Panic Room

2002

Crime / Drama / Thriller

40
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 75%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 63%
IMDb Rating 6.8 10 229027

Synopsis


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 47,571 times
July 29, 2018 at 06:31 PM

Director

Cast

Kristen Stewart as Sarah Altman
Jared Leto as Junior
Nicole Kidman as Stephen's Girlfriend on the Phone
Jodie Foster as Meg Altman
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
964.85 MB
1280*534
English
R
23.976 fps
1hr 52 min
P/S 23 / 144
1.8 GB
1920*800
English
R
23.976 fps
1hr 52 min
P/S 16 / 108

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by DKosty123 4 / 10

Great Cast But Crazy Plot

You can not fault Jodie Foster, Forest Whitaker, and the cast in this one. They do a great job of trying to put this over. Unfortunately, either the script writers were on strike, or just plain stupid when they put this thing into writing.

I mean, these crooks have to be the most stupid crooks ever. Why would you wait until a place has been sold and moved into to decide to break into a safe that has millions of dollars in it? I mean, I would have been there while it was empty to do this. The script does not really give you enough background on why this circumstance came to be other than talking about some estate, but still little sense is made of this.

The script even makes fun of it's flaws late in the film when Foster takes a sledge hammer around and starts knocking out closed circuit cameras, and one of the crooks makes their most intelligent words in the film - "Why the h*ll didn't we think of that?"

If you buy the hokey premise of the script then you enjoy the suspense it creates. The trouble is there are so many holes that you have to be a fan of Swiss cheese to really do that. Still, I did enjoy seeing the folks in this cast try to make this into a good film. If it were not for their acting, my rating would be a 1.

There is so much wrong with the script that all I can recommend is if you put your brain in park, and just watch it for the cast, you will enjoy it. If you try to make any sense out of the actions the plot generates, you will wind up in a rubber room with a straight jacket to keep you restrained. In fact, that seems to happen to the cast in this one.

Reviewed by secondtake 7 / 10

A one-trick plot, but amazing camera, intense acting, and tightly made.

Panic Room (2002)

There are three reasons to see Panic Room. 1) The titles: understated, gorgeous, uncanny letters floating in the Manhattan cityscape. 2) The photography: camera moving like an animal, slipping between tiny spaces, swinging across rooms and through floors, inhabiting the screen like another character. 3) Forest Whitaker, again (he's so good so often it's hard to not expect a great performance).

The rest of the film is very good, directed with style and intelligence as usual by David Fincher (who did Seven and Fight Club). The plot is good, but maybe a little conventional overall, and if the details aren't completely predictable, the general flow of events is. The whole cast is quite good--Foster in a familiar embattled, determined role, and Jared Leto is an appropriately crazed, if slightly caricatured, bad guy who just wants money. Don't we all.

I saw this when it came out and was dazzled and yet disappointed by the plot. The second time, knowing the events, I was able to just watch how they unfolded, and it was much better. Expect suspense, intensity, and beautiful camera-work.

Reviewed by canuckteach 2 / 10

Say What? The script's the thing...

I watched part of this film on 'Rogers Pay-TV' after seeing the nifty trailer on iTunes. About 15 minutes in, I wished I'd spent my $3 on a really good cup of coffee instead! Then, I started to read the reviews here at IMDb and realized that I was witnessing a murder in progress--a murder of the suspense-thriller genre.

Since the camera work and cast are first class, how does one create such a muddled flick? Simple: the script. High school kids can't really act, but when they perform 'Oklahoma' or 'Fiddler on the Roof', the presentation is usually passable. Why? good script.

There is no camera work at a live presentation of one of Shakespeare's plays, even using unknown but gifted performers - yet the final product is generally intriguing. Why? good script.

A compelling actor like Hugh Laurie, Anthony Hopkins, Ralph Fiennes, or {fill in name of your fav American actor here - don't want to hurt your feelings - you get my point} could sit in a chair and stare at a live audience, or at a single camera for 2 hours - you'd be spellbound if they spin a good yarn, but only if they had a good script.

But without a script, even the best actors toil in futility. Forest Whitaker is always brilliant. Jody Foster has 'A'-list talent. Jared Leto plays a good 'bizarro-type' (try his understated performance in 'Switchback' with Danny Glover) and Dwight Yoakam has the chops to 'weird you out' in bit roles (made me shudder in 'Sling Blade'). How could such a roster produce this piece of junk? Bad script. A revealing clue that the writer tanked the screenplay is when the bad guys show up and start cursing for no particular reason. The 'script' probably reads 'the bad guys show up and start cursing for no particular reason'.

The array of dumb things in this film, listed here at IMDb, seems endless, but I'll add one more (apologies if someone got it before): Jody and daughter are using a flashlight to signal a sleeping neighbor for help,100 yards away. He wakes up, looks out his window and.... and.....and... they stop flashing the SOS and they begin to holler 'Help Help Help' (through a rainstorm). He can't hear. He goes back to sleep. Darn it - I hate it when that happens.

Finally - looking for a good cast, nifty camera work, decent performance, and forgivable minor slips in logic? try 'Red Eye'! the difference? good script.

Read more IMDb reviews

5 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment