Movie News

MORIARTY Felt Trapped By PANIC ROOM!!

Published at: March 29, 2002, 8:42 a.m. CST by staff

Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.

David Fincher is one of the best directors working right now. Make no mistake about that. He has a remarkable sense of composition, an innate ability to establish spacial relationships in a suspense or action moment, and a genuinely winning touch with performers, whether they're world-class actors or background players. Since his feature debut with ALIEN 3, he's been drawn to fairly dark material, building his films around whip-smart narratives that fucked with audience expectations. THE GAME and FIGHT CLUB were both hotly debated by filmgoers, and have rabid fan bases. He once said, "I'm interested in cinema that scars," and has been mentioned in connection with all sorts of projects, like FERTIG or PASSENGERS or SEARED or RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA or LULLABY or CHEMICAL PINK, all of which seem like challenges for different reasons.

What then are we to make of PANIC ROOM, an entirely professional and ultimately lifeless style exercise that marks nothing so much as proof that Fincher can color within the lines and make a studio movie just as pedestrian as anyone else?

David Koepp's script wastes no time with messy extras like characterization or exposition. After an unusual and edgy title sequence (disquieting despite being so simple), we meet Meg Altman (Jodie Foster) and her daughter Sarah (Kristen Stewart, a remarkably accurate version of a younger Foster) as they are shown a house by two realtors (Ann Magnuson and Ian Buchanan). On the tour, they are shown the panic room and told all its features. Sealed, impenetrable, with a phone line that can't be cut. It's as efficient as it needs to be, and there's a big red herring dropped about Meg being claustrophobic, something which is essentially useless for the rest of the movie, a dead end. Meg's getting divorced. She's mad at her husband. He's rich, and she's getting back at him by spending it. That's all we need to know. Then they're moved in, they're going to bed, and someone breaks in.

It's just that quick. The rest of the movie is what happens on that long night that Burnham (Forest Whitaker), Raoul (Dwight Yoakam), and Junior (Jared Leto) spend trying to get into the panic room. It's as quick a setup for a suspense film as I've ever seen. And it's not poorly done. But there's something lifeless about the affair. As I watched, all I could think about was the remarkable production design by Arthur Max and which cinematographer (Darius Khondji and Conrad W. Hall, one of Khondji's long-time operators, are both listed) shot which footage, and how smooth and propulsive the editing of Jim Haygood and Angus Wall is, and as far as the people onscreen were concerned, I didn't care. Not a bit. Because they're ghosts. They're types. They're never developed even slightly. In the first third of the film, Fincher's too busy flying his camera from one end of the house to the other, from the top to the bottom, using remarkable, illusory visual effects contributed by Toybox under the supervision of Kevin Tod Haug.

I've heard many a fanboy squeal about how cool it looks in the trailer when the camera goes through the handle of a coffee pot. The mere fact that, of everything they see, that's the detail that interests them, makes me think that this film is going to be a huge hit. Personally, I don't get the attraction. In FIGHT CLUB, Fincher's audacious camera work was a perfet complement to the brazen flood of language that Jim Uhls adapted so well from the original novel.

That wasn't his visual style in SE7EN, though, or in THE GAME, both of which featured an austere, solemn visual sense that made Fincher seem like the heir apparent to Kubrick himself. PANIC ROOM is his riff on Hitchcock, much like WHAT LIES BENEATH gave Zemeckis a chance to do his impression, complete with a surprising amount of unnecessary CG work. Personally, I got tired of the swooping camera about 15 minutes into the film, and by the time Jodie Foster took a seat on a toilet in the dark, I was genuinely afraid Fincher was going to swoop through the pipes and straight up the birth canal.

Fortunately, Fincher seems to get tired of it, or perhaps one of his two DPs managed to talk him out of it. At any rate, he stops overusing those shots and gets down to the business of locking Meg and her daughter in the panic room that no one can get into, and then turning loose the three other characters to try and get in. Forest Whitaker is the most memorable of the three, and that's thanks to the fact that he's the only character in the film that Koepp seems even remotely interested in. In fact, Whitaker alone forces me to recommend the film to you. Despite any other misgivings I have about the film, he gives one of those great, strong, quiet performances of his that remind you what a wonderful and unique presence he is in movies in general, and it's worth seeing. There's a moment late in the film when he realizes that he's been wearing a nametag during the entire robbery that he plays with the grace of Gene Kelly on a lamppost. And his final moment in the film is a primal and powerful visual moment that he sells completely, even if the numbing familiarity of the "twist" robs the moment of the punch it should have had.

Yoakam and Leto both do solid work here. Yoakam is a character actor who continues to impress me each time I see him. He's honest, and he gives nice, uncluttered performances. He's stranded by the script here, though, to being just some snarling thug. The most color he has in the film is his name, which doesn't seem to quite fit. Much of the film's mechanics are driven by his character, who simply exists as a plot device, a bit of business at all the right moments. Leto is at least given perfunctory motivations late in the film when the script fills in a few details, and there's a laugh or two to be had from the reveals, but for Yoakam, there's nothing.

When robbed of any and all emotional connection to the characters in a film like this, you're left with set pieces. So how is Fincher at orchestrating the tension? Surprisingly, he's just okay at it. There are moments where he works too hard, robbing the film of real tension by resorting to slow motion and the dropping out of sound at the exact moment you expect it. I'd say the most successful overall sequence involves gas being piped into the panic room, and Meg's explosive response. It's well-shot, even a little hallucinatory, and it's funny, due in large part to just how tense things get. But overall, I didn't feel like the film ever managed to sustain that sort of mood. The introduction of Meg's ex-husband Stephan (Patrick Bauchau) never pays off. He's a blank. And brief appearances by Andrew Kevin Walker as a sleepy neighbor or Paul Schulze and Mel Rodriguez as a pair of cops don't really pay off as suspense. I can tell that these scenes are supposed to be suspenseful, but they don't work. They're like unfinished sketches. Beautiful, polished, yet somehow unfinished.

As I think about this film, I feel like the Narrator of FIGHT CLUB, arguing with my own private Tyler Durden. One half of me says to shut up and sit back and enjoy the slick, but the other half can't disengage. I expected more from Fincher. I think he's a genuinely important filmmaker, and this feels like a waste of his time, no matter how accomplished. But who am I to say that? Maybe he just wanted to see how tight he could turn the screws for once, and he wasn't concerned about really etching characters. After all, BLADE 2 works primarily as a Grand Guiginol bloodbath, an exercise in twisted imagination. It's not a great script, and it's certainly not airtight. So why should I give that one a pass and not this one? Because this film never cuts loose enough to earn that level of pass. If it was a non-stop rollercoaster, and it delivered on the full promise of the set-up, or if it managed to twist the concept in on itself in some clever way that paid off our time in the theater, then I could say, fine, no problem, it's good enough. But it's not. And there's no substance to pick up the slack when the style isn't enough.

So take this as what it is, a mixed review. I think some audiences will like this a lot, and they'll be completely undemanding about it, and they'll get their money's worth when they buy a ticket.

Great. Cool. I don't dislike the film enough to try and dissuade you. Like I said, it's made with every bit of professional finish Fincher can muster, and it's technically impressive to behold. But here's the best way I can describe it: we've all had Big Macs. And everywhere you have a Big Mac, they're pretty much the same. In this case, the Big Mac is a generic Paramount-style woman in jeopardy empowerment thriller. Big Macs sell; DOUBLE JEOPARDY raked in the bank. You don't eat a Big Mac because you want great food. You just eat it because it's convenient at a particular moment, and it's familiar, and you know what you're going to get. Everyone once in a while, you eat a Big Mac, and it's like Wolfgang freakin' Puck himself slipped into the kitchen just to prepare that one Big Mac. The sauce is perfect, the bun tastes like real freshly baked bread, the meat is lean and tastes like actual beef, and the whole thing just seems about as good as a Big Mac can ever be expected to be.

But it's still a Big Mac.

And, dammit, I wanted more.

"Moriarty" out.





Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 29, 2002, 8:49 a.m. CST

    Excellent

    by DivideByZero

    I'll catch the 5:00 showing later today, loved all of Fincher's work thus far.

  • March 29, 2002, 8:58 a.m. CST

    i wish he keeps us fan boys happy

    by waq2009

    i really do i love finch and yeah i want this movie to be great but im not sure anymore im going to be keeping my fingers crossed and am i first? btw sweeping camera rules

  • March 29, 2002, 8:58 a.m. CST

    dissapointing

    by MAGGA

    I had pretty high hopes for this. And even though I may dissagree with Moriarty once I see the finished film (I loved A.I), it's the reasons he gives for being diisapointed that worry me. I'm not a fan of The Game or Alien3, so it seems like less than half his films so far have worked. Let's hope it isn't true...

  • March 29, 2002, 8:59 a.m. CST

    ...BLAH!

    by thx777b

    Hey its thx777b, here! Great reaview again mor. As the biggest fincher fan in the whole planet i have to say even if i didn't seen the film yet, that i will probably one of the ones that love the way teh film looks but agree on the script with DRew. AS good a director is you can't change an average script. At least David the next kubrick Fincher made a hell fun of it. Look at this as Fincher's Spartacus!:)

  • March 29, 2002, 9:08 a.m. CST

    EXCELLENT REVIEW

    by uberob

    Damn fine review. For any other director, this would have been a passable addition to his work. But for Fincher, you just want something more. Something that you mull over for a few days. The only thing I disagree with is your review of Yoakum's work on this piece. That yodalling hillbilly surprises me every time. And in this one, he seems like a character lent from Tarrantino; self-important, overly serious, too eager to be a gangster. If nothing else, he's a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

  • I'll still see this one tonight, and decide for myself, however.

  • March 29, 2002, 9:21 a.m. CST

    I saw Blade II last night.

    by rev_skarekroe

    It was mediocre at best. About on the same level as the first Blade, which is to say it was not as good as "Near Dark" but much much better than "John Carpenter's Vampires." What's the point? The AICN inner circle was jizzing all over themselves about that flick (literally it seems, in Harry's case) but it turned out to be a fairly pedestrian affair. So I'm going to take the AICN reviews with a grain of salt (even Moriarty, who's the best writer here when he can refrain from turning his reviews into fantasy short stories) and just go see stuff I have a personal interest in. sk

  • March 29, 2002, 9:27 a.m. CST

    /chuckle

    by EvilNight

    I dig the Big Mac analogy. That just about sums up the problems I have with most films these days... they don't suck, but they just don't rock either...

  • March 29, 2002, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Fincher made this because...

    by bluegeoff

    He's just playing the Hollywood game for the suits. He's made great movies, but you are as only big as your last box office. Fight Club wasn't a big enough blockbuster to give Fincher the clout to get the budget for the kind of movies he wants to make. So he makes this piece of candy for some suit, it makes some coin, and he gets to play in whatever sandbox he wants to next time around.

  • March 29, 2002, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Moriarty

    by LeeScoresby

    Fantastic review. Concise and fair. I will probably see this film for a few reasons 1) David Fincher amazes me. 2) I didn't think I was going to LOVE fight club til I saw it 3) My girlfriend loves Jodie Foster 4) Dwight Yoakam, who is just as good an actor as he is a performer. What Moriarty describes is exactly how I felt when just viewing the trailer. The sense that this would be a technically superior "woman in jeopardy" film. If it was anyone other than Fincher, I'd take your review as a great reason to catch this puppy on video. Since it's him though...I have to see it.

  • March 29, 2002, 10:04 a.m. CST

    Amazing Larry

    by dkirk78

    (1) The Happy Meal analogy is hardly difficult to come up with. I daresay you were far from the first person to make it, so thus it can't be "stolen" from you. (2) You tell Moriarty to "check the archives" if he doesn't believe you, then tell him not to "appropriate" your analogy. Uh-- so basically you're saying, maybe he didn't know that he was stealing your words, but he shouldn't have done it anyway. What is he, psychic? I'm so sorry that he made off with your unoriginal intellectual property. We all know what a famous reviewer you are, and how your career has been damaged. P.S. Loved your work with Pee-Wee.

  • March 29, 2002, 10:29 a.m. CST

    Same reason Scorcese made Cape Fear....

    by Fatal Discharge

    ...or Color Of Money - because he needs a straightforward film that's a hit at the box-office. Since Seven, his films have made less and less money and his budgets have gone higher and higher. That spells money-losing in Hollywood. And sticking Jodie Foster in may actually get women to want to see a film of his instead of being dragged by their boyfriends to it.

  • March 29, 2002, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Fincher's good, but ...

    by abihu

    David Fincher is a good director, but oddly enough, he doesn't really appeal to me. In fact, I don't much like him at all. I thought 'Fight Club' was a joke. His work, to me, seems to be the product of a sophisticated 14-year-old.

  • March 29, 2002, 11:18 a.m. CST

    ah, baloney

    by omarthesnake

    "color within the lines"? What other director would have a gag about one of the bad guys **** spoiler warning, written in pig latin to protect those who don't want to know: ickingpay upay ishay ownay ingersfay ****. and maybe YOU don't feel an emotional connection to a mother and daughter trapped in a house invaded by brutal robbers, but the audience i saw it with dug it and rooted for the heroes.

  • March 29, 2002, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Amazing Larry

    by uberob

    You can't possibly believe that comparing someone's work to McDonald's food was invented by you, Lar. Stephen King compared his own work to a Big Mac back in the 80's. Either you give up this ridiculous intellectual property war or you send Mr. King a letter of apology.

  • March 29, 2002, 11:40 a.m. CST

    The Emperor Has No Clothes!

    by Karla

    And a "7" does not look like a "V"!

  • March 29, 2002, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Great Job again dude! I think Fincher is overrated

    by SpanishPantlones

    David Fincher is supposed to be this genius filmaker? why? I remember seeing his Alien 3 wich was one of the most dissapointing sequel experiences I've ever had. Alien 3 was up there with Conan 2, Mad Max 3,and Indy 3. Ok, I realize it was a rookie effort and he was just 27-but so was Paul Thomas Anderson when he made the Masterpiece that is "Boogie Nights".The other was Fight Club-a great movie for about an hour and a half and then it turned out to have a preposterous ending.He is a serviceable director-I don't think he's ready to be called a great filmaker-decent? yes. But he's not PTA material- not yet anyway

  • March 29, 2002, 12:04 p.m. CST

    OK review. A shame about that big-mac-crap though..

    by i'mYOURman

    What bullshit. I can't wait till somebody reviews the mortal kombat 3 script. HA HA HA. And Fincher just plain sucks. Face it, fifty years from now nobody is gonna remember hack-crap like The Game/Fight Club/Panic room/Alien3. And Seven(aka plotholeO'rama) will still be seen like a poor man's SOTL.

  • March 29, 2002, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Fincher + Koepp = 0 X 2

    by Carson Dyle

    David Fincher is a technically adroit but intellectually shallow, emotionally vapid pinhead who wouldn't know a good story if he found one floating in his cappuccino. Even his best film, "Fight Club," was all clothes and no emperor. Comparing an overrated mediocrity like Fincher to titans like Hitchcock and Kubrick is like comparing Brittany Spears to John Lennon; both have their place I suppose, but they should never be confused.

  • "Cinema that scars..." Jesus, don't HIDE the fact that you think you're the next Kubrick. Show a little humility, for crying out loud. Did Kubrick actually say that once? I don't think so, but I know that Stephen King once said about Kubrick, "I think he wants to hurt people with this movie(The Shining). I think that he really wants to make a movie that will hurt people." *** And how about the name of Fincher's production company with the other up-and-comers. 'Section Eight.' Duuuuhhhhooooo.... wonder where they got that from???? I like Fincher... in fact I liked Fight Club a lot, and I still think Seven is great. The Game too. But with all these CGI shots in Panic Room, the 'scar' quote, and the name of the production company being 'Section 8', does anyone think the Kubrick comparisons and everyone going ga-ga over his visual style may have gone to his head? When the hell is Tarantino's next movie coming out? Ya know, I used to say this stuff about him, but he actually might be one of the greatest f--kin directors, and he needs to come out of hiding to show the Finchers, the P.T. Andersons(who I hate), the Soderberghs, the David O. Russells, and the Spike Jonzes what the hell is up. How to direct a REAL movie. All those guys are great, but let's face it, Fincher, Jonze, and Soderbergh don't have one movie that can hold a candle to Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, OR Jackie Brown. Please Mr. Tarantino... kick their asses with Kill Bill.

  • March 29, 2002, 12:19 p.m. CST

    New Subject, Dr. Know. "Eating" Combined With "AICN"

    by jollydwarf

    Ah, yes, "Ain't It Cool News", the premier movie gossip site created by Harry Knowles, also known as "Head Geek", in 1996. Over the last six years, AICN has achieved a global Internet audience with its average visitor (47%) being male and between the ages of 25-34. This statistic is the fulcrum for many 'flamings' or insults in the Talkbacks, a key component of each article, where visitors may exchange information, opinions, and ideas about a given film. You see, the most common insult is to call a fellow TalkBacker a 'basement-dwelling virgin', insinuating that the 'basement-dweller' is beyond adolescence, making it all the more deplorable and pathetic. This produces an endless cycle of mutual bashing as anonymous characters play the same cards against one another, over and over, ad infinitum. However, a recent trend has begun with Harry Knowles own review of the movie "Blade II". His analogy of director Guillermo Del Toro performing cunnilingus on an audience has resonated throughout many adjacent and subsequent TalkBacks, and now Drew McWeeny, a.k.a. "Moriarty", has used a more 'wholesome' Big Mac metaphor to describe one's viewing of the David Fincher film "Panic Room." Nonetheless, eating is clearly a common point of reference in reviews and TalkBacks alike, be it oral sex or a bag of stale Doritos. You have three questions left.

  • March 29, 2002, 12:21 p.m. CST

    i like Whoppers better

    by droog

    mmm... Whopper.

  • March 29, 2002, 12:29 p.m. CST

    I GOT YA' SPECIAL SAUCE RIGHT HERE!

    by Sgt. Black

    ... I just wanted to say that. Every Auteur blows occasionally; "A.I.", "Ali", "Hannibal", "Ocean's Eleven"... but dammit why all in the same past 8 months!?!?!?

  • Stylistically and narrative-wise, I have never seen a movie quite like Fight Club. You may call Fincher an intellectualy shallow and emotionally vapid director, but Fight Club was pure resonance with me on a mental and emotional level. Technically, Fincher is a directing god, and he uses his powers with purpose. To those who refuse to look at the striking eye of his camera as anything but a gimmick, think just a little about the context of the scene and the actual shot, and see how David's visuals are not only mind-blowing but serve to enhance the story. That said, Panic Room just isn't the kind of story material that a director can turn into a great movie. It's cool, though. A David Fincher Rendezvous with Rama would usher in a new golden era for my life. post-script: any fool not looking forward to Aronofsky's sci-fi project with Brad Pitt and Cate Bloanchett should just stop watching new movies.

