(I tried to make it spoiler-free, but there might be a few minor spoliers.)

I really wanted to like this movie, and I was looking forward to it ever since I heard about the spec sale so many months ago. I followed the casting circus surrounding it, and I felt my heart race when I found out that David Fincher would be directing Jodie Foster. Great visual director. Great actor. A script that took a basic, simple idea and had most of Hollywood buzzing. Seemed like the recipe for a popcorn movie worth its salt.

In retrospect, I’m not really sure why I thought I would like it. The more I think about it, the more I realize I didn’t so much think I would like it – I just want to SEE it. And see it I did.

Though I’m not the usual fan of popcorn thriller movies, I can get into them every now and then. The problem with them for me is that there’s usually so much that you have to accept at face value in the premise in order to sit back and enjoy the movie without constantly yelling at the screen (in your mind, at least). You know what I mean. "Don’t go in that room!" Or more basic stuff, like "why are you cheating on your wife? Haven you seen FATAL ATTRACTION?" Or whatever. When you watch your standard Hollywood thriller, there’s a lot you have to ignore in order to watch and enjoy the movie.

PANIC ROOM is a well-crafted, viscerally entertaining thriller if, and only if, you can accept that there’s just some elements in it that are not going to make sense. Certain principles of logic and common sense are sacrificed in order to take the audience on a ride. It’s sort of like a rollercoaster; getting on an 80 mph runaway train that drops you off right where you got on really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense except for the purpose of getting on an 80 mph runaway train.

I’m not sure why I thought this one would be different. David Fincher is a great visual artist, and though his previous movies (among them, SEVEN, THE GAME, FIGHT CLUB) have strained the boundaries of logic, they haven’t really broken it. Or maybe just a couple hairline fractures. I didn’t like FIGHT CLUB, but not because it didn’t make sense. I understood perfectly what it was saying. I just didn’t agree with it. But then that movie came from a fairly sound piece of fiction (so I hear) that needed a visual stylist to figure out exactly how to translate it to the screen. The basic story of PANIC ROOM – woman and daughter are locking in saferoom trying to fight off bad guys who want something in the saferoom – that needed no translation. Visual style is good to have, but Fincher’s work has always been heavy on style, with the substance straining to keep up. In SEVEN, and even FIGHT CLUB, there was plenty of substance to support the art direction budget. Here, with this amazingly simple story, Fincher’s work ends up being superfluous. How much CGI work do you need in a story set in one house? He has never shown himself to someone who could get out of the way of moving story, and here the flying camera shots and see-through floors all seem like an exercise in existence justification. "Unless I do the visual," he seems to be saying, "it’s going to look like anyone could have directed this."

Then again, maybe a different director would have demanded another couple passes on the script. David Koepp, the writer, has made a good name for himself pulling duty on high concept studio fare, but moreso in writing fascinating thrillers on spec. He translated JURASSIC PARK to the satisfaction of many, and he’s the man behind the upcoming SPIDER-MAN. He’s also responsible for the very interesting THE TRIGGER EFFECT and STIR OF ECHOES, both of which he directed. Here again, there should have been clues. Both of those movies, the latter especially, being based on a Richard Matheson novel, feature ultra catchy premises that aren’t developed to great effect. Interesting as ideas, but they tail off towards the end.

His story for PANIC ROOM grabs you from the beginning, and one of the best things about the movie is how fast it moves you from introduction to danger. The panic room is explained very quickly, and any other exposition is doled out on a need-to-know basis. This is how it should be done, Hollywood thriller construction at its best. But can it move fast enough to get audiences to ignore the holes and lapses in logic?

The answer to the question is, probably – regrettably – yes. While this won’t go down as some cinematic classic, most will easily ignore some of the problems I had with it. Few will question why there are three bad guys when they should have been two. Few will think about the character trait the Jodie Foster has then doesn’t have. Maybe they’ll laugh when the bad guys ask a certain question in the third act; it’s certainly meant to be funny, but it is also a serious question that deserves an answer. (I’m trying to give a spoiler-free review here.)

One reason audiences will ignore the holes: Jodie Foster. She gives a performance that rises above the material that seems meant to sabotage her every step of the way. It seems to tease her, giving her motivation then taking it away, making her seem smart then dumb as a doorknob. Through it all, works to make it seem, if not always believable, at least admirable. She manages to be a joy to watch work, and work she does.

The baddies are a different issue. Forest Whitaker is decent as a decent crook. Jaret Leto, however, is not decent. A friend commented that the art department must have had a huge budget to replace all the scenery Leto kept chewing. His character is a greedy, conniving idiot, and Leto’s silly fight to steal every scene he’s in makes him come off the same way.

Nevertheless, I’m convinced people will enjoy this movie. That’s not a pessimistic or elitist view of audiences as idiots who can’t tell a good movie. No, it’s because, in spite of Holland Tunnel-sized holes, the movie takes an interesting premise and manages to be quite thrilling – if you ignore the holes. And ultimately, trying to point out the holes is like trying to tell rollercoaster riders that the trip doesn’t really go anywhere. They don’t care. They just want to go for a ride.

@@@ out of @@@@@


RED
His super power is lack of money!
He's impervious to creditors!
He's...The Got-No-Green Lantern!

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com