Rating: 
Summary: Good, but not great
Review: David Fincher can always be relied on for well-paced, darkly tantalizing entertainment; and David Koepp is a fine and versatile scribe. It's no surprise, then, that 'Panic Room' doesn't disappoint entirely. But it hardly ranks with their best efforts. As in 'Fight Club,' Fincher's wall-dissolving camera tricks are impressive. But they actually work against the tension in this story by placing the audience beyond the claustrophobic reality of the house. Similarly, Koepp's story premise and dialogue are good enough to keep you watching, but his plot offers few real surprises. Ultimately, it's the performances which save the day. Would-be robbers Leto, Whittaker and Yoakam strike the perfect balance between incompetence and menace; and Jodie Foster manages to be maternal, terrified and fearless - all at the same time. No wonder she has two Oscars.
Rating: 
Summary: Panic Room, a physical Thriller? or an Action?
Review: My answer, neither. When you see this movie, which you will, do not expect an action adventure, or a slam-Bang thriller, which was insuated by the commercials. For me it was an edge-of-my-seat thriller, with amazingly entertaining cinematography, and surprisingly good acting on all the charectors part.
Rating:
Summary: PANIC ROOM is a stylish and electrifying thriller
Review: PANIC ROOM could have been a Home Alone parody if not for the luminous Jodie Foster and director David Fincher to pull off an entertaining yet classy thriller. Foster is Meg Altman who finds her new residence in Connecticut invaded by a trio of robbers - and with no one in sight except for her daughter, a hysterical Meg locks herself up with her daughter Sarah (Kristen Stewart) in a vault-like room crammed with surveillance cameras and security features. The "Panic Room" as it is called contains unknowingly treasure bonds which the robbers have set their sights on. The criminals are played by a solemn Whitaker, a cocky Jared Leto and the psychopath-in-a-mask Yoakham. Their conflicts act on to the palpable tension. No doubt the story is a conventional damsel-in-distress; but Fincher having helmed Seven, Fight Club and The Game stylishly creates a five-storey house on the Upper West side. He manipulates the space through fluid camera takes and swoops down with spectral camera through airducts and walls to intensify the narration. The house is immediately cavernous and sepulchural. Jodie Foster is at her best with protective maternal instincts, pounding robbers with sledgehammers in spite of her claustrophobia. Her daughter is complicated by her diabetes and requires an insulin shot urgently. Panic Room manages to grip with anxiety and atmosphere - it has substance enough to raise an alarm in us.
Rating:
Summary: No dull parts, continual suspense and plot twists.
Review: The movie begins with a recently divorced wife and her child looking for home to buy. They choose an expensive mansion/townhouse that has this "panic room" in case of emergency. It has 3 foot thick steel walls, tv screens of all the surveilance cameras throughout the house, a separate phone line, and unknown to the new owners of the house, several million dollars worth of bonds in a hidden safe. 3 crooks did know about the bonds and all would have gone smoothly for them except for the fact that they moved into it a week early. Jodie Foster is pretty sexy in this one, acting most of the movie wearing a tight black spagetti top. The girl who plays her daughter is ugly and I seriously thought she was a boy for about a half an hour into the movie until she was called by the name of Sarah. The plot is pretty engaging throughout the movie. Three burglars break into their house, expecting it to be empty but they moved in a week early, so this creates problems. The woman and her kid make it into the panic room just in time, in safety. But the crooks won't leave so easily and they know more about the panic room than the new inhabitants do. They know that the separate phone line for it isn't hooked up yet and they know there is a fortune in bonds in the safe, left behind by a deceased man that no one else knows about. It is interesting seeing all the ways they try getting into the panic room and getting them to come out. The unexpected pressure makes conflict break out among the three accomplices. Two out three of them end up killed right in the house by each others hands. I don't remember how or which crook knew of the bonds, but I was wondering why the woman or the crooks never thought of splitting it with her in exchange for her cooperation. But that wouldn't have made much of a movie, now would it? Like "Ransom", this movie shows how being rich can put one into danger by being a target. I found it ironic that the biggest crook of the three had been some type of security person working to keep guys like them out and now he's a crook because things didn't work out the way he wanted them to, he told the kid. It was also ironic that the guy didn't want to hurt anyone in the burglary but he came back into the house to kill the burglar who was about to kill the woman. Had it not been for that delay, he probably would have made it out of the place, and out of the country, with 22 million dollars. But because he spared her life, the cops got him in time. Telling him to hold his hands up, the bonds were in his fist. They told him they wanted to see his palms, so he had to let go of the bonds and the wind of the storm that had been going on all night blew them away. Then the scene moved ahead and her kid is older and they are looking at houses in the classifieds again. I was wondering what would become of that man. I mean, yes, he's guilty of breaking and entering and stealing the bonds, and killing his accomplice, but didn't he save the life of the woman and her kid? If it wasn't for him, the other two would've just killed them, as they nearly did several times.