  • March 29, 2002, 12:38 p.m. CST

    I Agree, One of the Better AICN reviews in recent memory because

    by Mills Somerset

    Mori hit on the heart of what I always argue, that sometimes you like stuff in a film, yet you expected more, most likely, and thus you can't become overly enthused aboud it. Which is much the same way I felt about BLADE 2, which I think is technically proficient and beautifully designed, yet generally didn't move me - I tend to think it's because the first film was a much more developed piece that had a streak of humanity and elegance missing from the sequel. That said, I hope I don't feel the same as your comments re: PANIC ROOM when I see it, but I can totally see where/how you'd feel that way and I can respect any intelligent musing on "this is the stuff I liked...this is why I ultimately did not go gaga over the movie it is all in". As a side note - JOLLYDWARF. I have ditched TB's for like a year, but other than Mori's well-written review, your particular post for some reason made me just wanna say how much I enjoyed it. I don't even like the DR. KNOW part of A.I. much (and i love AI) but for some reason, it was one of the more clever and I'd imagine thought-based amusing posts I've read on here, so...there ya go. Word to your collective mothers. And go see SORORITY BOYS. I swear it's not as bad as you think. Honest! Hooha. Peace.

  • March 29, 2002, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Mills Somerset

    by jollydwarf

    Thanks. I apologize if I start another "A.I." tangent, but it was too much fun to resist. (Insert footage of Conan O'Brien tilting his head and shrugging his shoulders with a descending "wah-wah-wahhh" mute trumpet line in the background while he mugs for the camera).

  • March 29, 2002, 1 p.m. CST

    SK909 & WASP

    by Carson Dyle

    If Quentin Tarantino is the answer to our cinematic woes, I think I'll take up macram

  • March 29, 2002, 1:23 p.m. CST

    of course it's from Koepp

    by TestGiver

    he must have something going for him but it seems like everything he has written or touched is simplestic to downright dumb. Maybe I'll like Spiderman though.

  • March 29, 2002, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Want to be named in Chuck Palahniuk's next book?

    by The Interloper

    Hey everyone, Just thought I'd mention it here, since I caught some wind of Palahniuk on this board. We're having an event at the official Chuck Palahniuk website right now in which, buying a t-shirt will enter you into an official raffle. There will be up to 15 winners.... 6 of them will be GRAND PRIZE winners who will have characters named after them in Chuck's mysterious next book. Enjoyed Fight Club, Choke, Survivor, Invisible Monsters? Then you'd be nuts not to enter a raffle which could result in having your name immortalized in a book that will sell all across the world. If you're even slightly interested, find out more here: www.chuckpalahniuk.net/raffle.htm Thanks Dennis

  • March 29, 2002, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Quentin hasn't made a good film since Pulp Fiction,

    by Fatal Discharge

    That's almost a decade ago! Jackie Brown had some good parts (the relationship between Forster and Grier) but most was rehashed from his previous films...this time all of the other characters were just one-note cartoons that I didn't care about. And what exactly was the emotional impact of Fight Club? If Fincher truly wanted it to be a nightmare then he woulda shown the terrorist actions causing innocent people to be killed. He didn't have the balls, so he has "empty" buildings crumbling. So you end up with dimwitted teenagers thinking the film is cool because of the glamorized violence when the last half of the film is a muddled mess that has no emotional impact whasoever.

  • What if your name happens to be "Steve Brandon"? I noticed there already was a mention of a Steve Brandon, or his wife mentioned as "Mrs. Steve Brandon", in SURVIVOR. Would Palahniuk reuse the same name if I won?

  • March 29, 2002, 2:54 p.m. CST

    to chilli kramer-

    by rev_skarekroe

    I meant to mention this when I posted before, but I believe the jokes you're reading in the Spidey novelization are probably the work of the adaptions author, Peter David, not whoever the screenwriter was. It sounds like his sense of humor, and I read an interview with him where he mentioned the "does whatever a spider can" joke as his own. sk

  • March 29, 2002, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Quentin Tarantino Did A Draft Of The Panic Room That Fincher Did

    by Buzz Maverik

    INT. JODIE'S HOUSE -- NIGHT. Charles Jefferson, Doyle Hardgraves and uh...White Guy With Dredlocks gather outside the panic room. DOYLE:"How the fuck are we going to get into the Panic Room?" CHARLES:"Candy gram. Land shark." WHITE GUY:"Didn't you guys see THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT?" DOYLE:"Burt Reynolds in that? Whudn't that the sequel to GATOR?" WHITE GUY:"No, no, no, no! It was Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges, with George Kennedy. It was Michael Cimino's first film as director. He used his clout after rewriting Milius' MAGNUM FORCE script by giving Clint a Chinese girl to fuck." CHARLES:"I thought Cimino rewrote THE ENFORCER." DOYLE:"Y' know, HEAVEN'S GATE wa'd'n't all that bad a movie. I liked it. Not as good as THE DEER HUNTER, but what is?" CHARLES:"I thought THE SICILIAN was boring." DOYLE:"His remake of THE DESPERATE HOURS with Mickey Rourke, Anthony Hopkins and Mimi Rogers wa'd'n't bad. It was sort of like our sitchiation here." CHARLES:"The DESPERATE HOURS. Bogart on the run, right?" DOYLE:"Pretty much the first home invasion film." CHARLES:"Of course, if you're talking Cimino and Mickey Rourke, it's YEAR OF THE DRAGON, baby. One of Oliver Stone's best pre-directing screenplays!" WHITE GUY:"Anyway, we need us a big ass gun like Clint used to blast into bank vaults in THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT." CHARLES:"You know, I heard that Cimino finished that film a week early because Clint wanted to go on vacation. So much for his rep of not being able to meet deadlines."

  • March 29, 2002, 3:19 p.m. CST

    Scott, Burton, Aronofsky, Fincher

    by Woody Tobias Jr

    Any visually oriented film maker is going to be compared to Kubrick. 'The new Kubrick' is just one of those phrases that gets bandied about. Fincher's got some talent but he's far too self conscious and immature to rank among the world class.

  • March 29, 2002, 3:25 p.m. CST

    well...

    by deftone

    ....i'm going to wait and see. i've already got my ticket for the 8:45 showing, so i'll come back later and give my 2 cents.

  • March 29, 2002, 3:43 p.m. CST

    To paraphrase George Harrison: There will never be another filmm

    by Carson Dyle

    Mr. Kubrick was, is, and will remain one-of-a-kind.

  • March 29, 2002, 3:58 p.m. CST

    SK909: I miss Quintin Tarrentino too But what's wrong with P

    by SpanishPantlones

    A Q.Tarrentino film every 2 years would be nice but How can you say you hate PTA? I admit I never saw "Magnolia" (because I hate Tom Cruise) but "Boogie Nights" is a fucking masterpiece-and kicks the shit out of any of Tarrentino's work. Mark Walberg and every supporting actor are as good as I've ever seen in an ensemble piece and the film is tough, gritty and outrageously funny. The academy should be shot for ignoring this film and MW, John C.Rielly, Thomas Jane, Don Cheadle,....etc. How can you not like this movie? I like QT too but he's not the only one who can do a great movie with witty dialoge. You should watch this again-it took me a few times to catch every detail.

  • March 29, 2002, 4:17 p.m. CST

    CG Camera moves done by BUF, not TOYBOX

    by Guy Incognito2

    Just thought I'd post a correction. The CG 'flying around the house' shots were done by French FX company BUF, not ToyBox. ToyBox mainly did CG fire and ONE CG camera move through a ventilation duct. Awesome work BUF!!!

  • March 29, 2002, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Paul Thomas Anderson

    by Aquafresh

    At this point, I see PTA not so much as a visionary in his own right, but an incredibly talented imitator. While both films are excellent,"Boogie Nights" is Scorsese & "Magnolia" is Altman. Not that I could do better, but I feel he has yet to do something that is uniqley his own. Fincher's films stylistically bear his signature, I just don't think any of the scripts he has chosen have been totally world class. Seven & Fight Club come close. Just my opinion.

  • March 29, 2002, 4:49 p.m. CST

    poopy pants

    by STRIDER355

    No filmmaker spends years planning a movie? Hmm. I can think of two movies out right now that began pre-production before the year 2000. MOULIN ROUGE and LOTR. Among many others, I'm sure. Stop placing Kubrick on such a pedestal. He was amazing, but he isn't Jesus. And FIGHT CLUB is a social satire, nothing more and nothing less. Anyone who gets upset at the ending or points out all the times that "they couldn't have been two different people right there!!" did not understand the film. It was brilliantly directed and mastefully written. As was SEVEN. As far as PANIC ROOM goes, it DOES seem like a USA original, and I'm sure it will be a quite forgettable film; but that doesn't change the fact that Fincher is a talented director. Oh, and KUBRICK101...Michael Mann makes better films that Kubrick ever did. And Baz probably could have kicked his ass.

  • March 29, 2002, 4:57 p.m. CST

    one more damn thing....

    by STRIDER355

    To all the FINCHER FANS out there....if you haven't already, check out DONNIE DARKO. It's made in a very Fincheresque fashion and I think you'll enjoy it.

