By
Rating:
Director:
Starring: | | | |

Locked In

Country: united_kingdom

Year: 2010

Running time: 85

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1398028/combined

Jason says: “LOCKED IN is a pretty terrible movie, although one where the audience might be willing to make allowances for budget, or at least give some of its off-seeming moments a conditional pass, just in case the all-but-inevitable twist ending explains them.  It defaults on that loaned good will, of course, but by then it already has your money and your time, and what can you do about it besides give it a one-star review on your blog?

“To put it mildly, Josh (Ben Barnes) has an uncanny ability to destroy holidays.  The film opens with him driving his family home, Christmas tree tied to the top of the car, and having a bizarre, apparently self-inflicted accident that somehow leaves him and wife Emma (Sarah Roemer) more or less unharmed but four-year-old daughter Brooke (Abby & Helen Steinman) in a ‘locked in’ state – technically conscious and aware of her surroundings but unable to more or acknowledge them.  To twist the knife a little more, this was an attempt at a reconciliation for Josh and Emma – on Halloween, Josh turned stepping out to pick up more candy into going into a bar, having a few drinks, and hooking up with old flame Renee (Eliza Dushku).  Now, Ben’s receiving mysterious phone calls that sound like Brooke and seeing other clues that lead him to believe that Renee ran them off the road.  He also gets into contact with Frank (Clarke Peters), a guru who apparently can help them reach Brooke and bring her out of her unresponsive state.

“The movie starts off with an absolutely bizarre car crash, a scene that feels as though director Suri Krishnamma knew the story needed a car crash but had no actual money for a stunt driver, so it’s cobbled together with distorted shots of one of Boston’s tunnels and sped-up footage.  It’s odd-looking enough that it may temporarily either blind the audience to how the scene makes no sense, or give them the mistaken impression that it’s just a flawed bit of execution, rather than a character just doing something for no reason other than the plot outline demanding it – with neither Josh nor Emma remembering any particulars because the movie would fall apart if they did.

“Now, not everything that happens over the course of the movie is completely arbitrary and illogical; indeed, you can probably invent backstory for each of these characters that describes just why they behave in a given way.  Lord knows that writer Ronnie Christensen doesn’t seem to have bothered:  Josh is a generic young director of commercials not fully committed to domesticity; Emma is a nice enough young mother; her mother Joan (Brenda Fricker) doesn’t much like her son-in-law; Renee is a sexy maneater used to getting what she goes after; Frank is… well, Frank’s pretty much the dictionary definition of Magic Negro, except that he doesn’t even offer wisdom but touchy-feely platitudes.  There are circumstances in which they all could do what the script asks of them, but we know nothing about them in particular that suggests anything specific.

“The cast doesn’t do much to elevate these characters, either.  Sarah Roemer is okay, in that she at least remembers to look sad even when her crying isn’t the point of the scene, but Ben Barnes is a black hole.  There’s really no telling what’s going on in Josh’s head at any time, and he just walks around the movie in a confused daze, unable to sell anything the script asks for.  Clarke Peters goes through his motions as well, although ‘blandly reassuring’ isn’t that tough a nut to crack.  Eliza Dushku isn’t bad for the eight or nine minutes she’s in the movie, although anyone seeing it for her will likely be disappointed.

“Granted, there’s not much they can do – even if they invested their characters with personalities and palpable histories and desires, they’d still be doing it in service of an awful script.  Aside from seeming to misinterpret the title syndrome, it structures itself as a mystery, although both the conventional and paranormal aspects are just as obvious as they look.  They lead to opposite conclusions, but not in terms of the first solution being a misinterpretation of the facts, but instead simply being discarded as unimportant.  Of course, that twist will be discarded as well, in an astonishingly lazy and audience-disrespecting manner.

“It couldn’t be more obvious what Josh is supposed to get out of the situation, but the audience isn’t going to get anything close to that sort of benefit.  Direct-to-video-quality thrillers like this are a dime a dozen, and this one doesn’t have anything that makes for a new and surprising experience. 1 cat

Toni responds: “Wow!  Did we see the same film…I thought it in the vein of JACOB’S LADDER and it was brilliant :)…

“Did anyone else like LOCKED IN? There were 3 editors on the film…long story short – the final one was Chris Gill, the editor of 28 WEEKS LATER.”

 

 

 

Locked In

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *