky writing and flabby storytelling started to lose my interest.
#1. My first big problem came with the utterly implausible discovery of the body in the pedophile priest's basement. First of all, Gyllenhaal's decision to move the freezer based on the flex being dangerously stretched, just seemed...dumb. Why would he care if the guy stretches his flex? It didn't seem from his reaction ("drunks!") that he thought the freezer was hiding something, and yet he opts to shove the big heavy thing closer to the socket because presumably it bothers him. Then - whoa - there's a door there, and whoa it's a big cellar (which is not that weird really), and now - whoa - look a body!
#2. And next came a great big WHY? He's a pedophile catholic priest so why was he SO outraged that a man might kill kids. He abuses children but is still so horrified by a killer that he opts to kill the guy who's (again...utterly improbably) has come to him for confession, but not so horrified that he tells ANYONE the guy's story? Or attempts to find out if it's true before he offs him? Instead he just stuffs the body in the basement and drinks a lot. Hmm.
#3. My next problem was the biggest and clumsiest of the plot points. Gyllenhaal finds a body and hears a weird-ass tale about child murders (and presumably there's a not a lot of those locally), but despite his incredible intellect and ability to make connections, he doesn't spot the REALLY ODD MAZE NECKLACE on the body until the drawing falls conveniently from his desk alongside it, and make the connection between the two.
#4. Why is escaped and presumably traumatized kidnap victim Bob stealing children's clothes, covering them in pig's blood and putting them in boxes full of snakes? It would make sense if he was somehow part of the cover-up, or working for Alex's aunt, but he's not. So for some reason known only to himself he's stealing clothes and making it seem like Anna and Joy are dead when they're not. Presumably because he's traumatized. Or just mental. But either way, it's not really explained, it's just a great big red herring that confuses everything.
#5. What is the significance of Keller's dad's suicide? Because if there is no significance, why show Loki reading about it as if it's important? Presumably (again) it's so he can find out that the building that Keller's going to is where his dad died - but so what? Why is it important, other than to cloud the waters and confuse the audience even more. Was Keller connected to his father's suicide, why was no note found...all questions we have no need to ask.
#6. WTF is this all maze rubbish? Right from the poster we're led to expect some kind of maze to appear. The serial killer wears a necklace with a maze on it, Alex says "they're in the maze", Bob is obsessed with drawing mazes, so where's the freaking maze man? When Holly gets Keller to back the car up we think "FINALLY! HERE'S THE MAZE!!! But there's no maze down there, just a big deep hole full of old sneakers and dead snakes. No maze, not even a sniff of one. The only maze-related thing as it turns out, is a puzzle book that Leo forces the kids to do while they're kidnapped, presumably traumatizing them with their inability to solve simple puzzles. It might just as well have been Sudoku really, but that might have looked weird on a necklace...
#7. And finally, the pointless sub-plot. Just WHAT is the purpose and meaning behind Keller's kidnap and torture of Alex? It has no real purpose other than to provide a weirdly amoral counterpoint to the other story (which would have been so much better emphasized if we'd seen anything of the girls' captivity), and leaves us confused and kind of weirdly angry with the guy. Alex is an innocent child and Keller has tortured him almost to death, so what does that make him? A villain? An anti-hero? A misguided vigilante? No-one seems to care if we know, so we end up drawing no conclusion at all and Keller ends up as a shapeless figure that we ultimately care little about.
Ultimately my feeling was that this could have been a good film, if only someone with experience and a keen eye had been brought in to work on the script and iron out the many flaws. The cinematography and the score was great, and it's a testament to the director and actors that the movie was still highly watchable despite the glaring plot holes and confusing storytelling, but on the whole it was a disappointing and frustrating experience and not one I'd recommend.