  • March 29, 2002, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Place Kubrick on a pedestal?...

    by Carson Dyle

    I don't think they make a pedestal high enough. Michael Mann is a gifted filmmaker who's reputation for being a perfectionist is rivaled only by his reputation for being an asshole. The primary difference between a director like Mann and a director like Kubrick (as if there were any directors like Kubrick) is that while the former makes good movies the latter made three of the most artistically bold, technologically brilliant, critically revered, culturally significant films of the twentieth century (Strangelove, 2001, and Clockwork Orange). Who knows how many talented young people have been inspired to become filmmakers because of Stanley Kubrick (Lucas, Spielberg and Fincher have all gone on record as saying he was a major influence). Kubrick may not be Jesus, but in the world of feature filmmaking he's the closest thing we've got. The Michael Manns of this world, talented though they may be, are just walking in Kubrick's shadow -- and I suspect Michael Mann would be the first to agree with me.

  • March 29, 2002, 6:04 p.m. CST

    OCHO: PTA may be similiar to Scorcese but I think he's a wes

    by SpanishPantlones

    And watch Tom Cruise in the last role that he got nominated for. He's the LAST ACTOR I wanted to see in the follow up to "Boogie Nights"!I was so pissed I boycotted Magnolia.Oh well. All directors are influenced by someone. I think PTA has his own unique vision with Boogie Nights. It was a west coast answer to Scorcesse's east coast Mob fixation. I got tired of seeing people get murdered by car bombs-that Mafia shit is so worn out. I'll stack Boogie Nights against any MS movie out there. I'll take PTA, who maybe borrows from other directors but does it brilliantly and even surpasses their best work, any day over MS or Altman. I do love the Player though!

  • March 29, 2002, 6:22 p.m. CST

    What ratings are Panic Room and BladeII?

    by 3105

    I have searched the internet but no sight seems to say. Plz say the ratings in British kind. U'know 15 or 18?

  • March 29, 2002, 6:39 p.m. CST

    more on PTA, Kubrick, Fincher & whatnot

    by Aquafresh

    Spanish Pantelon, I would more or less agree with what you said about PTA. my comments were in no way meant to undermine his achievements, I love "Boogie Nights", I just noticed a lot of technique involved that seemed directly influenced by Scorsese, most notably "Goodfellas". (Compare the disco scene to the wiseguy club scene: almost identical. Is that bad? Not at all.) Even Kubrick didn't really hit his signature style untill "Strangelove". In Fincher's defense, he seems to have his 'style' down, its his content that doesn't totally measure up. You may not like his style, but you can't deny its there and that its all his. Also, don't let Tom Cruise discourage you from seeing "Magnolia". He's tolerable in it.

  • March 29, 2002, 6:52 p.m. CST

    AICN critics vs. Real critics

    by FargoUT

    As one of Fincher's most ardent followers, I do want to say that most professional critics are highly pleased with "Panic Room". Roger Ebert gave it a thumbs up, James Berardinelli gave it 3.5 stars out of 4, and a few critics called it the best thriller you'll see all year. Obviously, nobody can follow up "Fight Club" with something superior. It's virtually impossible. But, like many other posters here, Fincher isn't a box office guarantee, and he hasn't had a major hit since "Seven". Seeing as how "Panic Room" is set to open at number one this weekend with around $30 million, it'll at least set Fincher in with Hollywood for a good two more films. Not just that, but if Fincher does follow this up with "Rendezvous with Rama", then I'll forgive the less-than-serious "Panic Room". I haven't seen it yet myself, but I will be there tonight for sure. And besides, after the disappointing "Blade II", I need a movie that will have me digging into my armrests.

  • March 29, 2002, 7:05 p.m. CST

    My take on this movie, Moriarty's take on the movie, the fan

    by XTheCrovvX

    Ok, simply? I liked it. Period. To tell the plain truth, i compare this movie, concept-wise to that Canadian cult flick Cube. Another film with zero story, but once you get into it, you're into it, and you WANT to know how the whole mess pans out. And the good thing is, at least here, there is something resembling a story. Not a well fleshed out one, but just enough to serve the events to come. Once you know the few basics that are given, you know enough to go in and enjoy. Is it deep? No. This is just plainly Fincher's attempt at a Saturday matinee popcorn flick. It's the closest (I hope) he'll ever get to that point. I read a review this morning in the New Jersey Star-Ledger that nailed it pretty accurate. It's Jodie Foster and David Fincher "slumming it" so better films come along. See, sadly, we all tend to forget, Fincher rocks, but the general public hasnt learned that yet. Alien 3 made just enough money to get by, The Game is a sleeper hit that only made money by word of mouth, and Fight Club, though its cult following is HUGE, did shit at the box office. His biggest hit so far was Se7en. Rightfully so, but still, he's still not quite a household name yet. With the money he'll make from this flick, he can move onto other stuff. And while we wait, we have this, and once you detach from what we're used to from Fincher, it's a pretty fun way to blow 6 or 7 bucks over the weekend(though Death To Smoochy's a better way.)Moriarty's problem with the flick is the problem he's always had, and just NOW put into the right words: He can't detach. I've long developed the node in my brain that allows me to like stuff like Amelie, Mulholland Drive, American History X, Magnolia and such, then retract when stuff like Armageddon, Con Air, The Mummy Returns, and The Fast and the Furious come around. Yes, i love it when a good serious movie comes around with a great story, good directing, and everything just clicks together, but sometimes, to be honest, it's a fucking drag. I need action, I need to laugh my ass off, i need to have some fun at a movie. Im not saying i dont have my standards even there. Goddamned if somebody's gonna drag me within 20 feet of seeing Gone In 60 Seconds ever again....but if a movie can entertain without being completely full of shit, or ruining a good idea(The One..ugh), im down with it, and I dont ask question. I think, at some point, Moriarty had that ability, but lost it. For this reason, I've never been able to trust Moriarty when it comes to movies like this.... i dont really hate him for this. I just cant put too much weight in his opinions on "popcorn flicks". OK, once again, ive let my opinion become a rant, so, im going to just cut it here. But, guaranteed, ill be back if there's good reason, or the flame wars warrant. Revolution is my name.

  • March 29, 2002, 7:11 p.m. CST

    STRIDER355 Re: "And Baz probably could have kicked [Kubrick'

    by La Dolce Vita

    Have you been smoking crack?

  • March 29, 2002, 7:57 p.m. CST

    but what if?

    by marljaymay

    After I thought-the movie would have been so much more affective if...the villians never spoke, we never saw there faces. They just existed as impending doom. They were a collective, in some respects...but show a struggle of wills between the established cold blooded killer and the guy that just wants the booty. But for the love of god, don't portray them with the usual; the quarles and bickering that all movie villians seem to engage in that ultimately weakens their ability to frighten an audience.

  • March 29, 2002, 8:58 p.m. CST

    carson...

    by STRIDER355

    i agree. Kubrick deserves a special place in all film-lovers' hearts. I was just trying to press kubrick101's buttons. How can anyone watch FULL METAL JACKET and not be in awe at the power of Stan's filmmaking. But I would still watch HEAT over SPARTACUS any day.

  • March 29, 2002, 10:25 p.m. CST

    Ocho re: Strangelove

    by pedant

    "Even Kubrick didn't really hit his signature style untill 'Strangelove'." ***** I can't bring myself to agree with that in any way, shape, or form. Paths of Glory and Lolita are both thoroughly Kubrick films. The Killing less so (not to take away from the fact that it's still one of the best heist films ever made). Spartacus and Killer's Kiss least of all, but even they show plenty of Kubrickean brushstrokes.

  • March 29, 2002, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Buzz, try dropping Mimi Rogers' name into more of your posts

    by MimiRogers3rdNip

    My name in a Palahalachuichuk novel or Mimi's in a Buzz post, which is the greater prize?

  • March 29, 2002, 10:34 p.m. CST

    Mini-Review of Panic Room *SPOLIERS*

    by I like movies.

    The irony in my user ID and this review is forseeable, but I&#39;ll go ahead and say what noone seems to have had the balls to say: THIS MOVIE IS A BIG FUCKING GLOSSY TURD. Fincher spews his load, sending the camera swirling around in a frenzy for most of the movie, showing us the inside of flashlights, zooming through ventilation ducts, and trying to get us to ignore the massive holes in the already weak plot (Hey, I&#39;ve seen <u>Wait Until Dark</u> before, don&#39;t lessen its greatness with this bullshit). Apparently gas doesn&#39;t spread in a room when released, it stays hovering above the ceiling....and apparently the fire blanket is so great, it evens protects Jodie&#39;s uncovered hand lighting the flame! Wow, I need to get me one of those. Also, the villains are fucking clown shoes. Way to build up Dwight Yoakam as a bad-ass to only have him screaming like a women with a crushed hand literally 5 minutes later. Add that to the complete lack of sympathy for anyone besides Forrest Whitaker&#39;s character and the little girl, and you have a truly painful moviegoing experience. There is less tension in this movie than the ending of Death To Smoochy for christ sakes. It&#39;s obvious what&#39;s going to happen, and when it&#39;s going to happen. It&#39;s nice-looking, but David Fincher isn&#39;t McG, after <u>Fight Club</u> and <u>Se7en</u> (which is a stupid name i agree) you&#39;d expect more than a pretty little stink nugget. I&#39;ll leave you with this in mind. Even if you put a bonnet and a pretty pink dress on a used tampon, it&#39;s still the blood-covered feminine hygeine product it was before, it&#39;s just easier to look past that. I like movies. (No, seriously, I do.)

