Critics’ reviews

Panic Room (2002)

12 reviews from 12 publications. Critics’ score 70: 7 positive, 4 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Panic Room

70
Positive
7
Mixed
4
Negative
1

Most critics come away satisfied. The reviews treat Panic Room as a tight, efficient siege thriller, and the praise clusters on David Fincher’s direction: the camera’s long, sinuous movements through the house are mentioned again and again, and the title sequence gets a nod from several. Jodie Foster’s lead performance is the other point of agreement, with critics singling out her anxious, resourceful intensity. Forest Whitaker also earns warm words.

The reservations are about weight rather than craft. A number of reviews call the plot formulaic and the film slighter than Fincher’s earlier work, admired for its mechanics more than its substance. The New Yorker thinks Jared Leto’s comic turn a misstep. The spread is narrow, with one outlier: Eye for Film, writing five years after release, finds the direction weak and the ending incoherent, though it praises Kristen Stewart. Nobody else goes that far.

Variety
18 March 2002 · Todd McCarthy
90*

McCarthy finds the thriller engrossing, praising its smart plotting, performances, and technical execution. He particularly singles out Fincher’s visual style and the film’s dark, atmospheric look.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Caroline Westbrook
80*

Westbrook finds the film a top-notch piece of commercial suspense, despite its simple premise. She especially praises Jodie Foster’s resourceful, believable lead performance and the film’s escalating tension.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
29 March 2002 · Keith Phipps
80*

Phipps praises the film as a tightly orchestrated, highly suspenseful thriller. He singles out Fincher’s technical control and the cast’s convincing desperation as key strengths.

Read the full review →
Total Film
3 May 2002 · ★★★★ · Total Film
80

The review finds the film superficial compared with Fincher’s earlier work, but exhilarating as a sustained exercise in style and suspense. It particularly praises Fincher’s inventive camera work, especially the elaborate coffee-pot shot.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
5 May 2002 · Philip French
75*

French praises the film as an expert, taut thriller that makes familiar siege scenarios feel fresh. He singles out Fincher’s direction and the camera’s sinuous movement through the house.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
8 April 2002 · Anthony Lane
70*

Lane finds the film an effective, nerve-racking thriller, though Jared Leto’s comic performance is a misstep. He especially praises Jodie Foster’s anxious intensity and Forest Whitaker’s tender, troubled presence.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
29 March 2002 · A.O. Scott
70*

The review finds the film an effective, suspenseful thriller. It singles out Fincher’s precise visual direction as a strength.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
26 March 2002 · Emanuel Levy
64*

The available page does not expose the critic’s verdict. It likewise provides no praise or complaint beyond the film’s identifying metadata.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· GA
64*

The accessible page does not expose the critic’s verdict. No specific praise or complaint is available in the visible metadata.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
21 March 2002 · ★★½/4 · Ed Gonzalez
62

Gonzalez finds the film mechanically self-obsessed but ultimately entertaining eye candy. He singles out the opening credits, Foster’s dashes into the panic room, and the elegant wine glasses.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · Sloan Freer
60

Freer finds the thriller tense and ruthlessly executed, despite its formulaic plot. The innovative title sequence and Fincher’s nervous energy stand out for praise.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
27 June 2007 · Jennie Kermode
35*

Kermode finds the film disappointing overall, though still worth watching. She praises the opening credits and Kristen Stewart’s performance, but faults the weakened direction and incoherent ending.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate