Slashdot Mirror
Review: Panic Room
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.
When I saw the previews of this movie I thought it was dumb. I may have to see it to see just how bad it is.
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?
Slashdot's technology can't stop me from breaking in! Watch how the encryption codes unravel, slowly. Motive? shh. It's not for the audience to know. Oh look, Slashdot has emailed the decrypting files I need? Mwahaha, this will be easy, though I will go through it menacingly. That doesn't make sense? Why would anyone pay to see this? shh. What's this? Slashdot has no way of contacting anyone of my intrusion despite it's high tech system. Well, of course, I wouldn't be breaking in if I would actually get caught. And that wouldn't be exciting now would it? So be quiet.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Slashdot readers are not your average moron in the street, we tend to have higher IQs than the normal person, therefore slashdot should review intellectual movies instead of all this mainstream crap like Star Wars etc etc.
Post-9/11... Post-Colombine... Post-Tech Boom... Nope. Looks like we're safe in this one.
As allways - check the filthy critic for a second opinion.
Hank! White!
a john katz arcticle I agree with.
basicly what katz says is:
Hollywood plots are full of cliches;
Hollywood has absolutely no clue about technology.
Well done katz.
What ? Me, worry ?
These are the people that bring you the unlimited submachinegun clips, bullets that must not hurt *too* much, and bad guys who never seem to practice at the target range.
It's an action movie, they are all like that.
Oh, ObSlashdotBash: I guess the MPAA is worth supporting today?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
nice mirror site
Unless I missed it somewhere in the part of the film where the house is being shown, It's never mentioned how recently this room was built. Why couldn't in have been fairly old?
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.
Subpar post as usual Katz. Go back to your wandering speculations on globalization.
Look at my karma - I'm bad, just like Michael Jackson!
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.
I had seen people rip on this guy for being a moron, but never really bothered to read his stuff.
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.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
All the fancy camerawork you're talking about, including the shot that goes through the house at the beginning, is infact CG. Please do some research before writing a review.
----
Bryan Samis
http://www.thesamis.net
Now I can't watch commercials for any visual and/or interactive media without checking for "In a world where..."
Panic Room Trailer Review
[o]_O
In Australia, all I have seen or heard in the last week no matter what station I have tuned into is Jodie Foster and Panic Room. Using the law that says the more hyped the movie is, the less pulling power the story actually has I would say that this one has problems.
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.
Error: Erection reset by beer.
The money is going to be divided up among the heirs of the previous owner. They need to steal it before that happens, obviously, and I don't think they know exactly when that will happen.
this movie is crap. The whole thing in real life would have been avoided by a large number of "common sense" acts that should have taken place.
Are Katz' reviews getting to look more like the Filthy Critic's every time one is posted, or is it just me that thinks so?
o n-osama-global-warming-crappy-movie-review world, what is one to do?
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
Lo and behold, on her first night living there, three evildoers bust into her home and come after her and her precocious kid.
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.
t'nera semordnilap
-Sam
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.
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."
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.
I saw the movie recently and, although I can't remember it being mentioned explicitly, I do remember having the impression that the Panic Room was not a recent addition to the house (like, say, it was built 7-15 years ago). That would explain the lack of modern security measures such as cell phone access, network connections, etc.
they are hyping the fact they couldn't get Nicole Kidman so they got their second resort Jodie Foster.
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?
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
What never ceases to amaze me about many fellow geeks is how they obsess over trivial details in looking at TV and cinema while the rest of the film goes whooshing over their heads. To paraphrase Gene Roddenbery on techno-fanboys who demanded technical details about the Enterprise. "It's not real, it's just a plot device to get the characters into a different conflict every week. Get over it."
"The Others" was pretty damn good
101010b 2Ah 52o
If it was it failed miserably. The action wasn't intense. You could associate with the bad guys, and got to see things from their perspective, which made the movie perdictable and boring. If they had just kept the bad guys as the strong evil and mysterious type and kept the movie from jodie and the kids perspective it could have been a really scary movie. As it is the entire theater was laughing at supposed action scene and and noone was frightened at all.
~Anztac
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.
Wow, even Katz's writing is better than the gibberish on that site.
Look at my karma - I'm bad, just like Michael Jackson!
The man who called Not Another Teen Movie "a delicious bit of film criticism, hilarious, outrageous and on target" criticizes a film for plot. :)
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
...you'll find Ebert's review here. Frankly, I'd like to get me some of that stuff Katz is smoking.
