Panic Room (2002) User Reviews (980)

A one-trick plot, but amazing camera, intense acting, and tightly made.

[secondtake · 7/10 · 31 December 2009]

Panic Room (2002)

There are three reasons to see Panic Room. 1) The titles: understated, gorgeous, uncanny letters floating in the Manhattan cityscape. 2) The photography: camera moving like an animal, slipping between tiny spaces, swinging across rooms and through floors, inhabiting the screen like another character. 3) Forest Whitaker, again (he's so good so often it's hard to not expect a great performance).

The rest of the film is very good, directed with style and intelligence as usual by David Fincher (who did Seven and Fight Club). The plot is good, but maybe a little conventional overall, and if the details aren't completely predictable, the general flow of events is. The whole cast is quite good--Foster in a familiar embattled, determined role, and Jared Leto is an appropriately crazed, if slightly caricatured, bad guy who just wants money. Don't we all.

I saw this when it came out and was dazzled and yet disappointed by the plot. The second time, knowing the events, I was able to just watch how they unfolded, and it was much better. Expect suspense, intensity, and beautiful camera-work.

Simple Tight Movie

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 24 November 2013]

Director David Fincher lays out a tight simple thriller. It takes place all in and around the house. Meg Altman (Jodie Foster) is recently divorced and buying a house in the Upper West Side of Manhattan. It has a panic room. On their first night in the house, they get invaded by three criminals (Forest Whitaker, Dwight Yoakam, Jared Leto) intend on getting something from the previous owner left in the panic room. Only Meg and her daughter Sarah (Kristen Stewart) get there first.

Fincher has striped away all the unnecessary filler from the story. It's a simple cat and mouse game. Nothing could be simpler. Even at almost 2 hours, there isn't a slow moment. All the actors get their fair share. Jodie and Forest lead the cast, but Jared and Kristen also shine. I wouldn't say this was the greatest or the most original. It is simply a good movie.

Edge of your seat thriller!

[rr_jailbird · 8/10 · 10 April 2002]

This was a very suspenseful and exciting thriller from David Fincher who is responsible for my all time favourite film which is Seven. This new film has another very good performance by Jodie Foster but the acting standout of the film has to go to Dwight Yoakam with awesome performance as Raoul. The only problem i had with this film was its ending which was a bit of a let down but did not really spoil the film at all.

8 out of 10

Well acted action-thriller, weak conclusion

[long-ford · 28 February 2009]

David Fincher directs this cleverly conceived thriller about a mother and daughter trapped inside a panic room by three criminals. The film is well-paced and the camera work is slick. The film does well in exploring the confines of the house. Jodie Foster is effective and maintains a high intensity throughout. Kristen Stewart is decent as her daughter. Forest Whitaker plays a slightly sympathetic criminal and does well. Unfortunately, after an engrossing game of cat and mouse, the conclusion is weak. Staple clichés crop up and the film goes for a crowd-pleasing finale that doesn't quite feel right. Still watchable.

Overall 7/10

A gritty, claustrophobic and tense suspense thriller that's directed with flair.

[Pjtaylor-96-138044 · 7/10 · 23 March 2018]

This claustrophobic suspense thriller sets itself up well with a remarkable, if digitally enhanced, one-shot that neatly and necessarily establishes the geography of the central location, while also planting the seeds for the seedy uses of various tools laying about the house, so that the action that comes later is clean and clear without ever needing to slow down for the sake of audience reorientation. 'Panic Room (2002)' is pretty pacy and nicely gritty to boot, being unusually violent for pictures of the kind but never less tense either. It manages to make a compelling home-invasion seem suitably layered, presenting the bad guys as rounded individuals with differing yet believable motives and personalities. It still feels immediately dangerous, though, never losing sight of its protagonists and the escalating peril they're placed in, until it finally reaches its truly edge-of-your-seat and slightly unexpected finale. 7/10

Tense

[mm-39 · 7/10 · 3 April 2002]

This movie starts out slow, but it builds tension. This would be a very terrifying situation. I can see why Dwight Yoakam wears a stetson all the time. Is acting going to be his new career? He plays a real good creep. This movie has a sense of realism. It is worth seeing on the big screen.

