|
Directed by: David Fincher Starring: Jodie Foster, Forrest Whitaker Director: David Fincher Starring: Jodie Foster, Forrest Whitaker Plot: A recently divorced mother and her daughter get a great bargain on a luxurious New York tbrownstone - but the house comes with a price Views: This film is great. From Finchers memorable opening credits to the scene with the gas bottle, the DP displays excellent photography skills - if you appreciated the "Detonation" sequence in Fight Club, you're in for a treat here as one of Finchers moves...quoted from imdb quote:Then we are given a remarkable tracking shot that outdoes de Palma, Altman, Andersen. This starts out with various angles on Meg in bed, then goes out the room, between the balusters and down the stairwell. It eventually takes us all through the house as the baddies break in. On and on it goes, in and out of a keyhole, through the handle of a coffeepot, through floors and walls. Each moment thrills. The lighting is excellent and watching it for the first time, theres a palpable sensation of danger. Foster is at her peak, displayng remarkable levels of fitness for someone who was pregnant during filming, and Forrest Whittaker plays the role of reluctant criminal well. Perhaps the weakest link goes to the daughter character. I rate this film 4/5
|
# ? May 3, 2004 09:35 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 08:21 |
|
one of the rare few films i have watched and fell asleep during (spiderman being the other one i can remember). I thought Panic room was just pretty boring with a predictable plotline and pretty lame acting. I didnt realise that this is actually david fincher film, which is somewhat shocking, since as all the other fincher movies i own are so good (fight club, the game, se7en and alien3) 2/5
|
# ? May 3, 2004 10:26 |
|
This had a terrible, terrible ending, and that completely ruined the film for me.
|
# ? May 3, 2004 17:04 |
|
Well-made, but utterly disappointing. There wasn't a single moment in the film where I felt even the slightest bit of concern for the "victims." The villains tend to provide more comedy than suspense. Still, the performances are all strong, despite the maddenly weak plot, making the whole production at least marginally watchable. 2/5
|
# ? May 4, 2004 05:24 |
|
it was a decent little film. my biggest problem with it was the overuse of computer effects when panning through the house. i would actually give this film a 4, mostly because of the acting.
|
# ? May 4, 2004 05:31 |
|
I was not a big fan of this film. It seemed to lack any respect for human life, justifying death for people just because they did some "bad" things. This movie does earn high scores for some pretty tense and imaginative stand-offs.
|
# ? May 4, 2004 05:32 |
|
I really love this movie. It's got incredible cinematography, great acting and direction, and the single coolest extended tracking shot this side of Touch of Evil. But the thing I like most about Panic Room is the smart script. With few exceptions, the characters use their brains and do what real, intelligent people would do in tight situations. That is rarely true of this type of thriller. 4/5
|
# ? May 4, 2004 06:34 |
|
I thought the plot in this was horrible and besides foster, the acting equally lovely. Not overly painful to watch, but one movie I never need to see again.
|
# ? May 5, 2004 01:11 |
|
It isn't saying much, but it's Fincher's worst movie. 3/5
|
# ? May 5, 2004 06:53 |
|
quote:thefunkygibbon came out of the closet to say: 1st time through I was disappointed by Fincher and Foster. I had no sympathy for a woman who would move into such an oversized house just to spite her husband. 2nd time I watched it I liked it more. Not much more, but a little bit more. Fans of this movie - or even more, people who watched and didn't like it - should check out a little gem about a woman trapped alone in her apartment from 1967 - Wait Until Dark. Audrey Hepburn vs. a truly nasty bunch of villains. If you're a DVD watcher and haven't seen it before, get Wait Until Dark instead of Panic Room. Turn off every light source in the room, unplug your phone, and watch Audrey Hepburn and Alan Arkin's brilliant performances. *edit* it's a cheap Warner Bros. case with few DVD extras, might want to rent not buy. 3.0 Okay Binary Logic fucked around with this message at 03:39 on May 27, 2004 |
# ? May 26, 2004 17:07 |
|
It's a good entertaining thriller, with good performances offset by it's unfortunate ending. Forrest Whitaker's character should obviously have been let go. 3.5/5
|
# ? Jun 7, 2004 14:14 |
|
I thought this was a really entertaining movie, and not just because Jodie Foster was ultra-sexy in it . 4/5
|
# ? Jun 7, 2004 19:09 |
|
It's rare to see a movie with as much tension as this one. The extended tracking shot is one of my favorite movie scenes, and I liked just about all the characters. I also liked the whole idea that the daughter is diabetic.
|
# ? Jun 8, 2004 02:17 |
|
Highly underrated film. I cannot understand why there would be any hate for this. It's quite intense in parts, the acting is very good, and the special effects are very impressive (check the extras on the 3disc DVD to see just how MUCH special effects actual are in the movie!)
|
# ? Jun 8, 2004 21:13 |
|
Very fun, thrilling movie. Jodie Foster is excellent, i love Jodie Foster. This brings me to my next question; why does she choose to NEVER act! If you look at her filmography, she's never working...always turning down roles...why won't she ever act! All her movies are great and she is great. 4/5
|
# ? Jun 9, 2004 02:24 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 08:21 |
|
Pretty bad. I thought Jodie's daughter was her son for half the film, and the diabetic thing was an embarrasing plot device. And did we need to see Jodie sitting on a toilet? I also hated, hated, hated the slo-mo shots. I broke out into a slowed down version of "Yakity Sax" during one of them. The CGI shots that went through the insides of the doors and pipes were incredibly tedious as well. 2/5 Rent Rope instead, if you want to see a good thriller (well, drama at least) set inside a house. Max Nitwit fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Jun 27, 2004 |
# ? Jun 27, 2004 11:10 |