panic room.. | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in
Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
big
...and 506 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614087
Today 0
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
panic room..
 

offline acrid milk hall from United Kingdom on 2003-12-15 17:33 [#00992876]
Points: 2916 Status: Lurker



..i think this film is proof that the traditionally
accepted run-times for films need to be shattered. peter
jackson's lord of the rings trilogy seems to be making a
pretty convincing case that (if theres enough material & the
film is well crafted) it IS possible to make a 3hour+
movie..
but am i the only one who felt that the tension in fincher's
panic room dried up about half way through the film? if it
had been an hour & a half (at the very most) it could have
drawn ton the craftsmanship & atmosphere it seemed to build
at the beginning & let that all unwind for a dramatic &
jolting finish - instead of drawing it out for the standard
2hours so as to please the studios - (who seem to have to
control but not the creativity to allow film to be as free
an art form as it should) - and thus making a movie which
lost momentum long before its conclusion.
i just felt it was disappointing from/for fincher after
se7en & fight club (mmm.. fight club)

nice title sequence in panic room though.

 

offline corngrower from the fertile grounds of Iowa, w (United States) on 2003-12-15 18:23 [#00992947]
Points: 4404 Status: Lurker



horrible movie.

however, jodie's tits seem to have stood the test of time.
i'm still a upset she wasn't raped by forest whitaker
though.


 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2003-12-16 10:53 [#00994041]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker



david fincher, boy did HE drop off the face of the planet

 

offline qrter from the future, and it works (Netherlands, The) on 2003-12-16 11:02 [#00994053]
Points: 47414 Status: Moderator | Followup to acrid milk hall: #00992876



..eh?

so you're saying this film is proof it is very well possible
to make a 3 hour film, however, all the tension in this
film, which is supposed to be a thriller, drops away almost
completely.

does not compute.

 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-12-16 11:21 [#00994069]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker



I thought it was quite good

 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2003-12-16 11:27 [#00994075]
Points: 12423 Status: Regular



So did I. We're weird.

 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2003-12-16 11:28 [#00994076]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



People should make 7-hour films!

Apocalypse now! Redux was about four hours, wasn't it? I
loved it!

Haven't seen panic room yet.. maybe I should.

 

offline epohs from )C: on 2003-12-16 11:33 [#00994082]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker



i don't mind a film being long if it's good.

imo panic room lacked any and all good.

 

offline evolume from seattle (United States) on 2003-12-16 11:33 [#00994083]
Points: 10965 Status: Regular | Followup to qrter: #00994053



i think he is just saying that studios do not need to try to
hit the 2 hr mark to make a good movie. LOTR goes well
over, and Panic Room could have been better by going under 2
hrs.

i liked panic room. but it deffinately does not have the
re-watchability of other Fincher movies. i don't think it
is a result of the length necessarily. A lot of the film is
focused on setting up the characters, so when the shit goes
down, you understand their motivation. and so you feel
kinda worried for the the mom and kid. i can't think of any
specific scene that should have been cut, i think the story
in general just needed a bit more substance.

It's deffinately Fincher's weakest work.
but i still liked it.

 

Messageboard index