I ended up going to this movie last weekend. I had no intention of seeing it, but it was the best choice of what was available at that theatre. I was pleasantly surprised. It was much better than I expected. The plot points were explained pretty well. Only one major complaint: propane is heavier than air. But I'm willing to suspend disbelief for 2 hours.
-- Were am I going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Who needs sleeping pills when you can read Jon Katz articles.
I'm going to hibernate for a week after reading this.
"Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."
Jesus christ the people who replied to this article are fucken pissy. Take a pill we all know the review is pretty crappy and it does seem he was not really watching the movie. so fucken chill out!
This P.I.G. will walk on the water, This P.I.G. will walk on the sea, This P.I.G. will walk whereever he wants.
...I get the feeling that Slashdot, rather than news for nerds, is news for people with lives so pathetic they can't sit back and just enjoy a movie. If you're bored, maybe you can go back and to tech-deconstructions of the Shakespeare plays for us. Thank you, JonKatz, for saving us from being inaccurately entertained! You're such a visionary!
She did get the SOS right, but she didn't pause long enough betreen repititions or even between letters. Then again, the fact that she wasn't good at sending morse fits her character.
t'nera semordnilap
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.
I also like "Birthday Girl" and "Dead Calm".
XML causes global warming.
What the hell is wrong with you people? On the one hand, you get all pissy about Jack Valenti and the stupid shit he's trying to pull in the way of disallowing you ownership of the media you purchase, and then you go throw gobs of money at the asshole by going to the movies -- and then, just to prove your stupidity, you go to the worst movies Hollywood has to offer, which encourages them to make more trash.
Gettafsckingcluealready!!
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I understand that writing for an online tech magazine, you would like to sound like you're smarter than the average bear, and must jump at the chance to sound like you can blow things full of holes. However, if you would have actually watched the movie, instead of complaining about the taste of 'Topping', and scribbling your nonsense on a pad of paper to remember for your 'review', you would have noticed the main premise of your dislikes for the movie are either all addressed, and/or simply flawed.
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
as if I didn't have to warn anyone: even the katz review has spoilers and reading this thread will take away from your experience
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.
I thought "To Die For" was pretty great. Kidman can be good. I'm sorry you didn't understand "Eyes Wide Shut".
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same
rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to
believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope
somebody got fired for that blunder.
this is sorta off topic but as far as i'm concerned it's not technology that fails,
it's humans that fail. it doesn't neccesarily have to be i.e. somebody usind a device wrong, but it can already happen in the design process.
just wanted to say that
The Forest Whitaker character could have just as easily assured that the net connection was disabled. This is hardly a flaw.
Remember folks, Jon Katz doing a review is just his opinion.
And remember that opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. And they stink.
Its just that Katz' opinions are the size of goatsee assholes.
Jon Katz is back.
Where is Michael? We love him...
These are the people that bring you the unlimited submachinegun clips, bullets that must not hurt *too* much, and bad guys who never seem to practice at the target range.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Learn how to use it.
Defend yourself when the need arises and kill the criminal(s) for the good of society.
"But the movie never explains why they don't just leave and come back another time once they found out there are people inside." They were on videotape. VCR's inside the vault recorded everything. That is another reason they needed to get into the vault. "the super-secret phone doesn't work" Did you even watch the movie? The phone didn't work because the homeowner never hooked it up. "The ventilation system is hardly self-contained" I agree with that one. With all that protection, you would think it would have it's own air supply. "here is where Hollywood movies just can't contain themselves -- Foster's daughter starts slipping into a diabetic seizure almost instantly." It took hours. That type of reaction from a diabetic is not unrealistic. That is why she had orange juice in the fridge next to her bed. Diabetes isn't uncommon either. "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)." Again, it was her first night in the house. The secure outside line DID exist; she just never had time to hook it up. Like any other phone/cell-phone it needed to be activated before it would work. If the robbery took place the next night, she would have been able to call the cops. Furthermore, I hate to be redundant, but the security system was disabled by Whitaker (Duh!). I would have to agree that the plot was fairly corny, but after all, it is a Hollywood movie not a real life account. You should expect to see this when you go to the movies. Otherwise, I don't even know why you go to see them. After all, a person with such a high IQ would have been able to tell from the previews that it was going to be a typical Hollywood motion picture. Did you go see it just so you could complain about it? Despite the main stream Hollywood plot, I enjoyed the movie. At least they didn't release a virus that brought people back from the dead and turned the whole town into zombies. How many of you actually believe that the world is overrun by robots and we are all a bunch of batteries? What is the point of a Fight Club, if they don't blow up a bunch of buildings? It is a story guys, If you don't like stories don't go to the movies. Some of you guys claim to have higher IQ's than the average person, but in reality, you have no imagination.
this looks like a very cool movie and from what im told it is worht the money to c. so who ever ruind "the time machine for me please refrain from doing it agan for this movie
sdgscott
This is the first article by Katz that dosn't mention post 9/11 YEAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
www.bigempire.com/filthy [The Filthy Critic] has an intelligent review of Panic Room. Read that instead of Katz.
I normally refuse to see hollywood drivel (a fact which causes my friends to label me "elitist") but somehow last weekend I allowed myself to be dragged into this movie.
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..."
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. :^)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
The money is going to be divided up among the heirs of the previous owner.
If the $ is still in the house when the house was sold, it belongs to the new ownersm, and couldn't be "divided up among the heirs of the previous owner."
*BBWHAHAHAH*
A Working cell phone. In the middle of a room surrounded by solid steel..
*BBBWHAHAHAHHHAHA*
Yer funny John..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Er...
Wow - an anonymous racist. You must be REAL popular.
Scum.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Actually, I liked "Eyes Wide Shut", too. I haven't seen "To Die For", but I heard it was good. The original Kidman-Disparaging poster was way off base, IMO. Kidman has really come around as an actress. Here early stuff isn't all that consistent, but lately, she almost always delivers amazing performances.
XML causes global warming.
I know I'm not the first one to complain about Jon Katz, but.....
"Dwight Yoakum"?!?! Try Dwight Yoakam. Or maybe even Dwight Yoakam.
Seriously man, I could go on about the typos in your "review" (that hardly suggests you've seen the movie), but I won't. I can understand flubs like this from Taco or anybody else, but c'mon, you're a professional writer -- don't you get paid to do this?
Mr. Katz, you're a professional, it's time you started acting like one.
Dude, you get to see Jodie Foster pee.
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!
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
This movie seems ridiculous to me. Who would build a steel encased hideaway ore a gun there? It just does not make sense.
I the heirs know there's millions of dollar in the places where anyone can get it, why dont they come and get it before the place is rented out?
If there's something in the panic room they want and she can't call for help, wh wouldn't they just explain that to her and she could slip it out to them through this air vent that they can get access to.
If chewbacca is a wookie but lives on endor.....
Die Hard, now that had a plot. Yeah, the bad guys still could aim, but at least they had a cool and plausable plan. It still had some of the usual b.s., but at least the plot made sense.
I thought the movie was great. I saw it the friday it came out, and hadn't slept since Tuesday night of that week. Even going on about 56 hours without sleep, I was kept wide awake on the edge of my seat. Sure the whole ventilation thing was a bit far fetched, but who gives a shit. I see the real world every day. When I go to a movie, I want to see things go wrong, people mess up, crazy shit happen etc... I mean, the movie would have been pretty friggin boring if the bad guys just beat against the metal wall for 2 hours.
Can I create a slashdot filter to not display posts by Jon Katz?
12:47 Spell check my .sig
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Ebert and Roeper [formerly Siskel and Ebert] gave it two thumbs up .
I'm a 2000 man.
she put a damn shirt on.
Jodie's getting a tad old.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe the movie makers didn't make it for the nitpicking geeks. Maybe they made it for the REAL WORLD.
Panic Room was wonderful. Escape your geeky ego for 2 hours and just be taken in by a movie. That's what movies are for - ESCAPE!
There are some good things about this movie, but the plot will drive nitpicking techheads and nerds nuts with its implausibility.
So Katz just assumes since he's annoying, he's a nerd? Hmmmmm.....
I'm pretty sure that if I'm a rich, old millionaire in New York City I do not suddenly wake up one morning and decide to build my very own panic room with my very own tools.
It really does seem like, as a previous poster said, Katz takes his girlfriend out to the movies and then wakes up the next morning and writes a quick and dirty review, just to keep his name in lights.
"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."
You're kidding, right? The thieves spent a good five minutes debating this in the movie. Could anyone truly be this ignorant?
