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!
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.
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
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.