Review: Panic Room 328
To be fair, this is a smart, high-end movie in some ways. The camera shots are especially skillful, the film moves like a rocket, Jodie Foster is her intense, tough and vulnerable self. Foster plays a newly-divorced (her husband was loaded) mom with an angst-ridden teen-aged daughter Sarah (Kristin Stewart). She's still in shock at his sudden affair. The kid is appropriately sullen and adorable. The townhouse they have just purchased has a secret "panic room" shrouded in steel with its own vault-like door, life support systems specifically built by the rich and paranoid previous owner to give him shelter against thieves and home invaders. The room has three-inch steel all around it, and supplies of food and drink. It also has its own tele-communications system and a video monitors to scan the house. Unbeknownst to the new occupants, it also has millions of dollars hidden away in the floor, something known to three thieves -- Forest Whitaker (the bad guy with a big heart); Jared Leto (the hyper and incompetent jerk); and Dwight Yoakum (the vicious psycopath who kills and tortures for the hell of it.
The thieves know there's money hidden away. They enter the house thinking it's still vacant. But the movie never explains why they don't just leave and come back another time once they found out there are people inside.
In the movie's best and early creepy moments, Foster puts her kid to bed, then gets up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom. Glancing at her video monitors she becomes aware that people are in her house. She grabs her daughter and hauls her into their retreat just a step ahead of the onrushing bad guys. But once inside, nothing seems to go right. It seems that the room is highly vulnerable to being disabled (Whitaker is a "panic room" designer); the super-secret phone doesn't work, the ventilation system is hardly self-contained, and -- here is where Hollywood movies just can't contain themselves -- Foster's daughter starts slipping into a diabetic seizure almost instantly. They gotta get out or the kid will die. This is the best plotting in the film, the growing tension and confusion over who really is trapped and who isn't.
Techies will be instantly frustrated at the pretzel-like turns the movie has to take to make its premise fly. In technological terms, there is no question the world can design a steel reinforced room that will hold off three men armed with nothing more than a pistol and some drills for one night. And no safe room would fail to have a Net connection (this one doesn't); a working cell phone or some secure means of communicating with the outside world. Like, say a silent alarm? (Duh). This "panic room" seems to have been conceived for the 50's, not the 21st century. Barring any of those things, how about an old-fashioned weapon. Sure, it gets tense in there, but mostly you think about the swell lawsuit Foster will have against the dummies who built the room once she gets out.
Panic Room is a nice idea, and it has some genuinely creepy moments. The premise (especially these days) of an absolutely safe retreat within a home is interesting. Director David Fincher does some remarkable camerawork. Near the beginning of the movie, there's an astonishing camera shot that goes down through the house, through the kitchen and out into the front door keyhole.
But the plot isn't plausible or disciplined. There are way too many improbable twists and turns. The bad guys are all stereotypes. Whitaker's thief is heroic. It doesn't make sense to like the villain more than the edgy heroine. Yoakum's psycho sparks all sorts of gore and mayhem that makes no sense, distracts from the movie's taut opening and style, and leads to a loopy and irritating ending.
Yes, technology is never fail-safe and those of us who are Americans tend to believe too often that it is, but this isn't a social science lecture, it's a thriller. It ought to make some sense, and this movie doesn't and that gets in the way. The best thing about Panic Room are a handful of creepy moments and Fincher's directing skills, which are richly showcased. If only the writers had kept up.
A week late btw (Score:1, Insightful)
The movie came out last weekend, if you guys wanted to do a review of it, shouldn't it have come out a little earlier than on the next sunday morning?
Re:A week late btw (Score:1)
As a professional site now we should expect some form of grammer, spelling and accuracy in the reporting.
As for Jon Katz, wow, it's been a long time since I've read one of his reviews. I usually have my slashdot set up to ignore his postings....
Re:A week late btw (Score:1)
i glazed this review as soon as i read the "technology won't save us from everything" spiel.
Re:A week late btw (Score:1)
Hey, I've seen alot of people get paid alot of money to do some very bad work. Quality isn't something you can equate with Professional anymore. Quality is now considered to be the mark of Mastery.
There was a time when people were apprenticed, and they learned and were paid, but they were not professionals. When they attained a level of quality, they became professionals. When they obtained superior quality, they became Masters.
You can still find this in a few places, but there are some things we have lost.
Not that I think the review was bad; I just had a point to make about quality. : )
Re:A week late btw (Score:2)
Maybe not now...
but it used to be
Re:A week late btw (Score:3, Funny)
Let's see... (Score:1, Funny)
another review (Score:5, Informative)
Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
basicly what katz says is:
Hollywood plots are full of cliches;
Hollywood has absolutely no clue about technology.
Well done katz.
Did you expect anything else? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an action movie, they are all like that.
Oh, ObSlashdotBash: I guess the MPAA is worth supporting today?
By people with agendas (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, bad guys generally DON'T practice at the target range. B-) But the rest is right on.
These (the movie makers) are also the people with agendas to push and a message to get across:
1) Guns are useless for defense. Nobody but a lawman or body-builder can use them successfully, except maybe for a counter-attack against a bad guy at the end of a long angst-ridden battle. Small, weak, disabled, or female people can never use them competently as an "equalizer". Or if somehow they do use them that way it leads to a fate-worse-than-rape. So don't buy one, don't take a class, don't practice, don't learn how they REALLY work. Don't bother trying.
2) Nothing an ORDINARY person can do - no weapon, no tech, no strategy, no martial art - will protect you from the bad guys. Even a lifetime of practice for EXTRAordinary people or top-of-the-line stuff inhereted from someone very rich (i.e. that YOU can't afford and can only get hold of by accident) isn't good enough - or just barely suffices when combined with superhuman effort, jackpot-level luck, and after enough suffering that you'll be a post-traumatic basket case when it's over. So don't bother trying.