Rating: 
Summary: Typical Fincher Film, Flashy Styles Over Empty Contents
Review: When we watch this kind of thriller, with its contrived and implausible premises, we had better check first the following three points: 1) director; 2) actor(s); 3) and scriptwriter. In the case of "Panic Room," the very person who gathers our most enhansed expectation is, naturally, the first one, David Fincher, and when it comes to his trademark sweeping cameraworks, you soon realize he did a good job. First, don't be late for the show, not a minute for, you'll soon see, the most innovative part of the whole film is, rather ironically, its first five minutes in which you can see one of the most original titleback designs you ever see these days. As we are greatly intrigued by Kyle Cooper's titles in Fincher's "Se7en," so we are to be astonished to see the film's title and cast's names as if really floating in the sky of Manhattan. It is very stylish and original, so not a blink should not allowed. Don't let your friends talk to you or detain you in front of the box-office, thinking it's just an opening credit sequence. And now we come to No. 2, Ms. Foster. Replacing Nicole Kidman who bailed out from the production (but whose voice is briefly heard as a cameo), Jodie Foster gives her good, solid performance as the heroine of modern-day thriller, who, as always, should appears ordinary at first, but later becomes incredibly tough when required. As her daughter appears newcomer Kristen Stewart in good shape, but the real story begins when three burglers (Whitaker, Yoakam, Leto, all typecast) break into her 4-storey building equipped with "Panic Room," a secret high-tech room prepared in case of emergency. And, guys, there's a rub, I mean No. 3, the script. Oh, if you are a fan of first-rate thrillers like me, you will be dismayed, as you easily find so many holes in David Koepp's story that you can predict what the characters are going to do the next five minutes. Even the dialogues are barely average, one of them referring to SOS signal too banal way, making me anticipate the name of, before the character speaks, "Titanic," and she says exactly the same way! (No way!) Seriously, David Koepp's scripts, if you remember, are always helped greatly by master directors -- see "Spider-man" "Jurassic Park" and so on and on.... Well, I admit his cat-and-mouse story is just ... adequate, but nothing more. But what the heck is this plot hole (not a minor one, you'll notice) about door censor? Or, how come such a rich person, who can afford to take an entire floor on the spot in today's New York City, fails to provide enough security for herself and her child? Come on! Those complaints aside, the director David Fincher keeps the ball rolling on pretty tactfully, not boring the viewers till the film's not a little predictable ending. To be frank, though I do not admire his technical things so much as others, it is, I admit, something breathlesstaking to watch his sweeping camerawork -- see, for example, how the camera floats in the air, from above the floor through the dark room and even a coffee pot, too. And it also peeps through the key hole (wow, some might say). After all, these things remain in your memory best because, for that purpose, stylist Fincher took 40 and 50 and more takes of each scene. In conclusion, "Panic Room" caters what we expect from modern thrillers based on our fears about our modern life in Western Civilization, especially about ever increasing crimes. However, don't look for reality, just fun, and larger-than-life fun at that.
