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?
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?
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.
fuck off katz (Score:-1, Insightful)
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."
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
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.
Counterattack (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Aren't we Boycotting Hollywood? (Score:4, Insightful)
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, 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".