3) Anything you do to try to prepare makes things worse. So don't bother trying.
Pull your own teeth, claws, and horns. Depend on the authorities, like good little sheep, and die with dignity if they aren't around to protect you from the wolves.
1) is why there's no gun handy. It was never an option, so it never enters the the plot line - or (they hope) the viewer's mind.
2) is why everything fails. (But it DOES make for a movie-length piece of "dramatic conflict".)
3) is the main difference between mainstream and SF/Fantasy art. The latter has the conventional messages: "You can fix or improve anything by thought and directed effort." or "Here's how it can break beyond repair if you let it slide early on." This is why SF so rarely makes it to the Silver Screen in viewable form. Hollywood really doesn't "get it" because the internal structure is different from - and opposed to - the core values of the forms of drama they understand.
Re:By people with agendas (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's less about agendas and more about entertainment. Let's imagine your points (and Katz's) integrated into Panic Room.
Thieves break in.
Jodie rushes into panic room and sets off silent alarms and calls police (BTW, the no phone line issue is explained in the plot).
Properly trained to use a handgun, Jodie expertly blasts the perps as they come into the darkened room.
Police arrive, credits roll.
Wow, well that sure was worth my $6.50! Ever wonder why your life isn't as exciting as the movies? Because life does not typically have the same number of hurdles that a typical 2 hour film does. And that's why we go see them. To see a NON-REALISTIC wolrd.
And to those that post the "oh so we like MPAA today" posts, I never aggreed to ban movies from my life - even if I did, it would have zero impact on the MPAA. Without a concerted, large-scale and PUBLICISED effort, no one would even notice. And even then, I think I love movies too much to participate.
matt
Re:By people with agendas (Score:2)
Gosh, I guess upping the intelligence of the bad guys to the level of dealing with someone competent in protecting themselves is out of the question for you then? Keeping all the characters stupid is not the only option a screen writer has!
One reasonable example, The Matrix. Neither protagonist nor antagonist needed to be "dumbed" down to fit the plot. In fact, both sides got smarter through the movie, increasing the tension in the plot.
Dumbing down the characters to fit a plot is one of the worst things that can happen to a story line, though it's one of the easier ways out for boiler plate script writing. This single aspect alone explains much of the total, and complete crap that has been hitting the theaters for the last couple of years.
Having not yet seen "Panic Room", I can only fill in from the Katz review here. Taking this from where you started, what if Ms. Foster's character had a weapon and the room was put together in a competent manner? We'd need smarter bad guys! Maybe they'd go away for a while then come back. There's a dozen ways I could think of at the moment that these antagonists could have been portrayed to deal with those defenses to equal things out.
You really don't need idiocy in order to make a film entertaining. It's only required to keep less than adequate screen writers employed.
Re:By people with agendas (Score:2, Insightful)
Jodie Foster's character didn't bother to connect the phone line that only works in one room of her house on the very first day she moved in. In retrospect, not the best choice, but hardly dumb.
The thieves were suprised that the Jodie and her kid moved in sooner than they thought, but they were working on a deadline and they knew that they were far better off trying to rob them while the phone line in the panic room was still not connected than they would be coming back later after Jodie had the security features 100% hooked up. And even so, the smartest of the thieves still wanted to walk out when he saw that there were people living in the house, but was talked into staying by the other thieves.
Jodie didn't have a gun? Many Americans own guns, but most do not. So it was pretty realistic to make her character not be a gun owner.
And both sides in this movie had to improvise quickly and intelligently. Using the panic room's ventilation system took some good thinking and jurry-rigging by the thieves. Jodie's response to this was daring and took quick thinking.
And when characters do make "dumb" mistakes, as people in real life do, they are quick to say "Why didn't we think of that?" when they realise it.
If you are, as you claim to be, impressed by movies where both sides have to be intelligent to out-smart each other, and have to continually change their plans as the other side adapts to them, then I highly recommend that you see "Panic Room".
Re:By people with agendas (Score:2)
I can't agree.
If it WASN'T agenda driven, they could have explained the lack of a gun as easily as the lack of a phone and a silent alarm.
A) The previous owner took his gun with him and the newbies just moved in and hadn't replaced it. (Just show the protagonists looking for a gun and finding the empty storage slot - canned food and tools still in place, an obvious gun rack that's empty. It only takes a moment to establish. Or use it for a extra drama: She finds the gun storage, opens it, and finds it empty. Extra moment of cursing and freakout. Additional helplessness, futility, and angst.)
B) For the opposite agenda: If this was New York City, even the rich can't get guns. (Or if it was upstate, set it in Massachusetts instead. Same story statewide.) Kid asks mommy why all this saferoom and no gun. Mommy explains that in this place they've just moved to nobody can have one.
But the anti-gun (and anti-tech) bias of the movie-making establishment is well documented. So my bet is that's the explanation. (And the screenplay DOES match anti-gun bias better than a neutral or pro-gun stance.)
Re:Did you expect anything else? (Score:2)
Wow... I love how everybody's jumped on the "Hollywood sucks" bandwagon.
While I grant that yes, Hollywood does have a formula and on the most part it's stupid, this movie I had hopes for...
First of all, it's David Fincher, someone who's been known to avoid Hollywood cliche's and use high-quality scripts *coughSevencoughFightClubcough*.
Actually, well, that was the only thing this movie had going for it for me... But I guess I'll have to go see it and just try and enjoy it... After all, I haven't seen a Fincher movie I haven't liked thus far... first time for everything maybe?
