Barbelith Underground > Film, TV & Theatre

I'm not trying to have an argument either - that's what the "I don't care" was inarticulately trying to express. Poorly worded.

But you've clarified by stating something that you didn't before - the bit about the characters not caring about what's happening to them, with which I just don't agree at all. The only thing that makes parts of Panic Room worth watching is the strength with which the characters care about what's happening. The problem is that it's not always well-communicated, so we don't care enough.

And sure, applying mutiple criteria to discussion of film is great - when the film warrants it. I think the problem here still lies with expectations. Panic Room, at it's heart, is a popcorn movie. That's it. The Game should be a pointer to this, as should Seven. All three films are intelligent thrillers, with enough subtext to support repeat viewings, but they are still visceral thrills at their core, not films about something. All three films are good to varying degrees, but that's because they're well-crafted and true to what they want to do, which is provide excitement. And becuase they're intelligently crafted, of course there's subtext that reveals a little bit about humanity and more than a little bit about David Fincher. He's got strong beliefs, and they're bound to come out in his films. But it's like the poor guy makes Fight Club and now he's got be be a messiah. I think there are many levels of greatness to aspire to and it's foolish to talk about a film assuming that it's trying to be something it doesn't want to be. I don't think most of Fincher's pictures aspire to be more than what they are, Panic Room included. So it's pointless to talk about how great the film could have been, with no ceiling on our definition of greatness. Could it have been a better thriller? Undoubtedly. There are sequences that drag, places where Fincher experimented with editing and sound mixing that don't work in the way he evidently wanted them to. OK - try again. But talking about the film in reference to Fight Club, just because that was his last film, is a waste of time, because his intentions for each film are so very different.

So that's my point here - evaluate what the filmmaker was trying to do before you start going on about what you wanted from the film, because what you wanted just doesn't matter very much. If it's not what you wanted, that's fine, but don't asses any film based on your expectations. Look at it based on what it wanted to do first - in the case of Panic Room there are signifigant failings, but there are shining spots as well. That's why I related the audience experience earlier - the people in the theatre with me loved it. So despite our expectations, Fincher has achieved what he wanted out of Panic Room.