Eric D. Snider
P2
Movie Review
"P2"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: D
Rating: R
Released: Friday, November 9, 2007
Directed by:
Cast:
Technology has forced the makers of horror films to get creative with their locations. It's no longer sufficient that the victims be isolated in spooky houses or abandoned warehouses; now they have to be in places where they won't get cell phone reception, either. And so we have "P2," set in a parking garage. Whoopee.
P2 would be parking level 2, of course, the place where Angela (Rachel Nichols) has left her car on this fateful Christmas Eve. (No matter how often the film repeats it in tense situations, "P2" will always be a silly title.) With a stressful, undefined job at an undefined corporation based in a Manhattan high-rise, Angela hardly has time for friends or family. But after working late tonight, she is heading to New Jersey to spend the holiday with her mother and sister.
She's the last one out of the building except for the parking garage security guard, Tom (Wes Bentley), who turns out to a) have a crush on her and b) be a psychopath. He chloroforms her. When she wakes up, she's chained to a table in the garage's office. It goes downhill from there, both for her and the viewer.
If you think that sounds like a pretty thin story for a 98-minute movie, you have a good point. I'm thinking of other recent films with similar stories and similarly small casts -- "Vacancy," which was just 85 minutes, and the French thriller "Them," which was a scant 77. Both films are fast-paced and scary, in large part because they don't waste any time. "P2" takes the opposite route, stretching things out as much as possible.
This is the first film by one Franck Khalfoun, who co-wrote it with Alexandre Aja and Gregory Levasseur, the minds behind "High Tension" and last year's "The Hills Have Eyes" remake. Their adorable fascination with blood 'n' gore continues. "Yeah!" the kids seem to say. "We're gonna make a movie with guts in it, and it will be super-scary! See if you can borrow your dad's video camera!"
The main defect in "P2," though, is Tom, who isn't creepy so much as pathetic. He's from the Norman Bates line of psychos who idolize and fear women to the point of wanting to kill them, but Wes Bentley's screaming and ranting is (unintentionally) funny, not unnerving. If he weren't armed, and if Angela weren't often handcuffed, there would be no reason at all to feel intimidated by him. It's like being menaced by Tobey Maguire.
He's also not a very believable nutcase. Most movie psychos have a pattern of craziness. In the best films, you can even diagnose the character's specific mental illnesses. Tom, on the other hand, is crazy in a general, random way. He can be delusional, lucid, gentle, vindictive, rational, or violent -- and when he changes, it's always because the story requires it, not because of the character's psychosis.
My favorite part is when Angela sneaks into the office to retrieve her cell phone to call for help. She has to crawl across the desk to get it, and as she does so, she climbs over ... a phone. You know, the regular desk kind that they have in offices. The kind that use telephone wires instead of cellular towers. Stupid functional telephone! she must be thinking. Get out of my way so I can get to my non-functional one! Way to go, Angie.
Grade: D
Rated R, a lot of harsh profanity, some very gruesome and very bloody violence
1 hr., 38 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 14 comments
November 9, 2007 at 7:38 am
I would, of course, never see this movie, not only because I don't like violent movies, but also because it's obviously crap. But I'm curious: If there's only two people in it, wence all the gruesome blood and violence? I would think it would be difficult to be too gruesome without killing one of them off and ending the movie, and aren't these things set up to have a constant stream of gruesomeness? Of course, maybe I'm just not inventive enough to think of ways you could torture someone gruesomely and keep them alive. Yay for me!
My thought for the day: It's easy to feel superior to the ancient Romans, or, frankly, many other civilizations that had public executions or gladiator matches. We're so much more civilized, aren't we? But how is watching a movie like this different? Just because no one actually dies? Can your brain really tell?
November 9, 2007 at 10:26 am
@Dave:
Yes.
November 9, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Obviously. If I had to choose between a world where people are murdered for sport and a world where people get paid a lot of money to pretend to be murdered for sport, I'd pick the second one in a heartbeat. Arguing that they're equally bad is like saying that the Bubonic Plague is as equally unpleasant as the sniffles.
November 9, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Of course there are external differences in the two societies. That's not the argument.This is: What's the difference between your experience in the theater and the colleseum? Rationally, you know the former isn't real, but you suspend your disbelief, correct? You buy into it. What if after you finished watching someone get shot in the head in a movie, you were told it was actually a real filmed execution? Does that change how you feel about it?