As for the "technological loopholes" - if you can't take off your ubergeek hat for 120 minutes to watch a movie, then you're the one with the problem, not the movie. The world does not revolve around the needs of computer geeks. I'm as much of a geek as anyone, but I'm secure enough about it that I can flip the "anal-retentive geek" switch to "off" long enough to suspend disbelief and enjoy a movie.
And face it - this movie is one of the more realistic thrillers you're likely to see (except for the part about Dwight Yoakam coming back after a sledgehammer to the head). Chiding this movie for not being realistic is like railing against "Saving Private Ryan" for lack of realism. It may not be perfect, but it's far closer than most, so give it a little credit.
Maybe this is a good movie, but watching the ads made me think of all the movies that were "Die Hard on a bus" or "Die Hard on a cruise ship" or "Die Hard on an airplane."
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
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
I never thought those (Katz) stories were true, until...
I don't have a source backing this up, but I'm pretty sure no spaces are required between the letters of SOS (not sure about between words). I seem to remember this from taking one of the amateur radio exams. I didn't see the movie, but if the spaces were missing, it would still *definitely* be recognizable as an SOS.
I agree - the movie was decent, better than most movies out right now.
Jon Katz should stick to writing books about dog sex.
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.
Hell yeah.. Quit thinking for a moment and Enjoy something besides your keyboard !
iF yOu WAnT to C YOUr iP agaIn gAThEr tWO MilLIon dOLLArS IN Non - cONsEcuTivE TweNtY's AnD AWaiT FuRThER iNstrUctIoN
So why doesn't Katz make a movie?
Ya know.. I liked him better when he was a bumbling psychiatrist on Comedy Central.
(* Rantings and spoilage follow *)
Am I the only one who thinks the (ex-)husband planned the whole thing? When the SWAT team arrives and stops Whitaker from escaping, the camera lingers on Foster's face for ages - she is clearly shown *realising something*. We see her bloody husband on the floor, then the captured Whitaker with his hands up, and then her again. I was just waiting for her to tell the police who the mastermind was! Maybe the lame scene in the park at the very end was swapped in after negative testing to an ending where Whitaker gets away and the husband gets busted.
More evidence? The perceptive daughter was sure the husband wouldn't turn up, then he did (to collect his loot!), and when he was shooting at the mean guy (who later got sledgehammered), he missed like 5 times in a row. That husband guy wanted the thieves to escape, and took a beating to disguise his role to Foster.
Which is why I don't have a panic room and sleep with Ruger
Sorry that made me laugh uncontrollably!
Go here .
May I note that this movie gets a 77% aproval from critics around the Net, which is unusually high. Then again, that's from profesional reviewers, not wanna-be geeks who think they know about everything because they get to write in Slashdot.
This must have been before man invented the face mask.
I found this review to be much better than Katz, then again I'm sure a couple monkeys jumping on a keyboard could produce a better review than Katz.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
fyi: i'd hardly call sarah's (the daughter) slip into a "diabetic coma" immediate, mr. katz. in fact, she was quite all right until nearly three quarters of the way through the movie. and she never really slipped into a real coma, she just had seizures. could someone in a diabetic coma really help the bad guy give her insulin shots? i don't think so. please watch the movie more carefully next time, mr. katz. these errors are completely unnecessary.
Go fuck your camel. Or the little boy in the next tent. Or just go blow yourself up and get your virgins in paradise, 'cause you sure as hell won't ever get laid by a live woman in this lifetime. Unless you're a brainless neo-nutzi, in which case you can go fuck your skin-head buddies right up their over-eager asses. Everybody knows nutzi skin-heads shave their heads so they can look like the big dick-heads they really are.
"But the movie never explains why they don't just leave and come back another time once they found out there are people inside."
They spend close to 8 minutes talking about the plausability of coming back another time to finish the caper. This was the part that told you what kind of characters the three "bad guys" are. Were you asleep at this time. Big story driver.
"Foster's daughter starts slipping into a diabetic seizure almost instantly"
Did you watch the movie or did someone tell you about it. She doesnt hit a coma until the last third of the movie.
"And no safe room would fail to have a Net connection (this one doesn't); "
The original owner of the home was 80 years old.
"a working cell phone"
Hello, concrete walls, and this was discussed.
"Barring any of those things, how about an old-fashioned weapon"
People arent supposed to be able to get in, why would they need a weapon. I dont have a panic room or a weapon in my home.