Re:Did you expect anything else? (Score:2)
The technology of the room (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously if it were entirely modern, up to date and totally self contained, there wouldn't be much of a movie here. I think that the lack of a working phone in the room was explained quite well - It simply was never activated at the phone company by the new tenants.
Without gettign caught up on the technology of this film, it was a pretty rare thing these days,
a film that actually has some very suspenseful moments.
Re:The technology of the room (Score:1, Informative)
As for security systems closed contacts for panic buttons have been around for years (can run DSL over them in town to
Secure ventilation her need to have a vent somewhere normal ventilation and a supply of gas masks would make more sence.
Now as for meds wouldent you have a goodly supply of any medications in the safe room and something on par with a ships first aid kit except the radio phone to call a surgen to walk you through an operations (ok maybe not dependant on how much you distrust the local PD from doing there job)
And finaly physical structure steel or for cost reinforced concreat would seem to the the wall of choice nice and thick anything over 8-12 inches and there isnt a man portable wet saw that could get through it with access to only one side. The ONLY place that this would make much sence to be would be sharing at least one wall with the foundation as it's to heavy to be remodled into a house for load (thats a lot of contreat or steel)
Even the only bomb shelters of the 50's would have been at least brick and have a nice heavy steel door and protected ventilation enough to protect you from the house buring down around you.
This is all with me not seeing the movie about a house with obviously outdated and origionaly inaquit security I'd love to know what the security camras were for at least some motion detection on those feeds or something being able to see people isn't very usefull while sleeping unless you want to pay a guard to watch them.
Facilities in the Panic room (Score:2, Funny)
I didn't see the movie, but did she get a chance to pee before going into the panic room? If not, I sure hope there was a toilet (or at least a pickle jar) in there.
oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:5, Interesting)
Now I read this, having seen the movie - and wow - did he sleep through it?
the reason the theives don't leave right away is that they need the money based on a deadline - Leto is one of the kids of the deceased rich guy and he has his reasons for needing the money, as does Forrest's character - it is explained in the movie.
the cell phone in the movie doesn't work in the panic room, which is true to life due to the shielding. and it had a phone, she just didn't get it hooked up. a net connection is a stupid thing to rant about it lacking since it isn't clear when this is set - either way, if she didn't hook up the phone, there is no way she would know how to hook up the net.
none of this really matters since he is ranting about a movie where the whole point is the Hitchcock like terror and suspense, not the petty details that only a geek would notice - so the ventalation is shared with the house - who cares?!
as for the "great camerawork" that was CG. fincher started using that in Fight Club and went on to do it in here heavily (which would explain how the camera passes through the wooden bannisters and through the handle of a coffee pot).
anyway, *note to self* ignore Jon Katz from now on - the guy is annoying and waste of time.
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the "great camerawork" as soon as the camera flew throught bannister I spent the rest of the movie looking for CG and all the shots around the house were CG and were not that well done, the CG edges did not look like the real edges they tried to cover that up by making all the fly around parts CG but it just pointed out to me that they all looked fake. If you are going to do this you need to hire ILM they are the only ones that I see do this stuff right.
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to hunt for CG stuff in movies all the time and then sit back and say "BAH! that is poorly done!" - then I interned at a special effects house and saw that many things that look fake are the normal things - and the CG stuff is there and you don't notice it...
so while I appreciate what you are saying - I thought I'd add that. and ILM aren't as great as they used to be - that business involves a lot of the same people bouncing around from one company to another and back again - very incestuous (sp?).
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:2)
>>which are some of the best in the industry.
Actually, I'd bet you my next pay check that the flying camera stuff was done by Buf. They did the same work in Fight Club --- kitchen flythru and explosion, flying camera shots thru the parking garages, the slow mo 'sex scene'.
Pound per pound, I'd rate Buf as probably the best effects house in the business.
http://www.buf.fr
(argumentative of course. Places like SPIW, DD and ILM do killer work, but they are huge companies, while Buf is usually less than a dozen people and do really innovative stuff.)
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:1)
thanks for pointing it out...
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:2)
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:2)
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:2)
And i've seen the DVD commentary, and none of the IKEA stuff is CGI other than the product captions - I'll bet you $100
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:2)
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:1)
(I'm agreeing with you :)):
Its absurd to think that the phone would work the first night, it has to be hooked up, they even say in the movie that it has to activated via the security service.
Secondly, the movie contained none of those "Why the hell arn't you running!!" scenes that annoy the hell out of me (an I imagine a lot of people) When they needed suspense they did slow motion, the movie was timed really well.
There were only two things that I found kinda dumb (but it was just a movie!):
1. The fact that they had access to the houses main phone line from the P.R. If it was self contained those wires wouldn't run anywhere near that room.
2: The fact that they "bad guys" could pump gas into the room.
Regardless, the movie was awesome and I suggest anyone who has not seen it to see it. Its one thing to bitch about technical issues in a computer tech movie (Hackers, Swordfish) its completely another to bitch about it in a suspense film.
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:2, Funny)
If anyone hasn't noticed by now, it's a complete waste of time to read anything writen by him. I don't know why he writes for slashdot at all. Anyone who ever defends him haven't read a single peice he's writen. It's just a simple fact. Hell, monkeys with half a brain could understand this simple movie and yet he has no clue.
Anyone want to start a petition to have him perminantly censored?
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:1)
parent: +1 Insightful (Score:2)
I'm glad that it took Katz a week to write this, we just saw it last night.
Another reason they didn't leave right away was to get the security tapes (they check for them before attacking the safe).
The mainline phone wiring isn't so unbelievable, but it being within arms reach of the room is.
