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.
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.
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.
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
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.
-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.
Maybe it took him a week to write it.
I'd rather have a bowl of coco-pops.
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 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!
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 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.
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
"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.
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.
*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..
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.
Ebert and Roeper [formerly Siskel and Ebert] gave it two thumbs up .
I'm a 2000 man.
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.
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.
He haven't seen Battlefield Earth?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
It never fails to piss me off when this same reaction to any movie-related story is continually modded up. The community here agrees about a lot of things, but we're not of one soul, of one mind. The people preaching the boycott are probably not the same people going out to see these movies. Give us some credit for individuality, and get off your high horse while you're at it.
I have a strong belief in the Second Amendment.
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
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....
But there wasn't any such food in the room. The part that was flawed was the implication that the BG measuring watch (the Glucowatch) is reliable enough to depend on like that. In a pinch, without having an actual BG meter around, sure, they'd use it. But you wouldn't want to use it otherwise, in the course of normal events, to make adjustments with because the accuracy is pretty poor and it can drift a lot (especially when the person is sweating, etc.)
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.
Sorry hon, I was born with this brain built-in and it's here to stay.
don't go thinking that this is a site run by a couple guys in their basements
;-}
Maybe not now...
but it used to be
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
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.