Really enjoy this more with each time I watch

[Girolahozz · 7/10 · 16 February 2009]

I didn't feel like Panic Room stood up to Fincher's previous lovable monsters (The Game, Seven, and Fight Club) but it was certainly better than what most people claim it to be. This movie has an incredible cast, a grouping that I wouldn't think could have played off of each other so well, but Fincher made it work nicely. After reading on who was originally cast, I applaud Fincher for going with Jodie Foster, she's dead on excellent in 'most' of her roles and is very believable in this film. To me, though, Kristen Stewart and Jerod Leto steal the scenes until the end where Dwight and Forrest really step out of the shadows and perform brilliantly! Take this movie for what you will, but the idea of it on top of the excellent direction makes it a classic thriller in the path of mid-era Hitchcock films.

"You're gonna be okay"

[pawanpunjabithewriter · 9/10 · 28 August 2023]

Panic Room stands as a classic horror film that expertly blends elements of thrill and crime. Curiously, despite its clear horror attributes, it doesn't find its home in the horror genre on IMDb. As a fan of well-crafted horror movies that encompass compelling character arcs and character development, this film left a mark considering its impeccable writing which ticked all the boxes.

What sets Panic Room apart is its unique narrative approach. The writer's choice to conclude the movie in a similar fashion to how it commenced is a rarity within the horror genre. Both the protagonist and antagonist are intricately developed characters, brought to life with equally outstanding performances that mirror their well-structured designs and deep character arcs.

Although the trapped-in-a-house subgenre can sometimes be predictable due to its reliance on intense horror and survival, Panic Room is as an exception. The tense atmosphere adds to the film's overall impact. I was engrossed by its gripping combination of thrills, well-crafted writing, and stellar performances thanks to Jodie Foster & Forest Whitaker's stand-out performance.

I felt the iconic dialogue of the classic, Shawshank Redemption (So was Red) was recreated - You're gonna be okay.

Panic inside and outside the room!

[mario_c · 7/10 · 5 February 2009]

PANIC ROOM is a suspense thriller quite different from what I was expecting since I thought it would be something in the Horror genre, but no, it isn't, the plot is about a robbery that three guys try to do to a house with a panic room (I think it was the this title which induced me in error, because panic room is a protection room to the owners of the house). So, it was different from what I was expecting but I liked it anyway because it's a great thriller, very suspenseful and very well shot. The setting is always the house but it doesn't turn out boring because it has a good pace with very little slow moments. About the cinematography I enjoyed the camera work which is excellent (especially in the first hour when they shot incredible details and the camera does a "travelling effect") and the light (almost the entire film is shot with little illumination, which makes it a suspenseful dark thriller, which I use to appreciate!:). The acting is also very good. I did enjoy it and I score it 7/10.

Severely underrated

[timothygruich · 10/10 · 2 February 2009]

Way ahead of it's time. If you can come up with a story based in a single room and make it as engaging and exciting as this one... you deserve to be frozen and preserved for future teaching of inspiring film makers. This is a fantastic film and I'm glad Jodie Foster was available for the lead when Nicole Kidman got knocked up and bailed. I loved the off-character casting of Jared Leto and the unbelievable casting of Dwight Yoakam... DWIGHT YOAKAM. Everything worked. Another great, and yet again... underrated film by David Fincher. How long is it going to take for an established directed like Fincher to take a chance and roll the dice on trying to make a script like this work again? ...No one has the guts.

Why did Foster make this picture?

[helpless_dancer · 7/10 · 28 February 2004]

Jodie must have been hard up for some ready cash when she signed the dotted line for this run of the mill production. I enjoyed the thing so I suppose I shouldn't gripe but I have come to expect more lofty attempts at quality from this actressis that word out of vogue today?]. There were gobs of stressful nail biting, truckloads of violence, eyesful of sights and earsful of sounds portraying what a evil, anything for the almighty buck world we live in. Yes, it had all this but the film still lacked an ingredient that I always look for in any movie and that is newness. I didn't find it here even as I sat tensely relaxed watching Foster fight to save her ill daughter and herself from the smart, the bad, and the whiney.

