David Fincher is one of the best directors working today. Jodie Foster is one of the best actresses. With such a great director and lead actress behind it, it’s kind of surprising that “Panic Room” isn’t more exciting or fun to watch. The movie isn’t horrible, by any means. But with such an amazing amount of talent behind it, it is kind of startling that it seems so - I hate to say it - mediocre.
Watching a Fincher movie, such as “Fight Club,” the detail and style he puts into each shot is breathtaking. As in that film (admittedly one of my personal favorites) each frame is almost pitch perfect for what’s happening. And it looked completely different than almost anything in theaters.
Fincher’s ability to use camera movement in a shot also puts him heads and tails above nearly everyone. To watch the screen move effortlessly through the scenery in his movies adds a freedom of viewing that perfectly compliments the film.
But this technique just may hold back the thriller that is (or was) “Panic Room.”
Foster plays Meg Altman, a just-divorced woman moving into a New York brownstone with her daughter Sarah (Kristen Stewart). The house just happens to have a surprise, a panic room - a safe place in case of burglars or for just plain reclusive rich old men.
Well, that room becomes important when on the first night after moving in, Meg and Sarah are visited by Burnham, Raoul and Junior (played by Forest Whitaker, Dwight Yoakam and Jared Leto, respectively). The three are burglars after a fortune hidden within the panic room.
Of course, as soon as Meg and Sarah are aware of the break-in, they automatically jump into the safety of the room, and now the three burglars are left trying to lure them out.
Barely mentioned is Meg’s claustrophobia, although with all the camera movement going on throughout the film, it seems impossible anyone would feel restricted. While the technical details are sparkling, they seem out of place. What could have been a nice twist ends up being glossed over. She begins to hyperventilate, Sarah tells her not to freak out, and just like that, no more claustrophobia.
Foster’s performance is good, giving the actress a chance to flex her action muscles while also taking a shot at a thriller. Another great job is done by Whitaker, although his role ends up with a predictable “hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold” twist.
In fact, what really may have been wrong with “Panic Room” is not that there isn’t enough skill behind it - it’s that there’s too much. The script has some really cheesy dialogue and an ending right out of the Disney planning book. To put talents like Fincher, Foster and Whitaker in such a movie seems like getting Picasso to paint your fence.
As such, “Panic Room” probably is the best-directed, best-acted mediocre movie of the year. For those unfamiliar with Fincher’s previous work, or for those who thought “Fight Club” was “too weird” (pansies!), “Panic Room” probably will fit into theaters as an escape, nothing too outlandish and a worthy night out.
For those of us who have seen “The Game” way too many times, even knowing the ending, or been amazed by “Seven,” and especially those of us who have defended “Fight Club” for the past three years, “Panic Room” is a step down. Still better than average, and the man obviously has plenty of talent to waste, but here’s hoping for next time.