I suggest moviecomments.com.
When the girls blood sugar began to drop all she had to do was eat! She did not need food with a bunch of sugar in it. She could have eaten any of the food alreay in the room and she would have been fine. Our bodies take long stings of carbohydrates and breaks them up into simple sugars. A Diabetic would know this and most diabetics would rather eat some carbohydrates which would cause their boold sugar to rise evenly rather than eat sugar and cause a huge spike in their blood sugar, which without insulin would also cause a coma.
The safe within the panic room was cracked with a drill. Financial instruments worth millions of dollars were kept in the safe, yet most insurers would demand better security.
(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.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Somebody shut him up there. The dork is a total moron, and he blabbers too much.
I guess I don't "get" any of these Kidman classic performances, either.
She's no Jodie Foster, that's for sure. Yes, I can see Nicole Kidman has at least a small amount of acting ability, but the fact that she has no apparent IQ when off camera doesn't seem very appealing to me, either.
Now I *know* JonKatz is full of shit.
While I can relate to you in your criticism of Katz, you, like most other watchers and reviewers, are mistaken about the insulin. She was given Glucagon, because her insulin was too low (as indicated by her Glucowatch). Insulin has the effect of lowering blood glucose levels and would have almost certainly have killed her if she was admistered it (especially in that quantity). Glucagon is a hormone that raises BG.
I mean...because her BG (not insulin) was too low....
I agree folks, you can't over-analyse these things too much. What really annoyed me about this movie was the rediculous product placement. Now, I know it is a feature of every modern movie now, but don't the studio exec's realise that it can be extremely distracting, and cheapen the appeal and integrity of a movie?
I counted (in order) of appearance, HUGE shots of: Coke, Evian, Sony and Nokia. Some of you will have probably seen others. What is even more interesting with this movie is the way that these products were used as a part of the script. The coke was used in the dramatic set-up illustrating the relationship between mother and daughter, as a fell-good cure. Little girl is sad about her father, tells her mum that he hates him, mum agrees, but makes it all better by pouring her more of the dark, caffinated, sugary-stuff, little girl smiles with reassurance. The mobile phone is if it had worked would have been the saviour of the heroine in the movie, and sony allowed them to see the theives throughout the house which was essential to the plot.
Forget about the tech detail of the movie for a minute, and take a look at the overall pitcure. It offers an interesting look at modern filmaking, and commercialism in practice.
Now condensed, so everyone can understand it!
Jon Katz didn't like it? Wow, I've got to see this movie, it's got to be good!
Jon Katz likes it? Avoid like the plague.
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.
Did I get it in time?
this movie was a remake of home alone - period. right down to the daughter being a macauly culkin lookalike.
oh, and can anyone think of a single reason she didn't blink at the policeman, let alone explain in full detail what was going on in the house? it had already been established that it was a PA system, not an intercom.
Go read some bible: nubible.com
Of course, if Nicole wants to get down with me off camera, I'd care about that ;)
XML causes global warming.
Why do you have to relate everything to geeks? I know this is a geek site (News for Nerds, rather), but can't you just review the movie for what it is? A thriller? Who cares if the icon in the corner of the computer screen is the wrong colour or size for Windows, or whatever? It's entertainment! Take it for what it is. Unless of course, you want every technical thing in the film verified and explained down to each last bit. Wouldn't that be a blast.
Sorry hon, I was born with this brain built-in and it's here to stay.
Foster's character explained away all your tech questions in a very beleivable matter. They just moved in and didn't have time to hook up the phones so...
A) If there was an alarm im the Panic Room it wouldn't work(no phone line). Plus the Alarm in the house was never set, because she didn't know how turn it on, and Whittaker's character disabled it as soon as he walked in.
B) What cell phone works in a stainless steel box. She even tried that.
C) Net Connection? No Phone Lines? Wireless through inches of steel? Your point?
The film had beleivable characters, inexperienced stupid bad guys. Smart scared mom. Fincher (the director) has a knack for creating very beleivable characters, and putting then in incredible situations.
Remember it's the movies, not real life.
How is this post "Flamebait"?
Everyone agrees.
What's to flame?
why hasn't anyone else mentioned this ?
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0075931
I'm serious. You not only make assumptions that shouldn't be made, but you also talk like you didn't actually see the film!