Rating:
Summary: Fincher goes mainstream but doesn't sacrifice quality
Review: Director David Fincher has given his expectant audience, who revelled in his previous works including the left of center Seven and Fight Club, a much more conventional suspense story with Panic Room. This will almost certainly give Fincher his greatest box office takings, but he can be equally proud of his latest work which will be appreciated by the masses and not only the cult followers his other works have attracted. Jodie Foster carries the film with a performance that equals her Oscar winning performance of her best work, Silence Of The Lambs. She is entirely convincing in her role of a recently divorced mother who moves into a large (too large) new house with her 12 year old daughter, only to become a target of three burglars during her first night in her new home. Country singer Dwight Yoakam is outstanding in his supporting role of burglar Raoul, and his performance is complemented by fellow criminals Forest Whittaker (this actor gains the audiences sympathy in almost every role he takes), and comic relief Jared Leto. My attention didn't waver for the entire duration of the film and both the gasping and prolonged silences of the audience in the theatre seemed to indicate that they too were both surprised and enthralled by the film's twists and turns. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: It's Glucagon-not insulin
Review: When a diabetic goes into insulin shock, it's because he/she has low blood sugar. Giving insulin at that point will cause death. The movie got it right, for once--she received a shot of Glucagon, which raised her blood sugar (never mind that she'd be throwing up all over the place after the Glucagon injection). Not too inaccurate for a movie!
Ah, yes, the rest of the movie was well done as well.
Rating:
Summary: Great camera work, but also a great dissappointment!
Review: The only thing that saved this movie was director David Fincher. Unfortunately, Fincher's brilliant use of camera and rare direction skills are immensely overshadowed by a very weak screenplay and rediculous dialouge. The bumbling "bad guys" are three stooger-like and show no signs of originality. The soundtrack is the main source of the thrills in an otherwise mediocre thriller. Throughout the film, there are obvious instances where the screenwriter ran out of ideas and just threw in ridiculous sequences to make the running time respectable.
So if you're looking for a cheap, thoughtless thriller with no real creativity (except of course the unorthodox camera work of Fincher) this is the movie for you. But, if you're looking to see a film that keeps you interested with excellent all around acting, a realistic script, and effective suspense,(and you're a Jodie Foster fan) I recommend "Silence of the Lambs." To see what David Fincher can do with a thoughtful script, watch "Seven."
Rating:
Summary: Very good thriller....
Review: I've seem a few reviews saying the characters and plot are not very developed and sometimes very unbelievable - but did similar thrillers such as the 'Die Hard' series have anything better? Not really, since the main purpose of thrillers & 'Action' movies is to 'thrill' & excite, not to compete with Shakspeare plays... The plot is more or less standard: a mother and her diabetic daughter move to a new & VERY big house, which has a 'panic' or 'safe' room - a room which can only be opened from the inside once locked. On thier first night in the house, before the room is completely set up, they end up using it against 3 burgulars that come into it (thinking the house was still empty). They want something that is hidden in a safe in the panic room - and a game of cat and mouse begins. I think that Jodie Foster was perfect for the part, especially with her Clarice Starling (Silence of the Lambs) background - with all due respect to Nicole Kidman, she would have never been able to portray such feminine yet strong character as well as Jodie.
Rating:
Summary: Good Characters and Bad Plot
Review: The high point of this movie was it's extremely interesting collection of bad guys. Three bad guys to be exact. And each of them were totally different. One was really an ups and downs type who would throw himself headlong into anything until the first bump in the road. The next was a real good hearted guy that wanted what he wanted. And the last was impassive, collected, and unflinching at anything. It was really fun getting to watch these guys play against the good girls. I'll admit I got to wanting one of the bad guys to win! The bad points of the movie were it had almost no plot and that lead to an almost perfectly predictability. Also from the same bad plotting came lots of completely useless scenes and scenes just plain dragged out way too far. It wasn't bad, but I'm sure you couldn't say it was good.
|
