free counter with statistics Disturbia | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

sarah_roemer4.jpg

Window-Watchers

Disturbia / Phillip Stephens

Film Reviews | April 13, 2007 | Comments (26)


Disturbia, D.J. Caruso’s overt homage to Hitchcock somehow manages to avoid the initial write-off of being either a tepid remake or terrible rip-off because, like a good episode of “The Simpsons,” it takes an old film archetype and runs with it instead of cooking up some new twist or angle. The plot points and outcome are never in any doubt, but Caruso never pretends that they were, he just has fun playing with someone else’s idea, and the results, though nothing to write home about, end up making a pretty decent thriller.

Kale (Shia LaBeouf) is a good boy gone bad: A tragic car accident kills his father and through guilt and despondency he becomes a sullen upstart. After clocking his Spanish teacher, Kale is sentenced to an entire summer of house arrest. At first, he deals with the anomie with the endless technological trappings available to the middle-class: Television, internet, video-games, but these diversions don’t last, and soon Kale is turning his attentions toward his neighbors, especially the newly-arrived hottie next door (Sarah Roemer).

But, of course, trouble arrives when another neighbor moves in - the creepy Mr. Tucker (David Morse), who the kids observe and believe may be a serial killer (Who, David Morse? Naw!). After this, events pretty much take care of themselves: Kale and his friends take up surveillance and eventually go so far as to sneak into the house to gather evidence, yada yada yada. Like I said, the story is laid out in the viewer’s mind before ever setting foot into the theater. Caruso doesn’t tweak the original idea much, because he knows that letting Rear Window unfold by itself will allow for enough thrills to sustain the film. And it may seem incongruous, but in spite of the unoriginality of the premise, Disturbia gets pretty exciting.

Caruso’s only real update is of modern technology, as Kale uses computers, cell phones, and camcorders to maximize his voyeurism - one episode with a digicam allows for a much more direct treatment of suspense than the original could’ve pulled off. But with an arc and story so enmeshed in the average theatergoers mind, Caruso has to rely on the speed and editing of the film to keep it from being boring and prosaic; to his credit, he does, but it requires a pretty big suspension of disbelief and expectation on the part of the audience.

So if you’re in the mood for a slight, forgettable thrill-ride that you’ll discard the moment your cortisol stops flowing, Disturbia will happily give it to you. It’s a hard film to laud in its own right, but it successfully deals out excitement and ingenuity that most faux-remake/sequels of its kind cannot. And unfortunately, that says a lot.

Phillip Stephens is the lead critic for Pajiba. He lives in Fayetteville, AR.


Perfect Stranger | I'm Still Not Sure I Get the Premise



Comments

well i was looking for jump-out-of-seat and then forget...excellent.

Posted by: Emily at April 13, 2007 10:55 PM

So, Disturbia is a good film then? Really? Wow.

I genuinely am surprised by the good reviews for this, but it does take a great film concept and somehow manages to not launch it off the tracks into a flaming pit filled with snakes and Ann Coulter, so I guess it did manage to do something. Maybe I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD.

Posted by: Trent at April 14, 2007 1:03 AM

I just saw Disturbia, and my feelings are the same. Good filmmaking elevates it above most other "thriller" fare this year; it's too bad they couldn't have added more to it. And I do think the film's saving grace is Shia LaBeouf who may be the next DiCaprio-style star on the rise. With "Transformers" and "Indy IV", he'll get all the indie roles I know he's looking for. If any film deserves audience money this weekend, it's Disturbia. ---Grindhouse could use some too---

Posted by: Andrew Kightlinger at April 14, 2007 1:25 AM

I was waiting to see what you said about this film before I went to see it. I think it looks like a good wait 'til it is on DVD and watch it late at night sort of thing.

Is it bad that the first thing that it reminded me of was the Simpson episode, not the film?

Posted by: Samantha at April 14, 2007 6:17 AM

I'm looking forward to seeing Shia LaBeouf in this. He appears to have some real talent and will, hopefully, have a long and interesting career in films.

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at April 14, 2007 6:32 AM

So apparently this movie makes good use of new technologies. I wish this would become current, because so many movies use the internet, digital images or mobile phones as quasi-magic devices ready to give the screenwriter an excuse to artificially move the plot forward.

Other times the use of new technologies by the characters is extremely awkward and sensationalistic (seems to be the case with Perfect Strangers, according to Dan Carlson's review) -you'd say they've never sit at a keyboard in their life. I call this the "James Bond syndrome", only James Bond's gadgets are actually extraordinary, not hings that twelve year-olds now know how to use.

Posted by: MJ at April 14, 2007 7:41 AM

This sounds like a decent Saturday evening in DVD choice for me. Good fun, not too mentally taxing and actually thrilling. Marvellous.

Not that I'd pay to see it mind.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at April 14, 2007 8:11 AM

Lemmiwinks--

We haven't had our Daily Roundups for a few days, but if we had, I'm sure one of the Pajinabobs would have announced that Shia Labeouf has just yesterday been confirmed as the "young" lead in the new Indiana Jones. For what that's worth.

Posted by: Ranylt at April 14, 2007 8:35 AM

"Shia LaBeouf who may be the next DiCaprio-style star on the rise" Eh, STOP RIGHT THERE, this is the same annoying wannabe wigga who's appeared in I Robot and the (surprisingly enjoyable except for him) Constantine. Playing exactly the same annoying character no less. He's like Giovanni Ribisi without the talent.(think about that one).

He's no DiCaprio, and that's not meant to give fat DiCaprio any credit either. They both lack but at totally different levels.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 14, 2007 11:55 AM

BarbadoSlim, I'm another one of those "please let Shia LaBoeuf be geniuinely talented" people. I really liked him in The Greatest Game Ever Played. Golf movie? Yes. Disney? Yes. Original? Not at all. But it's one of my favorite family-viewing movies, because (surprise surprise) it's pretty good, and so I've got a nearly irrational love for it because of that. (This is what comes of living with an 11 year old, and learning how to screen your movie choices.)

Besides, I don't get why DiCaprio is so lauded. Yes, he can act on occasion. But not consistently, and certainly not on a level that deserves to make him Scorsese's wunderkind.

I, for one, am glad to see him cast in Indy 4. Puts to an end the Natalie Portman rumors, which, as much as I love the girl, would cast uneasy shadows of Phantom Menace.

Posted by: Sarah at April 14, 2007 3:05 PM

I can respect that Sarah. Maybe I'm being too hard on the lad. It's just that those type of characters he's played tend to rub me the wrong way. I'll see some of his other work.

And on Natalie Portman, ANY collaboration between her and anything Lucas related is to be avoided at all costs. He brings out the WORST in her.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 14, 2007 4:23 PM

I will give Shia Labeouf the benefit of a doubt for a while, because he did what I thought was damn near impossible: he escaped the clutches of the Disney Channel with at least some acting talent intact. He made a conscious choice not to take much meatier roles than certain other Disney alumns.

Also, he is probably the only one who stuck with just acting, instead of trying to become a triple threat, like those annoying ass High School Musical kids. Plus, I thoroughly enjoyed both Holes and Battle of Shaker Heights.

Now let's see if he survives Transformers with a career intact. That will be something.

Posted by: Vermillion at April 14, 2007 6:31 PM

Crap.

That last sentence in the first paragraph should be:

He made a conscious choice to take much meatier roles unlike other Disney alumns.

Posted by: Vermillion at April 14, 2007 6:33 PM

Phillip, I'm not sure if you mentioned "The Simpsons" on purpose or not, but there is an episode that does follow this plotline. On another note, this movie sounds like a fine rental.

Posted by: The Stew at April 14, 2007 6:56 PM

Six reviews today and not one is for Aqua Teen? shame Pajiba

Posted by: Phil at April 15, 2007 2:20 AM

I'm glad this is an acceptable movie and they chose to play along the concept of Rear Window instead of destroying it, that's one of my favorite movies ever.

By the way, I really enjoyed Shia in Holes, I think he's got talent.

Posted by: Gaby at April 15, 2007 1:30 PM

Um...
I watched the movie, and I admit it was better than I expected... but did anyone notice how awful the filming was? I noticed microphones at the top of the screen at LEAST 5 times.... It distracted a lot from the movie, esepcially at certian parts, ie: when Ronnie and Kale are ducking at the window and it's supposed to be a moment like "oooh... ahh... are they going to see us spying... oh no! Oh no!" and... oops... there's the microphone, again.......

Posted by: Robin at April 16, 2007 1:04 PM

I shamelessly forced my sister to go see this with me. I went in with the idea that if Pajiba liked it, it must be decent. My sister and I both loved it. It was just a lot of fun--plus we spent many days spying on our own neighbors...so it was kind of relatable. Except none of ours were ever serial killers. I mean, people did get shot...but that's different.

Posted by: Rebekah at April 16, 2007 7:41 PM

Robin: Okay, I could definitely be wrong, but isn't it the projectionist's fault if the audience can see boom mics and other stuff? Maybe not. I have no real technical film knowledge, let's be honest.

Posted by: Katie at April 16, 2007 10:22 PM

It really is the fault of the director for allowing the mics etc. to be shot in the first place. Gaaaah some people have no pride in their work.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at April 17, 2007 4:57 AM

Odds are it's the projectionist's fault:


explanation here
, coincidentally enough about a Disturbia viewing.

Posted by: p. at April 17, 2007 2:18 PM

Ooooh I didn't know that. Education through pajiba, who'd have thought it?

Posted by: Alex the Odd at April 17, 2007 2:44 PM

Well, I really enjoyed this movie, and thought it was quite good. I went thinking it was a remake of Rear Window, which I saw big-screen at a revival house cinema about 20 years ago. But it is a 'remake' in general concept only, this movie very different.

Posted by: Martin at April 23, 2007 9:20 AM

and I never saw any boom mics, top or bottom of screen. So perhaps Friday's sends to the mass theaters had a more up-to-date print.

Posted by: Martin at April 23, 2007 9:25 AM

Wow! I didn't even clue that in.... the movie goes up in my opinion.

Posted by: Robin at April 23, 2007 10:57 AM

just saw it. it licked my balls. so bad. don't waste time.

Posted by: Brett at May 17, 2007 3:25 AM