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz (Score:2)
I had wondered, would it have been possible to use the landline phone's wires to fashion a crude antenna extension to attach to the cell phone with its plastic case removed? Would having that antenna hang out the pipe achievbed a signal?
a net connection is a stupid thing to rant about it lacking since it isn't clear when this is set
In one scene the camera pans passed a 900MHz cordless phone box as Whittakker is realizing that Junior probably screwed up cutting the phone line, so that sets the movie fairly recently. Still, I agree that any net connection could've been just as easily 'not connected' as that second phone line.
so the ventalation is shared with the house - who cares?!
Well, I care as that is a fairly bad oversight for a panic room. However, there is nothing that states the ventilation is attached to the rest of the house -- only that its duct work was outside of the panic room's walls (which is probably still an oversight.) In fact, the duct work probably wasn't connected because the propane would've also leaked into the master bedroom.
*note to self* ignore Jon Katz from now on - the guy is annoying and waste of time.
Nah, he gives you a chance to gain karma!
Fancy Camerawork? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fancy Camerawork? (Score:1)
BBSpot Reviewed the Trailer (Score:2)
Panic Room Trailer Review [bbspot.com]
Hmm, badly overhyped this one... (Score:1)
One strange thing I find is that they are hyping the fact they couldn't get Nicole Kidman so they got their second resort Jodie Foster. Sounds like all spin to me to help a movie they are really worried about. Maybe this is just another case of Slashdot selling out to the big movie studios, but it does seem kinda irrelevant to be talking about this movie just because it has some premise of having technically advanced themes. Did Sandra Bullock in the boxoffice blockbuster "The Net" get this much attention? Jodie may be good but come on, the fact that this review has appeared here just looks like Katz buying into the Hollywood hype. Sounds like "oooh, shiny!" syndrome again.
Ack! Nicole Kidman? (Score:1)
Nicole Kidman? Ye Gods. If they wanted her it must be awful. Am I the only one who can now use Kidman as a movie barometer? She's a guide to bad films all by herself. I can't think of a single movie she's been in that didn't bore me to tears. Eyes Wide Shut? Truly awful. Moulin Rouge? A great soundtrack. Just turn off your TV or get the CD. Batman Forever, The Peacemaker, Practical Magic, Days of Thunder. Need I say more?
Re:Ack! Nicole Kidman? (Score:1)
Re:Ack! Nicole Kidman? (Score:1)
Re:Hmm, badly overhyped this one... (Score:1)
http://www.davidfincher.net/feature0001.html
Sorry, I can't be bothered to link
The Thieves Don't Leave and Come Back BECAUSE... (Score:2)
Re:The Thieves Don't Leave and Come Back BECAUSE.. (Score:1)
And as for why they didn't just leave and come back, Forest Whitaker mentions near the beginning that their faces would be on tape, thanks to all the camers in the house. Sure they could have run, and probably would have gotten away with it, but they didn't know that.
Looks alot like Filthy? (Score:1)
From Filthy:
"Jared Leto is a spoiled (and annoying), hotheaded rich kid trying to steal more than his share of his inheritance. Forrest Whitaker is--once again--the sensitive bad guy with a heart of gold. And hillbilly crooner Dwight Yoakam is the cold-as-ice killer who'll do anything for the money."
Seems like Filthy and Katz said nearly the same thing, only Filthy said it about a week ago, and in a far more entertaining fashion. If you don't mind reading through a bit of a story, and many obscenities, read Filthy's reviews insted.
Sorry for the semi-troll, but in this post-9/11-columbine-tech-bubble-collapse-armagged
What really happened. (Score:1)
Not quite. They didn't even know that people had moved into the house yet. They were after something left in the house by the previous owner.
Any more details would spoil the film for anyone who still wants to see it.
I actually agree with Ebert on this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
-Sam
Did Katz even watch this movie? (maybe spoilers) (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it does. Robber A explains to Robber B that Robber C will keep an eye on Mom and The Kid while they get the stuff out of the panic room. It was a minor plot point; maybe Katz went to the WC?
It seems that the room is highly vulnerable to being disabled (Whitaker is a "panic room" designer);
Um, that's "panic room installer." The difference is that the designer would probably make more money and have less incentive to steal...
the super-secret phone doesn't work,
That's a major plot point. Go wacth the movie again.
And no safe room would fail to have a Net connection (this one doesn't); a working cell phone or some secure means of communicating with the outside world. Like, say a silent alarm?
Didn't you mention this before? Did you pay the same attention to earlier parts of your review as you did the movie? Mr Katz, this is a major plot point in the movie and is well explained. Besides, if the phone did work, how long would this movie have been? 30 minutes?
Barring any of those things, how about an old-fashioned weapon.
Why? The phone is supposed to work. But since it doesn't we have what we call a "movie"
but this isn't a social science lecture, it's a thriller. It ought to make some sense, and this movie doesn't and that gets in the way.
If you wonder how they eat and breathe and other science facts, then repeat to yourself "It's just a show. I should really just relax."
So what would you suggest? (Score:2, Interesting)
My point here, is that this move I think would be considered a thriller. This is not a genre that usually has airtight stories (although there are exceptions like the sixth sense).
So here are the good parts, since you didn't bother to mention them. First, the movie goes very quickly. It definitely keeps you on the edge of your seat. Its nearly always suspensful, but its more of a mid-level suspense that makes it exciting. All the actors were great, I think. And the ending is pretty good.
As with most movies, if you look for every little problem you wont enjoy it. If you go to enjoy the movie and watch it instead of analyzing it, you will really like it.
Re:So what would you suggest? (Score:1)
Re:So what would you suggest? (Score:2)
This [thrillers] is not a genre that usually has airtight stories (although there are exceptions like the sixth sense).
[eyes rolling] Yeah, movies about ghosts are so airtight. [/eyes rolling]
What I would suggest (Score:2)
Sorry hon, I was born with this brain built-in and it's here to stay.