I enjoyed it very much.

[filiptabak-23318 · 8/10 · 18 September 2016]

It was on in cinema near me so I decided to see it. It is awesome and I love many actors/actresses in the movie. *SPOILERS*

I rated it an 8 because I think that an ending wasn't really fair. The black guy was arrested but he was the good guy and the money (22 mil.) got lost. That wasn't really fair in my opinion. Overall the movie was great, all tho I didn't really like Kristen Stewart's character that much. And another thing that I thought was weird is that, why the hell do they need that big house, I mean, it's just too big. And in the end I found it weird that the masked guy actually came back to kill all of them when the police were already there when he could've just ran away and escaped.

The credits are the best part

[mcara1980 · 6/10 · 3 May 2006]

The credits are the best part, like many David Fincher films. OK, so its a bit formulaic, but the actors really make it work. It takes awhile to get started, but once it does, the suspense and mystery is undeniable. Many reviewers complained that the script was weak, I agree to some extent, but even with an unspectacular script this is still a very watchable thriller. If you think it's difficult to forgive the way this film grabs you, there are other ways to like it. The story, even clichéd, is still interesting and suspenseful. The best part of the movie, though, is the credits, which are not even as good as those Fincher used in Se7ven, which is a better movie, his best probably, better than Fight Club, go see that.

Utterly predictable and dumb... I cannot Believe Jodie is here!

[vocklabruck · 3/10 · 10 October 2006]

I really love Jodie. I heard that she had rejected Hannibal millions dollars job offer because its script was stupid. So what in the Earth made her accept working in this piece of garbage called Panic Room? Forest Whitaker is a great actor too. I cannot believe both of them appear here! I would give no stars to this movie, but these 2 great actors make me save their performance.

Producers made a big mistake with the casting. Probably they spent all the money paying Jodie and Forest, so they put only garbage actors to complete the group. This is not unusual. The masked criminal does not look menacing without his mask at all. And the little girl is cute and a good actress but she seems a boy. In fact, when I watched the trailer I thought it was a boy! She not only seems a boy because of her haircut but because she has boys manners!

***spoilers ahead***

The storyline is stupid from the very first minute. Anyway the movie was good at first specially because the camera amazing movements and CGI. After the bad guys break into the house everything is very predictable, full of plot holes and it goes only to show the characters stupidity:

1- Why do they get a house so big while they are only 2 small people? This house is for about 5 people! Without live-in help it is impossible to have that house clean!

2- There are lots of noises when the guys first talk takes place, they even shout (in lower voice), Meg cannot sleep, she is wide awake but she does not hear ANYTHING.

3- Why the guys do not leave the girls alone trapped inside the elevator if what they want is in the panic room?

4- The 911 never put you on hold, and if so, I might think they are able to track your call and send an unit.

5- The fire thing is no real. Gas does not remain in the ceiling and also the carafe outside should have exploited burning the 3 criminals and the explosion should be noisy enough to alert neighbors.

6- It is incredible that both mom and daughter do not wonder what the criminals want from the room and try to negotiate.

7- At first it is impossible to talk from outside to inside, but later it is! Sounds strange that the big guy who built the room does not know about the intercom and this new owner does.

8- At the end, it is stupid that Burnham comes back to the house because he hears a shout, the police sirens were sounded nearby already. Also it is stupid that Burnham let the bank bonds go with the wind, because he could have raised his hands keeping the papers in his jacket.

I will not continue with plot holes because it would be endless, but I have to say that I am tired of "Terminator skills" at the end of all thrillers. How can I guy survive while he has a hand damaged, he is hammered on the head and he fell one floor down? He still has a supernatural strength to fight 3 people! As I said all the movie is predictable from the start to the end. If you watch this movie with someone else I suggest a guessing game and probably you will guess everything! For example, what do you think a neighbor will do if someone in front is bothering him with flashing lights? I understand the Morse code idea, but face it... only a few among regular people get it.

Another thing, the finale is tasteless... I felt saying "And where is the panic that appeared in the movie title?"

