2002 / 118 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Well, it only took three months for the year 2002 to have it’s first must see movie. Pretty pathetic actually. That, however, is not the phrase I would use to describe “Panic Room”. This is the best thriller to come out in years and it is such due to the mastery that David Fincher and Jodie Foster bring to their roles as Director and Actress, respectively.

It all begins with one of the coolest credit sequences I have ever seen. The skyscrapers of New York City provide the backdrop for ominously rendered 3-D credits, as Howard Shore’s haunting score looms in the background. It is a sobering method of bringing the audience into the world and mindset of the recently divorced Meg Altman (Foster).

Meg’s husband was wealthy and, as a means to get back at him, she chooses to buy a ridiculously oversized townhouse to get back at him. It is even outfitted with (I know you didn’t see this coming) a panic room. This is a room that is used by homeowners to seal themselves off from would-be intruders. Despite Meg’s reservations about a house with a panic room, her and her daughter move in. Little do they know that they will need the panic room much sooner than they could ever have imagined.

On their first night in the house, three intruders break into their home in one of the film’s more memorable sequences. Fincher’s self indulgence (Which I must admit I admire him for) leads him to show the break-in in one long visual effects laden shot that takes the viewer into keyholes, through coffee pot handles, and through ceilings and floors. As this goes on it continues to build the tension until we finally cut back to see Meg awaken and, after some time, both her and the intruders realize they are not alone in the house.

This leads to the harrowing race to the panic room that we all know is coming. The thing that really made me realize just how good this movie was when this scene played itself out, because I still found myself on the edge of my seat despite the fact that I knew that Meg and her daughter had to get into the panic room. Otherwise, why make the movie? The suspense of this sequence can be attributed to the masterful editing, which is something that can be said for the entire movie in fact, of James Haygood and Angus Wall.

Now all is well and good right? The intruders can take whatever they want and leave right? In theory that would be the way things would work out, but then there would be no reason for the movie. Ahhhhhhh, but this is David Fincher we’re talking about and you don’t expect anything typical from him. In this case we have a movie because what the intruders want is IN the panic room. As if you can’t tell, this is where things become truly interesting. It quickly delves into the world of a cat and mouse game between Jodie and the intruders.

But why does she have to come out of the room you ask? If her and her daughter are in there, they’re safe aren’t they? Once again, typically this would be the case, but there is a reason that she has to come out, but I’m not going to divulge that because I think it’s more fun to discover it on your own. Let’s just say she has good reason to come out and leave it at that.

Like any good thriller, “Panic Room” is a film with memorable scenes. What separates it from about 99% of the other thrillers out there is that it builds it’s tension for the duration of the film. I liken it to “The Exorcist” in this regard. They both have ominous credit sequences. They both have an introductory period that lulls the viewer into a false sense of security. They both have titles that represent sanctuary and hope for the viewer as well as the characters in the film. Most of all, they both consistently raise the tension throughout.

When watching this film I thought of Hitchcock and De Palma a lot. Perhaps, Fincher is on the threshold of being the next master of suspense. His breakout film “Seven” is one of the best thrillers I have ever seen and now he has “Panic Room” to add to his resume. Shyamalan (”The Sixth Sense”, “Unbreakable”) may pull the rug out on the viewer a little better a la Hitchcock, but Fincher exhibits much of the same visual flair that one would expect to find in a De Palma film. The long takes, elaborate shots, and propensity to take the camera anywhere and everywhere one chooses to do so are all trademarks of De Palma and now Fincher as well.

In terms of the tension that this film builds. I already mentioned the incredible sustained shot for the break-in and the race to the panic room sequences. The other one I would like to mention is the cell phone search. The three intruders argue with one another downstairs while Meg escapes from the panic room and searches her bedroom for her cell phone. What makes this scene pump the blood at interminable levels is that it is done in slow motion with no audible dialogue, as the audience agonizes over whether or not Meg will find the phone and make it back to the panic room before the intruders come back. As she frantically searches for the phone Shore’s Herrmann-esque score lurks in the background adding more and more desperation to the scene.

Now that’s just a taste. I wouldn’t want to go any further for fear of harming anyone’s viewing experience. Let’s just say that I have a feeling that Fincher is a De Palma fan who celebrates his entire catalog frequently. I say this, because no one other than De Palma ever turns the screws like this.

As I said earlier, this film succeeds for two reasons. Fincher has already been lauded, but now there is the case of Miss Foster. No one puts a face to fear like Jodie Foster. No one! Remember the end of “The Silence of the Lambs” in that basement when she can’t see anything, but Buffal Bill can? Now, remember the horror in her eyes, in every fiber of her being as you sat there in sheer terror of what was about to happen to her. That is the sort of fear and terror that she brings to the role of Meg Altman. Much the same as her character in “Silence” she manages to hold her fears inside and eventually manages to overcome them. I mean Jesus! The scream she lets out, as she sits powerless in the panic room while a loved one is being beaten in the next room, still sends paralyzing shivers up and down my spine as I think about it now.

Some would argue that she turns into Macgyver halfway through the film, but I don’t think she does anything that any other rational human being wouldn’t at least attempt to do. Sure, at first, it appears that her daughter might know a little too much to be reasonable. But when one thinks about it, usually children are more knowledgeable about technology than the average adult. Honestly. How many of you had to program the VCR for your parents, or show them how to change the clock in their car? I’m willing to bet the majority of you. So, I see these as pretty pointless accusations being levied at the film from most critics.

The other performances are all well done. Kristen Stewart as Meg’s daughter, Sarah, gives an excellent performance. Much of the film’s peril rides off of her performance and she doesn’t let the film down by any means. The intruders are made up of some fairly stereotypical characters. There’s the sympathetic nice guy, the in over his head numbskull, and the homicidal maniac. Thankfully, Fincher allows the actors room to breathe which enables them to add depth to each of the characters. Forest Whitaker (Nice to see him in something that isn’t a complete waste of his time) is the sympathetic nice guy. He attempts to maintain balance between his cohorts in crime while also attempting to look out for the well being of Meg and her daughter. Jared Leto is the in over his head numbskull who originally hatched the plan, but now that things aren’t going smoothly has begun to lose it. Finally, Dwight Yoakam is the homicidal maniac who will stop at nothing to get what they came for. They are an interesting group that has a great deal of tension within it to add to the tension that the audience already feels with relation to the situation that Meg and Sarah find themselves in.

All of these elements come together to create a sort of “Rear Window” for the new millennium. It deals in limitation much the same as the Hitchcock classic did. The whole movie with the exception of less than five minutes of screen time takes place in the house and it deals with very limited lighting as well. In both films the directors force the audience to become voyeurs. Taking us deeper into the film than we rarely ever have the opportunity to go otherwise.

It even has a subtle sense of humor to it with nods to “Titanic” and Joe Pesci coming to mind. Plus, the scene when Meg first communicates to the intruders is priceless to say the least. This humor helps to lighten the tension ever so slightly before Fincher chooses to once again turn the screws, pull the strings, or whatever you want to call it. This technique is culled from the Hitchcock playbook and it is put to use masterfully.

To the cinematic world, Hitchcock has always been the master of suspense. He was a one trick pony, but he was damn good at that one trick. After Hitchcock began to pass his prime, De Palma took over and raised the bar on what terror and tension could be in cinema to levels that Hitchcock couldn’t even muster. Now, we are confronted with another changing of the guard. Fincher hasn’t bested De Palma by any means, but he has pushed the limits further with his merging of visual effects, imagination, and camera wizardry. I look forward to what the future has in store for him.

I’m sure whatever it is, it’s going to be a hell of a lot of fun to watch! But for now all of you should make it a point to see “Panic Room” as soon as possible at your local cinema.

It may not be “The Exorcist”, but it’s damn close.

This entry was posted on Friday, March 29th, 2002 at 4:02 pm and is filed under Jason's Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.