For example, you complain that there is noworking cell phone or some secure means of communicating with the outside world" in the Panic Room. However, there clearly is: A telephone in the room with its own phone line. The only reason it didn't work is because the Jodie Foster character didn't bother paying to have that extra line connected. And no cell phone in there because, as they say, the solid steel of the room insulates the phone's signal. Ever tried making a phone call in a well-built elevator?
How do you know there wasn't a weapon in the panic room? They didn't seem to go through all the cases in there thoroughly. They didn't know the room. In the bottom of one of those supply boxes might have been a BFG-9000 for all we know. And besides, Jodie Foster's character didn't seem like the kind that would be able to properly wield a gun and win, especially against the madman Yokam type.
Also, what's this BS about needing internet access in a panic room? It's a room to hide in until any intruder goes away. I really doubt the 80-year-old man who had that panic room built was going, "Oh no, I won't be able to check my stocks while my house is being invaded, even though I have a phone line in here!"
And also, the girl didn't go into a seizure immediately. You got to watch her get worse over time, and although the timeline was rather sped up (as it had to be to be a viable plot element), it was believable as a plot element.
And finally: Who the hell says a film's premise has to be plausible for the film to be enjoyable? Fincher's last film, Fight Club, admitted it was a film, events happened due to the fact that it was a film and could make the cuts that it needed to and did things that couldn't possibly be done in real life--and it was one of the most enjoyable movies I've ever seen.
Sure, the plot was a bit convoluted, but hey, it was better than a lot of things that come out of Hollywood. If absolute realism were required in films, we'd get about 5 films a year, and they'd be boring and suck miserably. If you go to films expecting absolute realism, you're just begging for disappointment. If you go into a movie expecting good entertainment, then you'll enjoy the movie a lot more often.
---
I'm not a real anonymous coward, but I play one on TV.
If the panic room is the safest place in the entire house, why didn't they build the entire house out of the panic room?
Katz, apparently, cannot follow a plot. Hey, they *just* moved in and hadn't turned every thing on yet. Hey Katz, that's why the phone didn't work. That's why they didn't have internet access. Also, Katz, I guess you missed the sub-plot about Fosters character being clausterphobic(SP?).
It was a great movie, though there were some small holes. Compared to the holes in your logic this movie deserves an A+.
Slee
I find it baffling that Katz could see this film and give it such a negative review. Everyone has his opinion, and my opinion is that technology played almost ZERO part in the story of this film.
ZERO.
Panic Room was definitely better than almost EVERY movie put out this year so far...hell better then probably every film in the last 2 years.
This isn't even worth talking about so goodbye.
... from one who didn't read it thoroughly.
No net connection, etc? What is this, the 1980s? Who doesn't have at least a few palms in their possession at any given moment? Wireless lans, cell phones, gps systems, cloak of infinite invisibility. What sorta this chic doesn't have stuff to yell for help on?
Set things up? I'm sorry, after an IPO, you have people to handle this whole moving thing. All you should have to do is step into the house and start living. If she hasn't IPO'd her cat's litterbox yet, that's her problem. Obviously.
Thank you, try better next time.
No, I really like Jodie Foster.
Much as I like her, though, this movie still sucked. The plot was teetering between non-existent and "thin", the characters were too rigid and the acting, overall, wasn't that great.
Save your money, or go see Ice Age. It's a much more entertaining way to spend a few hours.
... that movie and tv producers seem to always employ people to check check medical facts when the plot features doctors and medication stuff (excellent example: ER), but there are very few examples for movie producers doing this with technical stuff? do directors accidentally happen to have a lot of friends being doctors, but no techies?
===spoilers===
The ending was pretty weak... nothing was solved and Jodie and her boy of a daughter
(reminded me of the kid from T2) were looking for houses again.
They could've let Jodie Foster split that one guy's skull open (like what would've happen)
and have Whittaker run away with all the money and get his daughter.
Minor Points:
-ventilation system... like a couple others have said, the panic room was meant for short-term
protection ('til the cops arrive), therefore a separate ventilation system wouldn't crucial
-construction date... some old guy owns a house for a couple years, gets paranoid as he ages,
and eventually decides to build a panic room during the remaining years of his life...
I'd say the build date is somewhere 'round mid-90s, if the movie's in the present (the
cell phone tells us that).
The story's pretty solid with a few technical flaws (like the propane) and that one cop
incident when Foster decided not to wink/blink, but the ending is what hit me the hardest.
Having someone risk his freedom to save another person's life only to go to jail is a real bummer.