Do movies have the power of realism or not?
November 9, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Though I feel that most of these movies are worthless garbage, I think whether the movie itself is sadistic really depends on the visceral reaction to the film. If the viewer enjoys suspense and tenseness, almost planning the victim's escape with the victim, the "thriller" aspect sets in. You wouldn't voluntarily put a person in that situation or "enjoy" it in a traditional sense, but you enjoy seeing how they escape.
On the other hand, movies that celebrate depraved violence for the purpose of celebrating depraved violence (i.e. non-ironically) are pretty much for sadists.
I don't think we can really arrive at the answers to these questions. Even the Coliseum could be partially-enjoyed in the way I described above. Geesh.
November 9, 2007 at 7:45 pm
"What if after you finished watching someone get shot in the head in a movie, you were told it was actually a real filmed execution? Does that change how you feel about it?"
It would totally, utterly, completely change how I felt about it. Any enjoyment I may have found in such a film would be completely negated and more.
Look, I hate gruesome violence in movies, and I stay far away from any film I hear described as "gory," but morally there is a mountain of difference between enjoying pretend violence and enjoying REAL violence.
Now, I think you might have more of a case if you pointed to Fox Network specials with names like "America's Wildest Police Chases and Car Crashes" or the "Faces of Death" videos from the 80's as examples of modern civilization taking enjoyment in real violence. However, as much as I find those examples offensive, even then the producers were not intentionally CAUSING violent acts.
November 10, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Look at the insane slapstick found in many ostensibly-"family" movies. Is it funny in real life when a guy gets hit in the face with a frying pan and falls down a flight of stairs? Only sometimes.
November 11, 2007 at 7:02 am
you were told it was actually a real filmed execution? Does that change how you feel about it?
Yes. People being murdered for sport is never okay.
Look, I hate gruesome violence in movies, and I stay far away from any film I hear described as "gory," but morally there is a mountain of difference between enjoying pretend violence and enjoying REAL violence.
I agree completely.
November 12, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I don't know where I first heard the phrase "torture porn" to describe movies like this, but I think it's fitting. If watching people being dehumanized gets you off, either through sex or mutilation, that's your right as an American I guess.
But I also guess I don't even have any business leaving a comment for this movie, seeing how even if it were a well-written/acted/etc film I still wouldn't see it, since just the fact that crap like this exists makes me sick to my stomach.
November 12, 2007 at 3:20 pm
OK, I don't like to post comments on my own site, but y'all are talkin' out your butts. "P2" is not "torture porn." It has one scene of torture -- the scene of gruesome, bloody violence -- but it's a male victim and a male perpetrator, which lessens some of the "torture porn" effect. It's also only one scene in a 98-minute movie. The other violence is no worse than any number of R-rated horror films.
It's a bad movie, sure. But save your "torture porn" outrage for movies that actually fit the category. I suppose that's the danger in getting indignant about movies you haven't seen and don't actually know anything about. :-)
November 14, 2007 at 6:14 pm
....must....leave....comment......for movie....I...will....never....see....but have....already....misjudged..... *dies*
:-P
November 15, 2007 at 9:36 am
To be honest, in reading the review, it sounded like another crappy "torture porn". Eric's post suggests that it is really a thriller with a single scene of creepy torture. I'd say that's an important distinction. Despite that, I think I will take Eric's review as saying it is a bad movie, and not see it for that reason.
November 17, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Everyone is skipping the best thing to come out of this movie... when the trailer for it came on the radio, you could hear the main character say, "I'm trapped in an underground parking garage!" like that's supposed to be frightening and/or horrific.
November 23, 2007 at 10:08 pm
"What if after you finished watching someone get shot in the head in a movie, you were told it was actually a real filmed execution? Does that change how you feel about it?"
From what I can tell, no one was actually meant to answer that, because the poster assumed that the answer would be a resounding "no," and it would serve as more of a powerful example to his opinion.
Um, except YES, of COURSE that would change the way ANY sane person feels about the footage. Movies are meant to simulate life, but it's much easier to stomach something when you do know at the end of the day that it's fake. In a horror movie, suspension of disbelief goes so far that a person in the audience should be able to pity and fear for the sake of the characters. You seem to be very confused if you think that people actually mistake victims in these for real people. People go to see horror because they live vicariously through the unfortunate people on the screen, and like the rush of adrenaline.
Hilarious review, though. I love the bit with the phones.