  • March 30, 2002, 1:25 a.m. CST

    You give blade 2 a pass because it&#39;s loose??

    by DaKid

    Moriarty, you&#39;re a fucking joke. You give a complete pile of crap like Blade 2 a pass, because it&#39;s a "grand guignol bloodbath" but are critical of a Fincher movie?? First off, what kind of Grand Guignol have you seen?? Putting Blade 2 in that category is an insult to every piece of Grand Guignol ever attempted. Dusk Till Dawn was a good attempt at modern Grand Guignol in a somewhat mainstream movie. Vampires was decent. Blade 2 was a piece of shit. Where&#39;s the bloodbath? The first movie had a great opening scene with kids getting drenched in blood from sprinklers at a rave. It was original. It was stylish, and it was gruesome. What did 2 have? Ashy, exploding vampires? Dark shots of guys shooting big guns in sewers? CG fight scenes?? You call that "Grand guignol"?? Get a film encylopedia my friend, because all that is is a bad, bad b-movie. Ain&#39;t nothing grand about it. Fincher has more creativity in his left nut that all 500 pounds of Del Toro and Knowles put together. You&#39;re all of bunch of ignorant sycophants that stopped being film fans and movie geeks a long time ago. You suck.

  • March 30, 2002, 2:29 a.m. CST

    Moriarty nailed it why the film is a failure.

    by Twig

    We don&#39;t care about the characters, and know even less about them. The screenplay is quite frankly one of the worst I&#39;ve encountered in quite some time. Every bit of quality in the film is due to Fincher&#39;s direction(I acually thoght he DID ceate a couple suspenseful parts) and Foster&#39;s presence, cuz you buy that she&#39;s smart enough to outwit the crooks.

  • March 30, 2002, 4:30 a.m. CST

    Hey, I liked it, And Stop Bitching About Blade 2, What Would You

    by The Founder

    Panic Room was above average, I found it interesting, nothing to make a big deal about. I like Jodie Foster anyway, so I got my money&#39;s worth. I just don&#39;t know what any of you were expecting from Blade 2? I loved it, and it was better then the 1st. Some of you are to critical of movies, and have become to profesional. I don&#39;t think Hollywood can churn out a movie that ever will be universally praised when so many of you have the standards of GOD.

  • March 30, 2002, 5:16 a.m. CST

    Interesting film dealing with themes of voyeurism and female emp

    by fuldamobil

    Panic Room is definately a flawed film, but I think it shows Fincher has a lot of potential. The way he deals with his themes leads me to believe he is a worthy heir to Kubrick, Scorcese, and Ford. There are obvious homages to The Killing, Treasure of the Sierra Madre and just about every Scorcese film (the symbolism of eye glasses and when they are and aren&#39;t worn) and Fincher wears them a bit too much on his sleeve. The use of who is the viewer and who is observed and how this is empowering is interesting. Jodi Foster and the androgynous girl who plays her daughter are perfectly cast as is Forest Whitaker. This film is certainly the most provocative released so far this year.

  • March 30, 2002, 5:46 a.m. CST

    Fincher is brilliant

    by Private Ryan

    This movie was just a really tight and well constructed thriller. It was nothing more, and did not aspire for more. It was a well set up cat and mouse situation, and it kept me on the edge of my seat throughout, which does not happen often in many so called "suspense" films. The characters were not well developed, and they really weren&#39;t supposed to. This movie is not Fight Club, but only one movie is Fight Club, and Fincher knows that. He makes a fun ride of a thriller, and I was very happy with it. The end was a little bizarre, I have a feeling that maybe Finch was told by the studio to change the ending. But whatever. It was fun as hell, and I can&#39;t wait to see what Fincher has in store for us next.

  • March 30, 2002, 6:48 a.m. CST

    moriarty you are a jackass! the reviews of blade 2 were wrong an

    by cerebralxedema

    the panic room was a great film...some will see it as limited in its subject matter, but a film can never be sold short on this point. the cg camera shots were used to explore space and convey a sense of claustrophobia. i&#39;ve seen many a disposable thrillers and this is not one of them...seems so many have panned this film unjustly. maybe the public who enjoyed fight club were expecting some kind of evolution in theme and storytelling and here this is a progression, fincher has never been in finer form and continues to develop as a director/storyteller. you and the media have just missed the boat once again. p.s. blade was better than its sequel which delivered some cool choreography and nice effects, but insipid story!

  • March 30, 2002, 9:15 a.m. CST

    An excellent film

    by Veidt

    It&#39;s a shame that Fincher&#39;s previous work will be held against him by some as Panic Room is a stunning piece of work. It may not be "deep" but as an example of a director&#39;s peerless grasp of the medium, it&#39;d be hard to beat. As far as character development goes, I think we know Foster and her daughter as well as we need to before the siege begins. We know them certainly about as much as we know the characters in, say, Assault on Precinct 13. Either you care about the characters or you don&#39;t - no amount of "character development" is going to change that. Another scene or two of mother and daughter bonding isn&#39;t really that important to the film. Panic Room should do well for Fincher and it deserves to. I wish more mainstream thrillers were this accomplished.

  • March 30, 2002, 9:42 a.m. CST

    Okay, this was basically Home alone for grown folks

    by Black Ceaser

    When the three stooges break into the house and threaten poor Jody and her daughter I almost expected her to slap her hands on her face and scream AAAAAAAAHHH! My main problem, the three crooks were not scary not even Dwight Yokam who was much more menacing in Sling Blade.

  • March 30, 2002, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Thanks Moriarty

    by UK Hal

    Seriously looking forward to seeing this movie here in the UK and it

  • March 30, 2002, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Lead Part Was Oringinally Written For Nicole Kidman.

    by The Founder

    She got injured or something, and Foster took her place.

  • March 30, 2002, 11:30 a.m. CST

    What A Shame...

    by NoCureForFools

    i was psyched for this film and so far the reviews it has been getting are lukewarm at best. Fight Club was easily one of the 90s best films and both Aliens 3 and Seven were interesting, creepy and atmosphereic, although imperfect and sort of clunky. while i don&#39;t think that Fincher is even in the same universe as Kubrick (who is, really? Kubrick was a genius and i can&#39;t think of any other director who even comes close) he is a good director and i have enjoyed his films. what a shame that he has backslid. oh well, i guess this one will have to wait for video...

  • March 30, 2002, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Panic for HIRE

    by designsforyounow

    Comparing this Suspenseful Terroristic/Thriller of a Movie to a Big MAC? More like marshmallows over an open fire;) Well, saw it once {loved IT} and just had to go see it AGAIN!! Yes, the Cinematogrophy and endless scenes kind of run together at some points in the Movie, but it adds what I feel some dimension and drama into this plot of goings on that all occur in One day basically. Raoul {Dwight YOAKAM} was tremendously crafted at what HE set to project and with enough believability that even John Hinkley might try to escape into a Panic Room! Calculated moves at the exact precise time and the most dramatic scene I felt was when the THUG Raoul got killed and His blood was on Jodie&#39;s face. Almost makes You feel as if You are there too, being PANICKED***

  • March 30, 2002, 12:15 p.m. CST

    I liked the movie

    by qweniden

    I really liked this movie. This director really rules.

  • March 30, 2002, 12:30 p.m. CST

    WTF is a "Grand Guignol" ?

    by The Paladin

    I love this site, but some of us didn&#39;t major in B movies. This is actually in response to the tb-ker who said Blade 2 was not a "grand guignol bloodbath". I searched for GG on both AICN and IMDB, and basically came up with nothing! ********************************** What is it, some 70s action flick? If it&#39;s even close to Blade II (which IMHO reminded me of Desparado (1996, Bandaras), a perfect gunfighting movie-nothing more, nothing less) I would be willing to give it a try! ********************************** As for Panic Room, it sounds like a decent matinee or a good flick to see on a Sunday afternoon. I will probably like it if I don&#39;t set up my expectations too high...

  • March 30, 2002, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Damn what a review

    by ThaGuru

    I have no real comment except that this is one of the best reviews I&#39;ve read in a long time. Kick ass analogy. Good stuff. Keep up the good work man.