Panic Room: High-octane excitement with many clever surprises

[back2wsoc · 1 November 2002]

In her first suspense-thriller since her Academy-Award winning turn in "The Silence of the Lambs", Jodie Foster registers quite well as middle-aged New Yorker Meg Altman, who moves into an EXTREMELY spacious brownstone with her daughter Sarah (Kristen Stewart), a diabetic tomboy. The building is equipped with a special shelter designed in the event of a break-in, known as a 'panic room'. Meg and Sarah waste no time in putting the claustrophobic area to use (on their first night, no less) when a trio of burglars (Forest Whitaker, Jared Leto and Dwight Yoakam) make their way into her building to retrieve a large sum of money. The catch is that the burglars' stash is in the very room in which Meg and her daughter are hiding! While 'Panic Room' is not exactly white-knuckle suspense, it definitely has its moments, especially the heart-pounding moment when Meg leaves the panic room to grab her cell phone, and the the tension-building scene when Whitaker and Yoakam enter the panic room when Foster leaves. The only main plot hole is clear in the very beginning: Why would a recently separated woman with one child want to purchase a four-story brownstone? What does she need all of that space for? Besides that, 'Panic Room' is an intelligently written and directed thriller from director David Fincher (Fight Club). The only characters that don't make sense are Meg's friend in the opening scenes and her husband (Ann Magnuson and Patrick Bauchau). They both seem hopelessly unnecessary; otherwise, 'Panic Room' is a first-rate thriller with similarities to several shockers of the early 1990s, 'Unlawful Entry' (1992) being one in particular. Whitaker has to be one of the nicest thieves in recent film history!

Mediocre and flat, but well shot

[sperman · 6/10 · 15 May 2002]

Yet another disappointment, yet another "fallen hero". After "Fight Club" I was expecting something a bit more lively and twisted, but it looks like Fincher has fallen into the arms of commercial business, where you get simple movies for simple minds. The movie is totally flat. 20 minutes after the the start, you already know the end in details. Standard set up with standard characters and standard situations. He tried to imitate Hitchcock's style, but failed miserably after a good start, losing all suspence for high predictability and poor situations.

The only thing I really liked of this movie is the camera shooting, the use of moving cameras: THAT is a remarkable side of this otherwise poor movie. The camera moves smoothly and slowly through walls, following people and action in a nice way and creating very nice effects. The scene in the beginning when the guys try to enter the house is probably the best in the movie: don't miss that one!

Tension-Packed Hollywood Take on a Hitchcock-Type Premise

[noralee · 7/10 · 28 October 2005]

I missed the opening credits and a few minutes of back story of "The Panic Room" but was still pretty much able to follow all the action. And wollop it comes fast and furious.

David Fincher's directing definitely added to the excitement, and it's nice to see that today's filmmakers have seen Hitchcock movies, and Hitch would have loved blonde Jodie Foster I think.

But excitement is also added because the characters are quite unpredictably individuated, particularly the bad guys.

Howard Shore's music keeps the suspense keyed up without being obtrusive.

When Hollywood does what it does well, we can have a crackling good time!

(originally written 5/19/2002)

Derivative thriller holds the attention but has frayed edges...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 6 September 2005]

A movie with such a simple premise, taking place on such a confined set, should be very compact, but David Fincher's thin, disappointing "Panic Room" seems scattered. Recently-divorced woman and her un-girlie preteen daughter take refuge in a "safe room" after three thugs break into their posh Manhattan digs; they don't want to kill anyone, but what they're after is in that precise room. The contrivances in the set-up are very nearly smoothed out (except for a stupid bit involving a flashlight) and the show-off camera techniques are actually welcomed (they add some jazzy visual juice to spike the proceedings). However, Jodie Foster isn't given much to work with in the lead--in fact, nobody is. It's a by-the-numbers exercise in suspense, with echoes of "Wait Until Dark" besides. It does get your blood pumping, but the direction and the editing allow it to flag in the stretch. The finale is hectic and visually confusing--releasing the tension the narrative has built up--and the epilogue is flat. Why not add some offhand humor to the mother-daughter conversation? Something like, "Let's pass on that apartment, Mom, it's got a panic room." **1/2 from ****

Knock, knock,

[screenman · 8/10 · 30 August 2010]

'Panic Room'. Is set in a colossal old 'brownstone' semi in New York.