Katz !
When we deal into millions, there is no "later time"
There is just NOW !
Faithfully,
Your Friend in the Mafia
Those people are dead ?
God have their souls !
I cannot joke on it because it's terrible ?
Sorry, deep introspection is bad for my mood.
It's horrible : yes
It already happened : yes
The guys who died aren't responsible for the US politics than made it all happen ? : yes
I really cannot do anything about it ? yes
So, have a laugh, get on living and make fun at terrible things, it's the best way to pass them.
I'd give the movie 6.5 out of 10. Yes there are
a lot of technical misses, but it's just a
movie.
The question I have though is when Jodie is in
the panic room, they have an elaborate scene where
she uses the speaker to talk to them and they use
writings on a piece of paper held up to a camera,
but later Jodie uses the master control panel in
the bedroom to talk to the crooks in the panic
room. For someone who had no clue of how to use
the system, how come Jodie knows more than the
installer?
According to a U.S. Department of Statistics survey, 70% of all statistics are made up on the spot to prove a point.
You can use statistics to prove anything. 13% of all people know that...
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Mere opinion here, but if you notice the camera work, IMHO, it wasn't great. It was terrible. If you are sitting in a movie theater noticing camera work, then the technology of the filmmaker has pulled your conciousness out of the narrative and into his or her gadgetry. I hate filmmakers who do this and hate even more those critics and viewer who reward them for this. Good DP and shot design is certainly important, but it should, like the music when it is right, draw you deeper into the illusion of the story, it should make the experience hyperreal (beyond or better than reality). If, instead, it makes you say "Wow, neat camera work!" it has broken the illusion and violated the viewer's trust.
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.
There are good reasons Katz should not review film:
1. He ignores everything in the film other than surface features (not unimportant, just basic) such as plot and sets. What about the production design? What about the use of color in the photography? What about thematic elements? This film analogizes human relationships as spatial relationships from the very first few seconds when Fincher & Co. practically reinvent the use of credits in a title sequence. The entire movie is about space and angles. I suppose it's easy to ignore this if you're not used to watching anything more complicated than "Bubble Boy."
2. He has a short attention span. From what I can see, every "unbelievability" he indicates in his review is answered up front in the script, without being deus ex machina in nature. At this point, I am not actually sure whether Katz sat through the same film I did or whether he was just talking on a cell phone for the parts where they had actual character development and plot points. He mentions "writers" when this film was written by only one person, David Koepp, who is a well known and critically acclaimed screenwriter. (Which confirms that he wasn't paying attention at least to the credits.)
I hope he will spare us his further "reviews" until he gains enough of a background in film that he can recognize worthwhile pictures when he sees them. Until then I guess he should go back to watching "The Mummy Returns" over and over on his DVD player.
"911, please hold..."
That's a goodie...
ascii art
For the record, I have absolutely nothing against responsible gun ownership, but I don't fetishise it as the be-all, end-all of freedom, power, or anything else. A gun is a tool... a tool that makes small hunks of metal go very, very fast. Like any other tool, it can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. It is not guaranteed to a. Prevent the Black Helicopters from landing on Main Street, b. Neutralize any and all threats to your person / family / property / neighborhood / whatever, or c. Increase your virility. Neither is it going to automatically kill all children or destroy civilization. Used responsibly, it can be used as part of a hobby (target shooting) or as a means of self-defense. Used irresponsibly, it can maim, kill, and make various sorts of crime and destruction easier. I approve of the former, and detest the latter.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
Bullship... I've seen way too many sucky movies with stupid Computer scenes.. Most of the hacker movies were spoiled because of fake computers and anoying beeping noises or fake 1980ish floppy drive seek sounds on modern PCs accessing a HD for funks sake. Most of the action movies, suck -- no blow royally -- because all of the computer or technology scenes turn you off of the already thin plot, and the relative improbablity of the technical subplot just makes you want to cry because of the amount of time you have just wasted.
Just because the movie was a thriller doesn't make it immune from being stupid if it is so dumb as to unecessarily portray technology issues incorrectly. It's a brain-dead notion to assume technology is somehow an irrelevent element of the plot, or to on purpose obscure the realism of technology just because some half-assed film consultant wants to insert more suspenseful bleeps or doctored animations. Are you going to eat that tripe? It's like what flash does to webpages! YUK, count me out..
Fight back! And snap out of the stupidity.