  • March 30, 2002, 4:56 p.m. CST

    "Panic Room" is a Two Story House

    by The Feral Kid

    I like "Fight Club." I think Palahniuk is one hell of a writer and his books are very entertaining. But "Fight Club" isn&#39;t what most people think it is movie-wise (my opinion here). It was very visual, very expository. And on the surface level, a very good movie, but Fight Club never manages to get much deeper than its exposition, funny observations about corporate invasion into our lives. And some stuff I thought was poignant at the time but the more I think about it, many of those speeches, the internal monolouges, they sound like stoned college students up at 3:22 AM muddling over cold pizza in the study lounge. And that is stimulating at one level but...People consider the movie to be some battle cry, it isn&#39;t. It is merely a nihilistic black comedy about the cult phenomenon. Otherwise, I don&#39;t believe in my opinion that it wasn&#39;t the ground breaking film many thought it to be. Actually, it seems to pick on people who buy into the ravings of Tyler Durden. But whatever, "Panic Room" is what I wanted to talk about. I walked out of it very much enjoying it. It is one of the better thrillers that have come along since, well, "the Game." Some of the characters were underwritten and seemed like caricatures, mainly Dwight Yoakam as Raoul which I don&#39;t like to admit since Yoakam is one of my favourite supporting actors, someone who is very scarce in Hollywood but I would love to see more of. The character is fun, but seems at times nothing more than a character device, just as Morie pointed out. But I&#39;d rather look at something else besides the writing, but at the choices the characters make. And this is where the movie turns itself on its head. *SPOILERS* 1) Meg&#39;s turning away the cops. A friend after the movie was trying to figure that scene out and he is a very plot oriented person, so he was dwelling on the line "You guys sure are well trainded," thinking that was some sort of hint. I think it was what it was, a riff at the cops, trying to get them go away. But why? Revenge. Meg Altman wants to kill these men. Pure and simple. Early in the film we learn that she is buying this film as revenge to her husband cheating on her. A clue. So now, what does she do (in response to her attackers or to her husband&#39;s infidelities or to both?), she turns her ex-husband into a weapon, a watch dog, her paralyzed ex-husband. A film that this has been compared to is the excellent "Wait Until Dark." A film that on the thriller level is much smarter than this one. The one upmanship in that film, the traps that are created by one decision, genious. And Alan Arkin as Harry Roat, the writing was much better for his villain (another three man robbery that is similar to this one in what occurs) than for Raoul and Arkin takes that part and turns it into my favourite movie villain next to Robert Mitchum as Max Cady in "Cape Fear," bar none. This film&#39;s writing is nothing special, fun and smart with its devices (the gas, the phone line, etc.) but it is Fincher&#39;s touch that I think turns this into something very much different in purpose than what Koepp wrote. Supposedly the character of Meg was beefed up for Jody Foster and I am very curious to see what the original screenplay would have become in the hands of another director. The difference with Fincher&#39;s film and what this would have become with someone else helming it and with "Wait Until Dark" is that Meg is herself a villain because in the latter half, she isn&#39;t just defending herself, she is getting back at those who made her endure the Panic Room, that close claustophobic space, that something inside her that we go to when there is no where else to go. Even when she is out of the Panic Room, she is still in Panic Room form. And that is the film&#39;s question. What do we become when we are in the Panic Room? Raoul and Burnham are poor, one a bus driver, the other a security expert (actually, just a hired hand who wears a mechanic&#39;s jumpsuit) who once had a habit. There are clues that are spread throughout the film, the reason I&#39;m going to see it again. There&#39;s more to this film. I didn&#39;t think it when I left the theatre, but now, this morning, this movie has been bugging me. Meg and Juniour are not poor. Juniour decides a while through the movie to jump ship, he&#39;d rather settle for his share of the inheritance. Raoul is a tough guy, a poor bus driver who has educated himself on movies based on Elmore Leonard novels (an important part, not the books themselves), oh, and he has a gun. In the Panic Room we are forced to make decisions. Drop the bonds or be shot. Light the methane or go into the uncertain (but aren&#39;t both situations uncertain...or is this about giving up?). This movie is dark. This movie can be dismissed or it can be thought over. This is a very good addition to Fincher&#39;s collection. I love them all. This is not some cerebral masterpiece, but there is a lot here that it might be easy to skip over. Main thing I didn&#39;t like was all the corporate sponsership but maybe this was Fincher&#39;s response to everyone who thought "Fight Club" was a war cry, maybe not. But that&#39;s not an issue. Whether this film is throwaway entertainment is. This is better than Blade II, as cool and fun as that movie was. I woke up this morning thinking about this movie, I didn&#39;t with Blade II. Alright, &#39;nogh said. So what do you guys think?

  • March 30, 2002, 5:01 p.m. CST

    mistake!

    by The Feral Kid

    ...i don&#39;t believe in "the opinion" that...

  • March 30, 2002, 7:35 p.m. CST

    It&#39;s amazing how McDonalds has a lot of lifes irony... like

    by Kampbell-Kid

    McDonalds french fries are a lot like sex. People just can&#39;t get enough of them, they go for them first before anything else they ordered, then sometimes eat them only before anything else, or even the pathetic desperate individuals that ONLY order french fries. Those that are more relationship minded have a more broad perception on how french fries are like sex because they see them as only a side order in a combo meal. The rest of the things in the combo meal are just as important as the french fries like a personality, things in common, and a coke. Then you have the sorry talkback fuckers that wait for the happy meal Barbie toy that looks like a crotchless plastic deformed Britney Spears that they&#39;ll forfill their guilty pleasures with. McDonalds does have a lot of irony in life. Even in this time of religious Good Friday and Easter holiday can you only appreciate how Ronald McDonald truely died for our sins. :)

  • March 30, 2002, 8:20 p.m. CST

    PALADIN SPITS BLOOD

    by TomVee

    Grand Guignol is a reference to a type of theater in France in the previous century that focused on horror/shock presentations, with lots of pretend blood and gore. Sort of like the last century&#39;s answer to today&#39;s splattter movies.

  • March 30, 2002, 8:28 p.m. CST

    URBAN AUDIENCES

    by TomVee

    ED complains about the audience that kept yapping at his Good Friday screening of PANIC ROOM, saying they should sit down and shut up. After all they are not at home. But the truth is, for urban audiences, the movie theater often stands in for the living room. Urban audiences also have never had the slightest semblance of etiquette training. This is not the college prep crowd we are dealing with here. About the only thing that would quiet them down is a bullet, and even that may not work.

  • March 30, 2002, 8:30 p.m. CST

    ...another mistake...

    by The Feral Kid

    ...Early in the film we learn that she is buying this "house" (not "film") as revenge to her husband cheating on her...oh, and when I talk about the visuals, I am not talking about the "sweeping camera," a cheap effect that can be added to any music video by any no talent hack. What I&#39;m talking about his Fincher&#39;s real talent at film making. The frameing of the staircase shots, wow, something that is much more indictive of Fincher&#39;s trying to illict claustrophobia even when he is viewing large amounts of space, which is the reason he uses the "sweeping camera." His use of deep focus to create claustrophobia is better than really than any film I&#39;ve seen from the past decade. And just look at the beauty of the scene where Burnham bores through the pillow into the ventilation pipe - how dare you call Fincher a hack or whatever is the choice "ciche" turn for "talentless ass" these days. Did anyone else catch the fake Hitchcock cameo in the beginning? Whatever, I&#39;m just rambling cause I&#39;m bored.

  • March 30, 2002, 9:49 p.m. CST

    Good flick

    by screamsteve72

    Just got back from seeing Panic Room in an overcrowded theater and everyone seemed to eat it up. i was very surprised with the amount of humor in the film, the audience was laughing like ape shit. performances from everyone were dead on and Finchers direction of course ruled. i did have some problems though, the film was to long and after the first 45 minutes or so kinda lost its power and the introduction of the divorced dad wasn&#39;t great because we dont give much of crap about him. but overall this was a very simple and effective movie. cant wait to see what Mr. Fincher brings us next!!

  • March 30, 2002, 11:16 p.m. CST

    The Founder - Blade 2

    by Explody

    I think Blade 2, while superior to the original (Stephen Dorff just doesn&#39;t scare me, unless you count that creepy feeling you get when you&#39;re around a group of midgets), the one thing I want in a vampire flick is blood and lots of it. I&#39;m talkin&#39; Evil Dead levels. Buckets o&#39; blood. The opening scene of Blade 1 was great in this respect. I guess I just like to be horrified by a horror film. Decent comic book movie, poor horror movie. Panic Room looks to be at least entertaining.

  • March 30, 2002, 11:32 p.m. CST

    Although the CG went a tad far, you have to admit that seemingly

    by Lenny Nero

    That was fucking great. Almost theatrical in its style. Really, really cool, because we don&#39;t want to be outside of the house after that first scene.

  • March 31, 2002, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Moriarty knows nothing about movies.

    by L'Idiot

    What a goddamn jackass. The whole argument that FIGHT CLUB

  • March 31, 2002, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Kubrick on THE pedestal

    by Eric1321

    Movies that are great stay around and last forever and our never forgotten. My point being that EYES WIDE SHUT i think will be a movie that IN THE FUTURE will be recognized as a great film of our time. PLacing KUBRICK even higher on the pedestal..

  • March 31, 2002, 1:43 a.m. CST

    WHY OH WHY WAS THE SCENE WITH THE PSYCHIC COPS THERE!!!!

    by phil dearly

    THOUGHT THE MOVIE WAS MEDIOCRE. I loved "Fight Club", thought "The Game" was decent up until the weak ending, think "Seven" is overrated, and hate "Alien 3". But I respect and admire Fincher&#39;s style. (***minor SPOILERS ahead****) That said, the scene where the police show up at the house was the most poorly thought out scene I&#39;ve seen in a long time! Why would Jodie&#39;s character go out of her way to lie to the cops? The bad guys couldn&#39;t hear what she was saying anyway! She could&#39;ve told them the whole situation! But then, the cop suspects something and tells her to blink if something is amiss. Why wouldn&#39;t she blink?! More interestingly, why on earth would this super cop even ask her that?! And would he ever say, "he said you said &#39;there were three&#39;...what was the end of that sentence?" OY!! This is sloppy and embarrassing screenwriting, folks. If Foster&#39;s character was indeed worried about her daughter&#39;s safety, why does she break all the cameras, surely she knew that would piss the burglars off--hell, she did it TO piss them off!! Koepp (a talented writer/director), Fincher and Foster should&#39;ve realised that this doesn&#39;t work. QUESTION: Did I miss something? How did Dwight Yoakam&#39;s character get his hand caught in the door when it is explained in the first scene that it&#39;s "as safe as an elevator"? This movie is never as tense or exciting as we want it to be. It&#39;s not bad, but its not great either.

  • March 31, 2002, 3:26 p.m. CST

    i go see Panic Room in about an hour. nice to see the Blade 2 cr

    by a goonie

    i&#39;ll take what i can get. looking forward to Fincher&#39;s new work. i still stick by my negative review of Blade 2. it&#39;s not an all-out terrible piece of trash, but it&#39;s close. as for PTA, he&#39;s one of the best filmmakers working today. Magnolia is, alongside 2001: A Space Odyssey, my favourite movie of all time. if you haven&#39;t seen it yet, PLEASE go check it out. do yourself the favour. i&#39;m not guaranteeing that you&#39;ll see what i see, but if you can catch so much as a glimpse of what that movie means to me, you&#39;re in for the treat of a movie-viewing lifetime.

  • March 31, 2002, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Well, I for one LOVED Panic Room.

    by Vegas

    Damn, this movie was fun. It doesn&#39;t have a huge message, true, and it&#39;s nothing more than a genre exercise when you think about it, but it&#39;s done WELL. And also, why is it that with someone like Spielberg, the fanboys keep saying to "lose the messages, and just give us something fun," yet when Fincher does just that, people carp on him for not giving him a sweeping treatise on the base nature of humanity? Nowadays, I&#39;m just trying to enjoy the movies I see. If a movie makes me smile, makes me jump, or makes me simply have a good time, that&#39;s enough for me. Life&#39;s too short to go through it disappointed that not every detail of it is specified to the exact configurations of your liking. I can see where Mori&#39;s complaints with the film lie, and like I said above it&#39;s a very well-written review, but I simply cannot agree with it. I thought this movie was great.

  • March 31, 2002, 7:38 p.m. CST

    goddamn you, Moriarty, i just read the whole review, and man, wa

    by a goonie

    i just got back from Panic Room. like not even ten minutes ago. i liked it. my dad liked it. we were both disappointed. the movie has flaws. but we, and apparently Mori, too, are on the same page. this isn&#39;t one of those movies where you can list a whole bunch of flaws. it&#39;s more of a feeling. something that should be present in the picture, but just happens to be missing. i didn&#39;t hate Blade 2, but i certainly gave it a thumbs down. and i can list the reasons that movie gets a thumbs down. there&#39;s a whole bunch of them. i already listed them in the talkback for Mori&#39;s review of the movie. it&#39;s all there. but Panic Room is different. and that&#39;s why i&#39;m so completely in agreement with Mori on nearly every point he makes. he really did see the same movie i did. basically, my opening comment to my dad was: "Why couldn&#39;t the overall movie have been as good as that opening credit sequence and Shore&#39;s score that played over the end credits?" i think it is safe to say that that was THE GREATEST CREDIT SEQUENCE I HAVE EVER SEEN. it fucking floored me. it dropped my jaw. knocked my socks off. it was so Hitchcockian, but so contemporary. and Shore&#39;s music at the end. the score throughout the whole picture was good, but that bit at the end was PERFECT. i&#39;d say it was the closest we&#39;ve gotten to a Bernard Hermann-esque score, well, EVER. so in the end, i just wish the rest of the movie was on the same level of quality as was the beginning and ending. but there are good things at work here. it&#39;s great to see Jodie Foster acting again. and she does quite a good job too. the sequence where she is rushing throughout the house, trying to grab her daughter and escape to the panic room before the robbers get her is FANTASTIC. it works beautifully. and the slo-mo sequence where she tries to grab her cell phone worked for me too. BUT it was that fancy digitally-aided camera work that bothered me. as i said to my dad, this is Fincher playing Hitchcock with too many toys. the beauty of Hitchcock, and the beauty of Orson Welles for that matter, is that they would construct these amazing shots, these breathtaking moments, and they would come up with amazingly inventive ways to do it. witness the "pull-apart furniture" in Citizen Kane or that long, flowing crane shot in Notorious where we essentially float from an upstairs balcony-thing down down down into a crowded room where we pull in on a small key in Ingrid Bergman&#39;s hand. ALL IN ONE TAKE. that stuff is amazing. to get that shot, Hitchcock and company had to build this collossal wooden tower thing that would enable them to move the camera in a single, fluent movement from such heights. the problem here, with Panic Room, is that David Fincher is trying to pay tribute to the great director, but he does so with nothing more than some CG objects. the coffee-pot-handle shot is cool and all, and not as annoying as some other stuff in the movie (like when Fincher takes us INTO a wire) but it&#39;s not very interesting, either. there&#39;s no wonder to it. we can faintly tell this is an animated coffee pot handle and duh! that&#39;s how they got the shot. Moriarty&#39;s comments about how this stuff worked in Fight Club in part due to Jim Uhl&#39;s script is completely true. Fincher seems eager to adopt this as his new official style. but it&#39;s not a good idea. like Mori said, that stuff was absent from Se7en and The Game. here, in Panic Room, it&#39;s very unnecassary. and even though i do feel that Jared Leto did a pretty good job, i have to side with my dad on the subject of Dwight Yoakam. as my dad says, country stars should not be allowed to act, especially not in roles that are as important to the plot as this one. all Dwight does is swear a lot, and look really ugly. there&#39;s no depth to the character, and all he does is disgust us. i know that was the point. but it doesn&#39;t work. it&#39;s a cheap tactic on Koepp and Fincher&#39;s part. oh, and what about the final scene in central park where Jodie and daughter are looking for a new place. that scene did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the movie. it was pointless. even though the whole finale could have been better, i still would have been much happier if we had closed on that close-up of Jodie&#39;s face.

  • March 31, 2002, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Jodie&#39;s glasses in Panic Room

    by bb2j

    Any idea what brand of glasses she wore in the movie? Thought it was a cool style. Was curious to find out what they were.

  • March 31, 2002, 8:01 p.m. CST

    STRIDER355: a comment about Kubrick.

    by a goonie

    i can respect your comment. i went through a phase not too long ago where i felt that Kubrick "wasn&#39;t that great." you see, at the time he had made one of my absolute favourite movies of all time: Dr. Strangelove. but other than that, i hadn&#39;t liked Eyes Wide Shut one bit. The Shining was pretty good, but the ending always pissed me off. that quick cut to the close-up of Jack&#39;s face still pisses me off. Clockwork was very good, but not in my top twenty or thirty favourite movies. Full Metal Jacket had a great first half and a flawed second half. and 2001: A Space Odyssey was this long nonsensical movie i had seen when i was a kid and all i really remembered was twenty minutes of monkeys, a paranoid computer thing and twenty minutes of lights. at that point in my life, THAT WAS KUBRICK. then one day, while making a good ol trip to the video store to rent a whole bunch of old movies, i decided to pick up 2001 and give it a second chance. at the time i did that, almost a year ago, my understanding of movies, my understanding of direction, writing, acting, editing, photography was far more advanced than it had ever been in the past. and it continues to grow. i pride myself on my ability to watch movies and pay attention to so much. i&#39;m proud because the only way i got to this point was by watching sooooooo many movies. years and years ago, i decided to start watching movies from a director&#39;s point of view. pay lots of attention to the camera work and different things. slowly, stuff started to come together. back then, i was in love with fancy "style-over-substance" camera-work in movies like Batman Forever and The Replacement Killers. now, say when i&#39;m watching a scene with a boat pulling through the water, i pay attention to the ways the water splashes off-screen. i pay attention to whether or not a millimetre of the boat is out of frame, and if not, how close is the boat to the frame. I do my best to pay attention to EVERYTHING. but i guess you don&#39;t care too much about that. sorry. i admit i got a bit carried away there. my point is, i rented 2001 and watched it again. now, Kubrick&#39;s "2001: A Space Odyssey" is my favourite movie of all time, alongside Magnolia. 2001 is basically 140 minutes of the greatest cinematic direction on the face of the planet. it&#39;s breathtaking. it&#39;s inspiring. on my Top Twenty Favourite Movies of All Time list, the only two directors to have more than one movie present are Stanley Kubrick and Ridley Scott. and since, i&#39;ve seen Eyes Wide Shut again and loved it. bought it on DVD. all i&#39;m saying is, Stanley Kubrick really is one of the greatest directors ever. even though he&#39;s faltered here and there, he made 2001. that&#39;s all there is to it.

  • March 31, 2002, 8:19 p.m. CST

    get used to dissapointment...

    by Logan 5

    Dammit. I was expecting so much better from Fincher. This film was a step back into Alien 3 territory. It wasnt a bad film, it was just standard fare. F.W. was very good however. I guess seven and fught club spoiled me. Maybe I just like Brad Pitt way too much for a guy.Note to self: demand refund from therapist.

  • March 31, 2002, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Critics are way behind the curve

    by DouglasAH

    You people pissed all over Alien 3, Deep Rising, and The Replacement Killers. I saw genius in these films, and I can&#39;t tell you how much shit I took for my faith in their directors, David Fincher, Stephen Sommers, and Antoine Fuqua. Now that these guys finally are getting recognition, you drop references to their earlier films like you&#39;re casually mentioning THX-1138. You think it adds credibility, but it just makes you look like an ass to someone who did&#39;t have his head up one when these guys were making good, overlooked movies a few years back.

  • April 1, 2002, 11:15 a.m. CST

    the ending

    by defino

    i really enjoyed this movie, and i think further down the road people will appreciate it more for what it is. although, i&#39;d have to say i thought the tacked-on scene with ms. altman and her daughter sitting in the park was completely inane and pointless. the ending would have been ten times more powerful and interesting if it would have ended on the shot of ms. altman&#39;s face. oh well.