It looks big enough to garrison a regiment, yet an embittered mother and her daughter, mean to live in it all by themselves. It's expensive, but their husband/father - who has apparently run-off with some air-head - is apparently rich enough to foot the bill. In short; it's financial revenge. On the master-bedroom floor is the titular panic-room. It's a mini-fortress, almost impregnable by conventional means and self-sufficient.

On their first night, three hoods turn-up to burgle. Unbeknown to mother and daughter, there's a floor-safe in the panic room. It contains what the villains are after.

Mother and daughter flee inside before the villains can catch them. A siege ensues.

For the most part, I found this a very tense, well-acted piece of drama. It definitely had its moments. Jodi Foster was good as the over-protective mother, Kristen Stewart was adequate as the rebellious daughter. The villains did their villain thing.

I was a little nonplussed by the curious lack of colour throughout. It might well have been filmed in black & white. Perhaps it was meant to lend some noirish element; for me it was just inexplicably gloomy.

I also enjoyed the fluid nature of the relationship dynamics. The nominal leader who ultimately goes to pieces and gets shot by the hard-man in a ski-mask. Later, after trapping his hand in the panic-room door, he himself is unmasked, gunless, a whimpering impotent. The 'expert' knows the criminal consequences of harming anyone whilst committing the robbery and means to avoid bloodshed at all costs. He, of course, has the most to lose. The police will soon realise that inside knowledge was needed. It can only be a matter of time before enquiries lead to him. He must be long gone without trace, almost proof positive of guilt. Yet he could never bluff it out because the mother and daughter would recognise him.

I rather liked the ending, where an overhead helicopter whips all of the multi-million-dollar bearer-bonds into the air.

There were a number of irritating little details, but by and large I overlooked these because the rest of the movie was sufficiently worthy.

Fincher´s least successful film yet

[gts-3 · 6/10 · 29 March 2002]

Oh yes, one senses what "Panic Room" is about. Is the loss of ones freedom the necessary price to be paid for total security? And what´s total security worth, when there´s nothing but?

But one doesn´t see it on the screen. On the scree we have a perfectly staged, lit, set designed, orchestrated, written, directed, scored and last but not least edited cat and mouse game between Ms. Foster and mainly Mr. Whitaker. Nothing less. Nothing more.

The premise being that the houses of the very rich contain "panic rooms" as in when in panic go there. No intruder can invade that room and its inhabitant can last longer than the best equipped burglar.

David Koepp´s screenplay introduces a very weak McGuffin but then again that keeps the McGuffin in line with the surrounding script itself. For all the stylishness of Mr. Fincher´s staging, it´s let down by the other David´s writing. It´s only too evident that there once was a brilliant movie idea that pitifully enough never materialized into a real movie.

Keeping that in mind you just have to marvel at what a masterful director Mr. Fincher is, even when his material sucks.

They are coming to get you... in your own house!

[imseeg · 9/10 · 27 August 2018]

Wow.Seen it so many times now, that I have lost count of it and STILL it is thrilling to the bone. Written by David Koepp who gave us Jurrasic Park, Mission Impossible and Indiana Jones among others. This man KNOWS how to write a compelling yet simple story.

3 burglars break in assuming nobody is home. Too bad. Jodie Foster just moved in there with her young kid. Will she survive the burglars assault in her "safe" panic room, a room specifically built to survive such an attack? This movie might at first sight seem the usual run of the mill thriller, but David Koepp and David Fincher have an enormous backlog of great award winning succeses at the box office. They have created the biggest popular classics in modern cinema.

David Fincher is the man who directed this thrilling claustrophobic movie. This director also made "Se7en" with Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey. He also made "The Game" and "Zodiac". If you know those movies it suffices to say that David Fincher is THE master of suspense in Hollywood. He has created the most thrilling movies of Hollywood. A cliffhanger every 10 minutes, that puts me on the edge of my seat, even if I already know what's coming. The action and the suspense just will not stop. It is portrayed very realistically, it could have happened the way it did and what is more scarier than being attacked in your own home?