When Room Was Built (Score:1)
Woooosh! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Woooosh! (Score:1)
I wonder what reason they had for not hiring a technology director or somesuch silly title to maintain realism - they have continuity editors for a similar purose. Did they consciously say "Yeah, we know its improbable, but we need it to push the plot!" ? Or did it just not occur to them?
Re:Woooosh! (Score:2)
I'm actually surprised there was even food or anything in there that wasn't bolted down, typically, when you move out of house, you take everything of value. That would completely explain the lack of a gun, no one is going to transfer the ownership of a gun with the ownership of a house -- it's too valuable, and too much of a liability risk, especially if you don't tell people it's there.
For those who say it was too easy to compromise the room -- Forrest Whittaker designed it. He even knew the passcodes! It would be like having your ex-systems administrator come back six months later with the passwords unchanged and expecting your security to hold. No matter how secure it is, he knows every flaw, every back door.
Was it supposed to be a horror? (Score:1)
Amusing ... (Score:2, Funny)
Three Flaws (Score:5, Informative)
SOS (Score:1)
Holding the slide on a handgun (Score:3, Informative)
Try this: hold a gun by its grip in your right hand. Place your left hand over the top of it, with your thumb behind the hammer. Pull the trigger. Scream in pain, as the motion of the slide breaks your thumb, and the ejecting shell casing burns your palm
Actually..... :-)
I do a bit of practical pistol shooting (and no I'm not a redneck nutter)
In practical pistol shooting the more power the ammunition has (Called making "Major"), the more marks you score when hitting the target. (This allows for the fact that more powerful recoil is harder to controal... hence deserves more points).
The power of your ammunition is measured at the start of the contest. .38 Super ....look up this calibre!) holding the slide closed with both thumbs.
During the 'power factor measuring' at World Shoot 10 (held in the UK) members of the South African team would hold the pistol in two hands and brace both thumbs on the slide.
They would then fire there test round (usually 10mm or
Because the slide dosn't open, gas/propellant isn't wasted out of the ejection port and your bullet leaves the gun with even more power. (Course, you then have to work the slide manually to chamber a new carterage).
Don't try this at home though kiddies!
Three Flaws in LOTR (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Three Flaws (Score:2)
Not all that scarce. Otherwise, surely you'd be worried every time you lit a candle in the bathroom?
There was A/C in there. And enough ventilation. And the room was big enough that there was no problem. (Hey, even on MIR, the Russians would occasionally smoke).
I'd be more worried about the toxicity of the gas.
As for the tank flying around like that - they're designed to shoot upwards if they explode.
Simon
Re:Three Flaws (Score:2, Insightful)
If it were me moving in, I would have had a shotgun in the panic room with a couple of vests. Would have made for a much shorter film.
enkidu EOT
Re:Three Flaws (Score:2)
Well, the room is not a closed system. Any oxygen used up in a combustion must be replaced by some outside gas or create a vaccuum. We've already noticed the small pipe near the bottom of the floor, and air will flow back into the room from that. Also, any propane in the ventilation system is going to be combusted and the propane supply was decoupled from the ventilation shaft almost immediately after the explosion, leaving the ventilation shaft free to deliver fresh air once again. Even in the event that all of the available oxygen in the room was used up, it would not take long for fresh oxygen to return -- you could certainly hold your breath that long.
Even sophisticated Fuel-Air-Bombs (which work on exactly this principle) do not kill by depriving people of oxygen.
As far as the propane tank flying around the room -- do you realize how much potential energy is in a filled propane tank? I've seen the aftermath of large propane tank explosions -- both years after and hours after the explosions -- the destruction is incredibly immense. If that small propane tank had exploded, it would have likely killed all three burglers. To get an idea of the potential energy, here's [healthyhome.net] the aftermath of an explosion of a 15lb bottle of nitrous in the trunk of someone's car. That should give you an idea of what a 20lb propane tank can do. There's more than enough energy to fling it around the room -- think about how a rocket works.
Sorry, I just thought the realism of this movie was fairly well done until the "showdown" toward the end of the film. Nothing that happened was phyiscally impossible, and characters didn't typically make inane decisions against type.
Propane (Score:1)
Propane rising??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Both of these issues look like the standard big business marketing technique of suspending reality in order to give customers what they expect. For most of us, our only experience with propane is BBQs and RVs where we generally see it used to generate blue flames for cooking and heating. Think about it. How many people do you know that when shown a yellow propane fire would ask, "Doesn't propane burn blue?"
According to a U.S. Department of Education survey, about one in three Americans is a fucking idiot. Hollywood and other big business seem to like to exploit and reinforce that.
Re:Propane rising??? (Score:3, Informative)
So, if it was natural gas in that tank, then it would have risen.
Grip
Re:Propane rising??? (Score:2)
the active ingredient in antifreeze tastes sweet naturally. they add a bad taste to it because it is also poison naturally... they don't have to add that part!
"frustrated techies" (Score:1)
See, that's where this review totally misses the boat. The best aspect of this movie was the inherent plausibility of the setting and motivations -- not once while watching will you find yourself slapping your forehead at the actions of the characters (except for possibly the 911 call; I suspect that even in NY, a call to 911 won't immediately get you put on hold). It's also some of Jodie Foster's best recent work, in my opinion, and ever since Ghost Dog I've enjoyed Forest Whitaker in any role.
For a far better review, check Ebert's take on it [suntimes.com].
~jeff
My thoughts: (Score:2)
You'd think Jon Katz the writer would have enough respect to know the writer (notice, singular) of the film, David Koepp. If you're going to comment on the writing, you should put some thought into it...
This review, like other Katz reviews, gives the impression that when Katz goes to movies on friday or saturday nights, he comes home and writes an off-the-top-of-his-head review the next morning for slashdot.
Should we be grateful for this? I guess he cares enough to tell us what he thinks, so maybe. But he is often overtly negative. I suppose, as in so many things, we'll decide for ourselves. I'll just put off excluding stories posted by Katz until he bashes the next Coen Brothers' film or starts preaching the gospel... =)
i'm shocked (Score:2)
(oh so slightly tongue in cheek)
Did you watch the movie, dumbass? (Score:5, Insightful)
1.There was no net connnection/silent alarm/phone access to the outside...
Ok, moron, watch the movie, and then pay attention to life as it swoops around you. When you move into a house, you have to CONNECT the telephone. You phone the company, set up an account, honky dory Bob's yer uncle. We all know that. Why do you think she was using her cell phone throughout the movie?
When you move into a house that contains a security system, you ALSO must set that up. You do this SEPARATELY from your phoneline. This is more of an involved process, consisting of setting up security codes, verifcation of identity, lists of familiars, (reachable contacts in case you cannot be reached when alarm sounds). This takes time. Most people are too busy, oh, I don't know...MOVING IN to setup the security system the first night they are there, if in fact there is one included with their home.
Now consider the amount of time added to this if your security system has a telephone line integrated into it. The security company would control this line, not the consumer. The consumer would have no access to it. This is more overhead time, (or as I like to call it, Jon Katz' thinking process).
The movie addresses two times the fact that Jodie foster's phone connectivity wasn't working properly, (the reason she relied on the cellphone in the first place, dumbass), and the fact that she hadn't even CALLED to activate the secondary, _secure_ line. The third time it's addressed is by the actual installer of the room, Forrest Whittaker, wherein he says he made sure to check all room-related invoices to make sure she hadn't setup the secure phone line/security system yet. This also removes her ability to have a net connection out of there. Why a net connection...by the way? So she can order online groceries? Oh, maybe so she can get her daughter's insulin delivered to her within two to four weeks while holed up in the panic room.
Why didn't her cellphones just work? She's in a freaking cement and metal encased tomb.
Regarding the thieves. That is purely subjective, and I respect your being so naive about the subculture of criminals. It's actually rather cute that you have the same introduction that most of the world has to the criminal element in our society...purely constructed by the films and television an books you've read.
Let me shed some light on the subject for you, having consorted with criminals of various sorts for a good portion of my life before changing my direction:
Thieves, like most criminals, are not the super intellectual, uncomfortably clever thinkers Script writers and William Gibson like to make them out as. Hollywood writers and William Gibson are the clever ones (at times). They are almost purely opportunistic. Even when they are not acting on pure situational chance, their motivations are often so compelling that their ability to focus on the task at hand is impaired. (Think "get me my fucking money").
If thieves were so clever, they'd figure out how to make a better income, at a more sustainable rate, less dangerously. Do you honestly believe that thieves walk around with BMW's and Tag Heuer watches, in suits, on cellphones? Get real dumbass. The one's I've known who got flashy are the ones who got robbed and jacked themselves. They stopped being flashy in a hurry.
Criminals didn't all go to a special school that teaches them how to circumvent security systems, and baffle police with their insane ability at being both low on the proverbial totem-pole, AND somehow able to source a connection for plutonium for the meeting they set up with 'the Russians', tomorrow.
It's not like Gone in 60 Seconds where a convicted car thief is allowed to be a Mercedes dealership's point of contact for the sourcing of their lazer cut keys. Riiiight.
The absolute opportunistic nature of criminals is touched upon perfectly in the movie, wherein they knew the valuables were in the house, but they had to wait until no one was in it, and the security system would be down.
The portrayal of thieves being ultra-clever is the actual insult. The propagation of the idea is only ever achieved by the lack contact most people have with criminals, therefore limiting the base of reference and judgement about the idea. Sort of like Scientology.
At no point did they allude to Forrest Whittaker being a career criminal. In fact, they made care to make it sound like he was not such a criminal, and in fact, just doing the crime to generate money for his daughter's custody, if I remember correctly. This obviously explains his reticense at harming either the mother or child in the movie. This point was made abundantly clear, and your misconstrewing it as an attempt to establish his character as heroic is simply a case of your inability to follow a simple dialogue.
It's amazing how you start your review stating all the horrible holes in the movie that will prevent techies from enjoying the movie, (only techies, as we are the only true super-human race...Doctors, lawyers, military or business strategists? Hellz no, us computer techies. That's where all the true intellect is. Besides, we were able to get thru CompSci...that counts for something, right??). However, in your infinite wisdom, you were only able to come up with two potential holes, and both were flawed.
JamesC
Re:Did you watch the movie, dumbass? (Score:2)
Seriously though, where do you get off writing about movies? Are you involved in any way with the movie business? Is your father Sisko or Ebert?
Maybe you should find some other subjects to cover, Jon. Like your ass.
Re:Did you watch the movie, dumbass? (Score:2)
Well Duh! If you don't have a net connection how are you supposed to post an "Ask Slashdot" question to figure out how to get out of the situation?!?
Re:Did you watch the movie, dumbass? (Score:2)
Ask Slashdot: I'm stuck in a panic room and there are criminals in my house. How can I get out?
Responses:
True Security...
If your security system ran OpenBSD, you wouldn't have this problem.
Re: True Security...
yeah...by definition there's no Windows allowed in a panic room.
Imagine...
A beowulf cluster of panic rooms...that'd be cool.
Re: Imagine...
The military already has that...the bomb shelters under the mountains in Colorado.
Too bad you don't have a Microsoft panic room...
...it'd be sure to have a back door.
Re:Did you watch the movie, dumbass? (Score:2)
The guy from "My So Called Life" who played the crazy heir just had bad dialog throughout.