--- Delta0.. makes no difference.
so since the matrix has been around for a bit I'll tackle it so everyone else won't have panic room "spoiled" for them and cause these following comments pissed me off... seriously guys, the panic room may not have been the best movie I've seen but the reasons just about everyone has been ripping on it are irrelevant. anyway: here goes my blabbering...
Why fight the agents in The Matrix, where they rule, instead of the real world?
because the agents don't exist in the "real" world
Why use humans to turn food into energy, when you could use fuel cells, or bacteria, or just burn it.
why not, aparently in the world of the matrix this AI has figured that it's the best way. realize we're talking about technology with capabilities millenia beyond our current grasp of the universe.
Why provide the humans with *any* dream world, perfect or otherwise?
psychological and physical health are very co-dependent. you don't usually see normal - and by normal I mean the measure of normal internal to that person, not what that person projects to us the outside world - productive members of society slicing themselves with razor blades and forgetting to shower for months. I seem to remember the matrix informing the audience that if you die in the matrix... i.e. you THINK you're dead then you die in the real world too. consider the ai NEEDS to keep people alive for this great source of energy... you got a better idea?
Two dozen other similarly dificult to answer questions.
like? one of the many concepts in the matrix was to question all your assumptions. the matrix was a blend of many forms of mythology. everything from the bible to classic greek myths to buhdism and existentialism.
take the bible:
1) name of their ship the nebakanezzer - no I don't know how to spell it - anyway, name of a historical jewish king.
2) neo, morpheus, trinity. the THREE key players. 3 is a classic mythical number along with many others like 7 and 12. This triplet mirrors the concept of the father the son and the holy ghost. is it any coincidence that neo is one spelled backwards and trinity begins with tri, the prefix for 3. morpheus? don't ask me.
3) neo is jesus. ai taking over the earth and scorching the sky = armageddon = the advent of the matrix. The coming of neo is jesus's second coming.
4) the name of the last human town is Zion. Can't get much more directly biblical than all this.
5) still not convinced? In the end neo DIES and RESURRECTS... seems there was this little holiday many of us just celebrated not long ago called easter.
greek mythology:
1) the oracle, look her up
2) sits on a three legged stool, wears a dress of orange and green - look for a classical drawing - and the cupboards and cabinets are orange and green
3) the oracle typically resides at the edge of a large chasm from which wafts a smoke which stuns anyone breathing it into a sort of stupor, makes them lazy or whatever so she can have her way with them... and from which wafts a welcoming scent - the munchies man, she's makin munchies! what a pot head.
so lets all have phun an over analyze why the matrix wouldn't work today and completely ignore any statement these guys may have had about the meaning of life or the way we live our lives.
cmon, really, this stuff is childs play, if you're interested there's about ten times as much other stuff you can find if you look close. do your own research, I'm done spoon feeding you. IMHO Problem with techies - I am going and have to go with my experience, the techies I've met, including myself - is they're only grounded in what they dig - i.e. techy stuff. Show me a techie who can analyze literature by extracting the fallacies of technology and I'll show you a techie with useless trivia. Show me a techie who can analyze literature by extracting and relating other than the most ostensible layer of rhetoric and I'll show you a nerd among techies. When will this change?
I'm too lame for sigs
A few comments on your signiture.
The matrix feeds from the electrical impulses of our brain activity. We create more electricity in our braincells while working out difficult math equations more than any other living thing. This is actually quite a safe and free form of energy, provided that our brains are working.
To stimulate our brain the matrix was created so that to create the electrical impulses of our brain.
In the ever advancing world of computing and storage, how long would it take for computers to be advanced enough to possibly recreate a virtual world that is exactly like our own? With all it's imperfections Math.Random() and duplication of textures to describe the exact same 2 glasses of milk?
The real question is, how would we know that we arent in some sort of matrix ourselves? in the year xxxxx? or some other enslaving alien race? You can never be sure about anything.
Movies are a question of taste. We all know that there are a lot of films that the I and a lot of techies love that most people think are the stupidest thing that they have ever seen. A LOT!!!
"Les gouts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas!"
"Tastes and colors should not be debated" as they say in french
I think the movie was o.k., however as you said the writers should have done much better. Also I think that the girl going into shock like that or whqtever the hell it was. should have been explained much better.
If I had known more about the film i would have just waited untill it came out on video and rented it.
~ I can smell the color Blue...