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.
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.
Fancy Camerawork? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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: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?).
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.
Quote - "Worst Movie Ever" (Score:1, Interesting)
The plot holes don't just relate to technology - that is somewhat to be expected in the movies.
What bothered me more was that many of the plot elements just flew in the face of common sense. For instance, why would you sell a house with 22 million dollars still hidden in the safe? How did these guys think they could just walk into a bank with million-dollar bonds (gee, look at all those zeros!) without raising some eyebrows?
The plot was so ridiculously predictable, from the first time you see Forrest Whittaker you know he's the one who will turn out to have the heart of gold and save the little girl...
But worst of all, was the scene near the end (I'd call this a spoiler, but the movie is so bad it can't be spoiled!) where Jodie Foster's character whacks Dwight Yoakum's character in the head with a big sledgehammer - she winds up and really gives him a good blow, and you see his body limply falling down several flights of stairs. I am not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure that a sledgehammer blow like that would be fatal! Or at least put you into a coma or something. But our indestructible hero is conscious in the next scene, climbing back up the stairs - it was like the Terminator! Actually, everybody in the theater started laughing at this point - it was supposed to be Hithchock-esque and terrifying and suspenseful, bue we were all cracking up - not just me and my friends, but many people in the theater. I would say that a suspense movie that makes people laugh is a failure.
As we left the theater my friend (who suggested we see this) turned to me and said "That must have been the worst movie ever..."