  • April 1, 2002, 11:55 a.m. CST

    It wasn&#39;t a smooth ride for Hitchcock

    by Drath

    We always talk about how great his films are, and how everyone tries to rip him off, but he was not appreciated in his time either. He made bad movies, and mediocre movies too. Classics like the Birds and Vertigo didn&#39;t always find an audience--and some of his dumber films like Frenzy and Marnie and Family Plot were hits(well, I think Family and Marnie was a hits, they were definately dumb). But even those bad ones fit into his body of work, and make for an interesting series of films by an interesting filmmaker. So maybe that&#39;s where a movie like Panic Room will fit in to Fincher&#39;s career--one of the little unimpressive entries that bear his signature beneath the blandness. Regardless, I want to see Panic Room, but not in a theater. After reading the above review I&#39;m still wondering, is the movie entertaining or what? I get the impression it wasn&#39;t, at least not for Moriarty. I still want to see it as Fincher&#39;s films are always worth seeing(even though Alien3 was and is an abortion of a movie). I don&#39;t really go along with Moriarty&#39;s tastes all the time, and no matter how intellectual he tries to make his reviews, it does often boil down to taste. Here&#39;s hoping Fincher makes Rama next!

  • April 1, 2002, 1:38 p.m. CST

    The problem with film criticism these days...

    by Bill Carson

    ...is that unless it&#39;s got the name of a critical darling like Kubrick on it, nobody bothers to look beneath the surface of the film. Moriarty, before you dismiss this film as a mere popcorn thriller, think about the film as a morality play and see if it takes on any deeper meaning for you. Btw, enough with this idiotic spelling of Seven as "Se7en" already. If it were really meant to be spelled that way, the word would not be "Seven" but "Sesevenen." So if you insist on spelling it that way, at least have the balls to display your idiocy proudly by being consistent and pronouncing the title as "Sesevenen." Say the real title with me, people. "SEEEEVVVVEEEEENNNN." Was there an extra "seven" in there? Answer: no. This is almost as stupid as calling Independence Day "ID4" just because the posters spell it that way. Independence Day 4? God forbid.

  • April 1, 2002, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Ending

    by Alexthegreat1

    Okay, I enjoyed Panic Room. Liked, didn&#39;t love. I can&#39;t help wishing that it had ended just as Raoul lifted the sledgehammer and we saw the shadow crossing toward him. How unsettling. Also, After seeing the trailers, I&#39;d been hoping that the "twist" (God knows we can&#39;t have one. I mean, Crying Game is one of my all time favorites for a lot of reasons, but it really set the stage for every movie having a "surprise ending," didn&#39;t it?) Anyway - where was I - I had hoped that the twist would be the revelation that the "robbers" were actually hired by Meg&#39;s husband to do away with Meg and daughter, a la Devils Advocate...

  • April 1, 2002, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Are you people so fuckin&#39; clueless that you think that film

    by The Feral Kid

    "I guess it all started with the Crying Game." What!? I mean, I know that a lot of rental places don&#39;t carry older films these days (damn you Blockbuster) but holy shit, this is just ignorance. Do you know what film noir is? Twists, characters changing sides, revelations, all that, all a major part of being in that classification of film. I mean, noir doesn&#39;t have to have twists and a film with twists doesn&#39;t make it noir, but it is a part of the genre, that Byzantine plotting. HAVE YOU PEOPLE SEEN VERTIGO!!! Goodness, and I&#39;m not being a film snob here, never have been, never will be, but saying that film twists began with the Crying Game and Fincher films and the Sixth Sense and the Usual Suspects...that&#39;s just lazy. I will agree that those films inspired more twists than usual, but they themselves were influenced. Hands down though, my favourite twist of the 90s had to be in "One False Move," the way it actually added depth to the character, even if you could see it coming - truly one of the great neo-noirs. And it is a simple twist, but that is just great filmmaking. It is easy to call off Fincher&#39;s or Kubrick&#39;s name as a great filmmaker, but what about those you don&#39;t here about, the unpopular directors. Take a stab at trying different stuff at the rental place. No one ever mentions the genious of Spike Lee on this site, even if you don&#39;t agree with his politics. Same with Stone. What about directors who rely on narrative? I mean, there were people on this site who had never heard of Billy Wilder. FUCK!!! Billy Wilder, one of the most important directors ever, a genious, a better screen writer than Kubrick could ever hope to be, maker of some amazing films. But he wasn&#39;t overly visual. Just because something is flashy doesn&#39;t make it great film making. What about Hawks or Huston? And because of that, great directors now a days are having to sign up for shit thriller projects. I mean, Carl Franklin directing "High Crimes?" Barbet Schroeder doing "Murder by Numbers?" Shit, "Our Lady of the Assassins" was one of the better films of last year. But nobody supports these directors. If you can&#39;t see the wonderment of Scorsese&#39;s "slow" movies like "Age of Innocence?" Wow. What about Harry dissing Robert Altman? What? The skill that it took to film "Gosford Park" was amazing, I sat in the theatre smiling at movie, the whole time. How can watching a master work his craft be boring? But again, Harry grew up loving B-films, I can see that. I grew up loving the tough guys. It is about tastes, but if you really love film, you go out there and test the waters. You watch silent films, old foreign films, black and white films, b-films, and you read the books. You gobble it up. This site isn&#39;t about impressing others, it is about talking about movies. Just as I think Altman is a much more talented director than Tarantino could ever hope to be, that is preference and opinion at work. There is room for opinion, but not for pride or snobbery or "fuck you, you suck."

  • April 1, 2002, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Back Off, Buddy!

    by Alexthegreat1

    Look, no one is saying that twists were invented by Crying Game, or any other recent movie. I was saying that since then, if a movie doesn&#39;t have one, people get bent out of shape. And I do contend that the idea of building the entire movie around simply the idea of having a "surprise" ending, and focusing unduly on it is recent. The other films you talk about, unless I&#39;m mistaken, didn&#39;t have entire marketing campaigns built around a twist at the end, nor was said twist the most notable feature of the film.

  • April 1, 2002, 4:23 p.m. CST

    by Wankeroo

    Moriarty, face it. You were spoiled by Fincher. Your expectations and standards are forever changed by him. You have in fact been scared by Fincher. Every judgement affected. Filtered by Fincher. Panic Room is beautiful and entertaining. It isn&#39;t a masterpiece but, Fincher made it. You make it seem like he&#39;s sitting on the backs of other men who have put together this film with ease. This film wouldn&#39;t be fit to wipe your ass with if it wasn&#39;t for Fincher. Sure it sucks to see Fincher&#39;s time spent on an action/suspense movie but, I&#39;d rather see him make movies then wait around for the &#39;perfect&#39; script. So you read your impatient, affected criticism again and ask yourself "what has Dave Fincher done?" .

  • April 1, 2002, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Good review, mediocre movie

    by BeefsteakCharlie

    Spoilers follow. All in all it was a well done movie, but a major problem was that I don&#39;t think anyone could watch and seriously be worried about Jodie or the daughter. No way anything would happen to them. You don&#39;t give a shit about the ex-husband, so no loss if he gets offed. The only genuine concern I had was for Forrest Whitaker&#39;s character. He is set us as vulnerable and desperate and doing it for his kid. (manipulative, yes, but so?). Entertaining yes, but not art.

  • April 1, 2002, 7:19 p.m. CST

    STEPHEN HUNTER ASKED THE KEY QUESTION: WHY NOT KEEP A PAIR OF R

    by Lt. Torello

    &#39;Cause then you have no movie! Great review as always, Moriarty. I enjoyed the film for the genre exercise it was, but David Koepp&#39;s never gonna write a truly great screenplay so my expectations weren&#39;t that high. As talented a director as Fincher can be, it don&#39;t mean nothing without a great script.

  • April 2, 2002, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Double Jeopardy was good!

    by BigTuna

    I was suprised at how much I enjoyed it. Very suspenseful. I nticed how Moriarty couldn&#39;t go once without mentioning "What Lies Beneath", he&#39;s obsessed.

  • April 2, 2002, 12:28 p.m. CST

    special sauce & yoakum&#39;s hand

    by DEVIL

    I actually think Wendy&#39;s Super Value menu is a better analogy or irony for this film. And it was very Grand Guignol IMHO. (***spoiler, I guess***) ok, as far as the complaints bout Raoul&#39;s hand getting caught: the realtor (always good to see twin peaks alumni out there) demonstrated that the sensors for the door were in only TWO places. Raoul&#39;s hand was not in view of the electronic eye. was I the only person who laffed when he picked his fingers up off the ground? in the theater I saw it in, yes.

  • April 2, 2002, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Not Fincher&#39;s best.. but worth a watch

    by PR_GMR

    Saw &#39;Panic Room&#39; this past weekend.. and liked it. It was entertaining. This is not Fincher&#39;s best film..but his directorial style, tight script and competent performances, make it worth the watch. I tell you one thing.. better than most of the stuff that has been released so far this year.

  • April 3, 2002, 5:34 p.m. CST

    Now I&#39;m nervous

    by 'Kek-Lord

    Fincher&#39;s last four films have been so unfailingly great that this really surprised me. Wasn&#39;t thrilled when I heard the premise, but I figured he&#39;d pull it through...now it seems like all Dave felt like doing was making one of the best-LOOKING films this year. He&#39;s a virtuoso behind the camera, but without the twists and dark pushed-to-the-limit attitude of his other movies...well, I won&#39;t be buying this on DVD, sadly. He needs to find something that he can sink his teeth into, but maybe he just wanted to relax a bit after Fight Club, that must have been a pain in the ass to put together.

  • April 4, 2002, 1:25 a.m. CST

    it&#39;s me again, your heroine from Fight Club

    by m. singer

    see, now I liked it. I was exhausted after viewing. It was that suspensefull. But it&#39;s no fight club. Hell, it&#39;s not even the Game.