What, you mean the lazy, incompetent druggie who had done nothing his entire life but wait for his dad (or grandfather, or whoever) to die?
Gee, think someone like that might not be the most eloquent speaker in the world?
Although, personally, I didn't find anything wrong with his dialog as given. But then again, I apparantly "got" the character, which you didn't.
When Foster was rooting around for food (or insulin, whatever), the daughter was in the panic room still. No hostage yet. She could have called the cops. The father was dead (presumably, or had he even showed up yet?).
Yes he was around. You clearly don't even remember the movie. He was used as a ruse to get her out of the room in the first place, since she thought Burnham had knocked out Mr. Ski Mask and dragged him down the stairs.
Given that, what are you going to do with the precious few seconds you have? Try and call 911, or QUIETLY sneak downstairs and retrieve the item you NEED to save your daughter's life?
Of course, I doubt you have kids, have close friends who have kids, or have been thinking about having kids. So this whole concept of protect-your-children-at-all-costs doesn't make any sense to you yet.
Also, didn't they "lock her in" by screwing in all the doors?
Again, you didn't even bother watching the movie. The back doors were screwed shut. The windows had bars on them. The front door, on the other hand, was merely barricaded shut. This was clearly shown.
Other people mentioned all the propane shit, no need to repeat that
This is the one logic hole that I'll give you. But, frankly, relatively few people know that propane is heavier than air. Yes, it was innacurate. If you're going to eliminate every movie, book, or other entertainment that makes factual errors, you're going to be watching/reading, well, pretty much nothing.
The movie was so unplausable and also so unfunny, it really lost its entertainment value far too early
Shrug. I enjoyed it up until the very end. The end was weak, however, and left too many questions unanswered.
Counterattack (Score:2, Insightful)
A net connection, hmm... (Score:2)
Wow, a net connection! You could post to Slashdot that your house was broken into. Then you'd get a whole bunch of flames, a few insightful posts, and a couple of goat sex trolls.
Yep, that'd help a whole lot. :^)
Re:A net connection, hmm... (Score:2)
Re:A net connection, hmm... (Score:2)
Far better to depend on cookbook chemistry. (What, your shelter doesn't have ammonia and iodine? Didn't you read Farnham's Freehold?) If all else fails, use Tom Cruise missles.
Cell Phone? (Score:2)
A Working cell phone. In the middle of a room surrounded by solid steel..
*BBBWHAHAHAHHHAHA*
Yer funny John..
Re:Cell Phone? (Score:2)
Ebert and Roeper (Score:2)
Ebert and Roeper [formerly Siskel and Ebert] [go.com] gave it two thumbs up .
Die Hard in a Closet... (Score:2)
Our plucky hero, unarmed and trapped inside a building/bus/aircraft carrier full of bad guys must find cunning/gutsy ways to fight back and survive.
Now, some of the movies influenced by Die Hard were good movies (Die Hard on a bus == Speed, Die Hard on a plane == Air Force One), but the formula still gets old after a while.
Couple that with the fact that David Fincher is a director I can very much take or leave, and I think I'll wait for DVD.
Jon Acheson
A more interesting version (Score:2)
Eat a dick, guess what? Are you listening to my questions? Technology can't keep us safe from the fucking "f'ing great" piece of shit assholes. Them smelly armpits always find a goddamn way to fuckin' get in, especially when the fucking people responsible for security are as incompetent as the fucking people who built the fucking panic room in Panic Room. Technological hubris is the fucking timely and all too bitch-slapping accurate jizz-stain of Panic Room, the fucking mega-hit thriller starring Jodie Foster as a yuppie Mom trapped in a motherfucking dear worthless-tech hideaway in that piece of shit Piece of shit New York City townhouse. I should neglect your anus. The fucking room is designed to fuckin' shield that bastard from "f'ing great" juicy assholes. Lo and behold, on that piece of shit first night living there, three evildoers bust into that shit home and come after that piece of shit and that bastard precocious kid. The fucking technology unravels almost as quickly as the fucking plot. What's wrong with you? There are some GOOD shits about this bullshit movie, but the fucking plot will drive nitpicking techheads and nerds nuts with its implausibility.
To fuckin' be fair, this bullshit is a smart, high-end movie in some ways. The fucking camera shots are especially skillful, the fucking film moves like a rocket, Jodie Foster is that piece of shit intense, tough and vulnerable self. Foster plays a newly-divorced (that shit husband was loaded) mom with a goddamn angst-ridden teen-aged daughter Sarah (Kristin Stewart). I'm drunk. She's still in shock at that bastard's sudden affair. You are a pussy. The fucking kid is appropriately sullen and adorable. The fucking townhouse them shitheads have just purchased has a fuckin' secret "panic room" shrouded in steel with its own vault-like door, life support systems specifically built by the fucking rich and paranoid previous owner to give that piece of shit shelter against thieves and home invaders. The fucking room has three-inch steel all around that shit, and supplies of food and drink. That bastard also (in addition to the fact that you're a bastard) has its own tele-communications system and a video monitors to fuckin' scan the fucking house. I shit bigger'n you. Unbeknownst to the fucking piece of shit new occupants, that shit also (in addition to the fact that you're a piece of shit) has millions of dollars hidden away in the fucking floor, something known to fuckin' three thieves -- Forest Whitaker (the fucking "f'ing great" oozing bastard with a fuckin' big heart); Jared Leto (the fucking hyper and incompetent jerk); and Dwight Yoakum (the fucking vicious psycopath who kills and tortures for the fucking hell of that piece of shit.
The fucking thieves know there's drug money hidden away. Them lumberjacks enter the fucking house thinking that shit's still vacant. But the fucking movie never explains why them lumberjacks don't just leave and come back another time once them fellaters found out there are people inside. You are a burnified cream-filled bitch.
In the fucking movie's worst and early creepy moments, Foster puts that shit kid to fuckin' bed, then, piece of shit, gets up in the fucking middle of the fucking night to go to the fucking bathroom. Listen to what I'm saying. Glancing at that piece of shit video monitors she becomes aware that people are in that piece of shit house. You are a fuckhead. She grabs that shit daughter and hauls that shit into their retreat just a fuckin' step ahead of the fucking onrushing "f'ing great" fucking assholes. Get ready for pain. But once inside, nothing seems to go right. Goddamn, you are a pussy. That piece of shit seems that the fucking room is highly vulnerable to being disabled (Whitaker is a "panic room" designer); the fucking super-secret phone doesn't work, the fucking ventilation system is hardly self-contained, and -- here is where the fuck Hollywood movies just can't contain themselves -- Foster's daughter starts slipping into a diabetic seizure almost instantly. Them jizzers gotta get out or the fucking kid will die. Wanna burn? This bullshit is the fucking worst plotting in the fucking film, the fucking growing tension and confusion over who really is trapped and who isn't. You are a fuck.
Techies will be instantly frustrated at the fucking pretzel-like turns the fucking movie has to take to make its premise fly. I should ream your neck. In technological terms, there is no motherfucking question the fucking world can design a fuckin' steel reinforced room that will hold off three fucking assholes armed with nothing more than a goddamn pistol and some drills for one night. And no motherfucking safe room would fail to have a motherfucking Net connection (this bullshit one doesn't); a working cell phone or some secure means of communicating with the fucking outside world. Like, say a motherfucking silent alarm? SHIT- That's the goddamn answer for you.- Shit on a stick. (Duh). Caw caw! The ravens are singing, you are a pussy. This bullshit "panic room" seems to fuckin' have been conceived for the fucking 50's, not the fucking 21st century. Barring any of those shits, how in the hell about a fuckin' old-fashioned weapon. Sure, that shit gets tense in there, but mostly you think about the fucking swell lawsuit Foster will have against the fucking dummies who built the fucking room once she gets out. You are a fuckhead.
Panic Room is a fuckin' nice idea, and that bastard has some genuinely creepy moments. You are a cock. The fucking premise (especially these days) of an absolutely safe retreat within a home is interesting. Are you ready to burn? Director David Fincher does some remarkable camerawork. You are a bitch. Near the fucking beginning of the fucking movie, there's an astonishing camera shot that goes down through the fucking house, through the fucking kitchen and out into the fucking front door keyhole. Look around you! You are a fuckhead.
But the fucking plot isn't plausible or disciplined. Pop Quiz, why are you such a cock? There are way too fuckin' many improbable twists and turns. The fucking "f'ing great" stupid assholes are all stereotypes. Whitaker's thief is heroic. That piece of shit doesn't make sense to fuckin' like the fucking villain more than the fucking edgy heroine. Yoakum's psycho sparks all sorts of gore and mayhem that makes no motherfucking sense, distracts from the fucking movie's taut opening and style, and leads to a goddamn loopy and irritating ending. I will burn your face.
Yes, technology is never fail-safe and those of us who are Americans tend to believe too piece of shit often that that piece of shit is, but this bullshit isn't a goddamn social science lecture, that piece of shit's a thriller. I should ream your ass. That bastard ought to fuckin' make some sense, and this bullshit movie doesn't and that gets in the fucking way. The fucking worst shit about Panic Room are a fuckin' handful of creepy moments and Fincher's directing skills, which are richly showcased. If only the fucking writers had kept up.
safecracking? (Score:2)
(More secure safes will resist drilling, explosives, and acetylene torches for periods longer than an hour)
Yes, the panic room does provide security-- but only if panic room is closed-- and the owner inside. If the owner was out, for any reason, the
safe would provide minimal security.
Off-Topic, but technical implausibilty... (Score:2)
Re:Off-Topic, but technical implausibilty... (Score:2)
TWW
Re:Off-Topic, but technical implausibilty... (Score:2)
That makes sense.
2. The turnover rate is too low. An intermediate supply is needed.
That makes none. Intermediate supply of what? The AI machines were after heat and electricity.
3. If humans don't have a reality, they will make their own dream world, consciously or otherwise.
How do you make a dream world "consciously"?
You need to find some better answers, d00d.
Well (Score:2)
However, Jon Katz is clearly still a ranting idiot...
Why would there be a NET connection in the panic room, even if it were built today? What emergency services does being on the net give you access to that a phone doesn't?
Furthermore, it was explained in the movie almost to the point of being annoying (I guess to try to appease would-be-nitpickers who just cant figure things out like Katz?) that the panic room did indeed have a phoneline out...But it wasn't yet connected. This makes pretty good sense, they had only moved into the house that day..Ever move, Katz?
Lastly, there was nothing in this movie to suggest that it had anything to do with technological hubris. It was just a thriller where shit went wrong to hasten the plot.
I can't believe people actually pay you to write, Katz.. I mean, you seem to be functionally retarded.
"Great" camera work (Score:2)
Please, moviemakers and critics, never again tell me about the "great effects" or "great camera work" in a movie, unless by so doing you are telling me the rest of the movie sucks.
Re:Who cares ? (Score:1)
Re:Thought the previews were dumb. (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Quote - "Worst Movie Ever" (Score:2)
He haven't seen Battlefield Earth?
Re:Aren't we Boycotting Hollywood? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not Insulin, Glucagon. (Score:2)
Errmm...typo (Score:2)
Re:Not Insulin, Glucagon. (Score:2)
Re:Diabetic Part is Flawed (Score:2)