Panic (2000)

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It's not hard to list a few things that are wrong with this film. First, it could be argued that the romance between Alex and Sarah is pretty unlikely, but William H. Macy and Neve Campbell are just the two to pull it off. Sarah's comments on her life and life in general are a bit much at times, but again, I can forgive her for most of it. A bigger problem arises when grandma and grandpa become horrid people to their grandson overnight in the final part, although it may be argued that they both feel that Alex is slipping away from them and their behaviour is a result of their frustrations.No matter how you look at things, 'Panic' isn't the perfect film. It is in many respects too contrived and rather unbelievable, but somehow the film wins me over every time I watch it, which surely has a lot to do with the near perfect cast: William H. Macy, Neve Campbell, Tracey Ullman, John Ritter and even the little kid who I would have sworn was played by a son of Tracey Ullman, but of that, I find no evidence^.I liked it pretty good. A big 7 out of 10.^ I'm forgetting Donald Sutherland and Barbara Bain as the grandparents!

A stellar cast gone to waste. The films pacing was horrible. The script had excellent qualities and yet this director was unable to show honest believable people who had a reason to interact. I felt nothing for any of these people. This film had no resemblance to life. Even a life this weird had no real feeling. I don't understand why this "tragic mess" of human beings could not be made darkly funny. This movie was not comedy, dark or otherwise. I witnessed a disastrous attempt to revive the characters and every time a character showed any signs of life, that life was snuffed out and pointless. It surprises me that this film is so highly rated and the reviews are so effusive. Panic had no real passion.

In his first go as a Hollywood director, Henry Brommell whips an enthralling yarn that is all of penetrating relatable marital issues with melancholic authenticity, and lacing such with an equally absorbing subplot of a father-son hit-man business. The film is directed astutely and consists of a wonderfully put together cast as well as a swift, family-conscious screenplay (also by Brommell) that brings life to an otherwise fatigued genre. As a bonus, 'Panic' delivers subtle, acerbic humor—an unexpected, undeniably charming, and very welcome surprise—through its bumbling, unsure-of-himself, low-key star, whose ever-cool state is enticing, especially given his line of work.The forever-great William H. Macy again captures our hearts as Alex, a unhappy, torn, middle-aged husband and father who finds solace in the most dubious of persons: a young, attractive, equally-messed-up 23-year-old named Sarah (Neve Campbell), whom he meets in the waiting-room at a psychologist's office, where he awaits the therapy of Dr. Josh Parks (John Ritter) to discuss his growing eagerness to quit the family business that his father (Donald Sutherland) built. Alex, whose lust to lead a new life is obstructed by the fear of disappointing his dictating father, strikes an unwise fancy for Sarah, which ultimately leads him to understand the essence and irrefutable responsibility of being a husband to his wife and, more importantly to him, a good father to his six-year-old son, Sammy (played enthusiastically by the endearing David Dorfman).Henry Brommell's brilliant 'Panic' is something of a rarity in Hollywood seldom seen (with the exception of 2002's 'Road to Perdition') since its conception in 2000—it weaves two conflicting genres (organized-crime, family drama) into a fascinating, warm hunk of movie-viewing that is evenly strong in either direction—and it's one that will maintain its exceptional, infrequent caliber and gleaming sincerity for ages to come.

Panic is a very well made movie. It also contains excellent acting and the cinematography is a 10 of 10. I really liked the way the movie was photographed. It had a noirish component to it but also curiously, the look of the film, at times, had an 80's quality. If I hadn't known this was such a recent release I'd have thought it came out in the mid 80's. The atmosphere and photography, as well, as the highly charged performances were what I enjoyed most.Unfortunately, the movie is really difficult to watch. There are a handful of movies that, while very obviously maybe well made are just almost to intense. That's the way I felt about Panic. It isn't gory but is very emotionally upsetting though the characters, all of them, hold an element of fascination as well.SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: There is an element of gloom throughout the movie that does not let up. Of coarse, the plot, is in itself, pretty much a downer but Panic while being a very good film in a lot of ways, is so disturbing while watching that it's hard to get through it. Some movies, such as American Beauty, which it's been compared to, are disturbing but in a good way. With American Beauty I felt riveted to my seat. With Panic, after a bit, I just felt like turning it off. It made an impression on me alright, but not the way I'd have wanted.This movie is obviously meant to disturb and it did. There's not a lot to criticize in panic but it's not a movie I could give an 8, 9 or 10 to, simply because I wasn't transfixed as in other films that might be equally disturbing but contain the element of keeping you glued to your seat as well. Panic is a good movie. It is thought provoking, well acted, emotionally brutal and sad. It also has that element of complete realism and really gets you thinking about one's neighbors, friends, coworkers etc-who they really are and what secrets they maybe carrying around. I admire Panic tremendously and do plan to watch it again, it seems the type of film where the second time around might make better viewing, knowing what it's about etc but as of right now my vote is 6.5 of 10. The movie touched, it disturbed, but it also drained. As far as performances go though-10's all the way through.