Excellent performance by Jodie Foster, Forrest Whitaker, Jared Leto and the very young Kristen Stewart. There is plenty of action but most of all it is the suspense that is really nerve wrecking. And that suspense is built on Jodie Foster's mother instinct to save her young daughter from any harm. The families survival is at stake here. What a creepy drama. What a great thrill. What a big scary ride!

Good Solid Movie

[staffa58 · 7/10 · 29 March 2002]

Pretty simple. Meg and her daughter Sarah move into a beautiful old house in Manhattan, right after Meg and her husband get divorced. She notices that one of the rooms are smaller than it should be, and the realtor explains this "Panic Room". A room that is a "safe-haven" for anything that could go wrong. You then have the 3 burglars that break in and try to get something from the house. They are furious because they hadn't planned on Meg moving in yet, just a slight obstacle for them. The movies keeps you on the edge of your seat for most of the time, and has you jumping in some cases. The camera work of David Fincher is absolutely amazing. Anywhere he wanted the camera to go, it went; keyholes, through walls, through floors, anywhere. The only reason I gave the movie a 7 out of 10 is because I found it pretty predictable. Although, still good, I was able to determine what was going to happen long before it actually did. In general, a good movie.

Gives a Hiding Place a new meaning.

[OllieSuave-007 · 8/10 · 3 March 2014]

Panic Room gives a hiding place a new meaning, where a divorced woman (Jodie Foster) and her daughter (Kristen Stewart) take refuge in a safe room inside their house to hide from three thieves, who are searching for a missing fortune.

You've all experience the thrills and excitement when you're in your hiding spot while playing a game of hide-and-seek. This movie takes that definition of a hiding place to an entire new level, as it is fingernail-biting to see the protagonists shield themselves in a safe room from the antagonists, attempting to protect themselves from harm and, at the same time, trying to figure out what the bad guys want.

Filmed with non-stop thrills, action and adventure, this crime thriller will surely give you an edge-of-your-seat entertainment, save from some lame acting moments.

Grade B

HOME ALONE with Forrest Whittaker!!

[DJAkin · 6/10 · 14 April 2002]

This was a decent movie, ok? I will just say that right off the bat. It's about Jodi Foster and her daughter who happen to buy what must have cost several million dollars, house in manhattan. Oddly enough it came equipped with a PANIC ROOM. And low and behold, some folks break into the house on THEIR FIRST NIGHT. The Trip is led by the dude from Prefontaine who does a good job as a WHITE MAN with CORN ROWS. Forrest Whittaker does a SUPERB JOB as always. He is one hell of a good actor. I liked that part where Dwight Yoakum stuck the HOT gun tip on Forrest's cheek. Speaking of Dwight Yoakum, geeze. He plays a very good evil burglar. His Character is RAUL and he's just plain stupid AND mean. Also, Jodi Foster's daughter looked like Macauly Caulkin. I thought he was a BOY for a long time. This is a decent movie. I saw it during a matinae because the weather was TOO HOT here. Decent character development. Forrest Whittaker stole the movie though. The care Forrest Whittaker shows the kid is cool. Also, Forrest Whittaker ends up doing something none of us quite expect. Forrest Whittaker should play more roles like this. At first I thought Forrest Whittaker was the MAIN bad guy. Way to go Forrest Whittaker, two thumbs up.

nothing makes sense in this movie

[ksayip · 1/10 · 13 April 2002]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I like the idea of the panic room, but the room itself has to be much better than the one in the movie. And too many things in the movie that do not make sense: (POSSIBLE SPOILERS, so do not read on if you dont' want to be spoiled, but the movie is SO predictable anyway)

1. You call 911 and get placed on hold after you tell them your address and it's an emergency? 2. Cell phones don't work in the room? If it was a room designed for the purpose as described in the beginning of the movie, shouldn't cell phones be usable in it? 3. Isn't it obvious to just kill all the surveilance cameras all over the house so people in the room won't know what you're doing? 4. Can't Jodie Foster tell the cops something or signal something since she was in the room before and should know they can't hear her from inside the room? 5. How can someone get smashed in the head like that not only not die, but still has the power to wrestle someone down and try to kill her? etc.etc. please write a better script next time Fincher.