ÉVALUATION IMDb
5,5/10
6,2 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA reclusive, blind photojournalist lives quietly in a New York penthouse, until a smooth but sadistic criminal looking for a hidden fortune enters her life.A reclusive, blind photojournalist lives quietly in a New York penthouse, until a smooth but sadistic criminal looking for a hidden fortune enters her life.A reclusive, blind photojournalist lives quietly in a New York penthouse, until a smooth but sadistic criminal looking for a hidden fortune enters her life.
Andrew W. Walker
- Ryan
- (as Andrew Walker)
Kaniehtiio Horn
- Blake
- (as Tiio Horn)
Namukasa Basudde
- BG Girl in Park
- (uncredited)
Zhaida Uddin
- Passerby
- (uncredited)
Avis en vedette
4OJT
A blind reclusive war photographer is living in a penthouse in New York, when she is experiencing that someone has come into her apartment. Too late she senses that there's someone there.
Well it doesn't take long before the action gets going, that's the good thing. Also the actors are doing an OK job. Nothing extraordinary, but OK job. Michael Keaton is always good in these kind of roles. Director Koseph Ruben is experienced, and has directed "Sleeping with the enemy", "The forgotten" and "The good son" amongst others. Quite good films. I don't like the war time flashbacks though. The cutter hasn't done a favorite job here.
This is very mediocre filmmaking, and has troubles in engaging me, mainly due to the script. Strange, because David Loughery, the man behind, had done good scripts like "Lakeview Terrace" and "Passenger57".
What's evident, is that blind people sense more than it's the case here. It's simply impossible to imagine a blind person being this motionless, and not even being able of smelling blood when it's out in ounces on the kitchen floor. And also another thing, when she takes out her white stick long after going out in the streets. And then a penthouse window which can be broken with throwing a chair!? Come on! This film would gave been much better if a blind had been involved in the script writing, do that stupid things could be avoided.
If you want to watch a similar themed move, seek out "Blind" by Eskil Vogt instead, which is a completely profound experience compared to this. (Blind was a selected movie, and later prize winner at Sundance Film Festival in 2014.)
The film is very predictable. So predictable it actually hurts. But if you don't mind, it's an OK watch. But if you don't wasn't to use time on mediocre films, you'll find much better!
Well it doesn't take long before the action gets going, that's the good thing. Also the actors are doing an OK job. Nothing extraordinary, but OK job. Michael Keaton is always good in these kind of roles. Director Koseph Ruben is experienced, and has directed "Sleeping with the enemy", "The forgotten" and "The good son" amongst others. Quite good films. I don't like the war time flashbacks though. The cutter hasn't done a favorite job here.
This is very mediocre filmmaking, and has troubles in engaging me, mainly due to the script. Strange, because David Loughery, the man behind, had done good scripts like "Lakeview Terrace" and "Passenger57".
What's evident, is that blind people sense more than it's the case here. It's simply impossible to imagine a blind person being this motionless, and not even being able of smelling blood when it's out in ounces on the kitchen floor. And also another thing, when she takes out her white stick long after going out in the streets. And then a penthouse window which can be broken with throwing a chair!? Come on! This film would gave been much better if a blind had been involved in the script writing, do that stupid things could be avoided.
If you want to watch a similar themed move, seek out "Blind" by Eskil Vogt instead, which is a completely profound experience compared to this. (Blind was a selected movie, and later prize winner at Sundance Film Festival in 2014.)
The film is very predictable. So predictable it actually hurts. But if you don't mind, it's an OK watch. But if you don't wasn't to use time on mediocre films, you'll find much better!
Michelle Monaghan and Michael Keaton star in "Blindsided," a 2013 straight-to-video film coproduced by Keaton for reasons known only to him.
Monaghan plays a former photojournalist, Sara, who was blinded by a suicide bomber while covering a war and still suffers from PTSD. If she didn't suffer from it, she would have been by the time the action in this film finished.
On New Year's Eve, the man she is living with, Ryan (Andrew Walker) is killed by a former associate from whom he stole a fortune in diamonds. Sara has been out, and it takes her a while after she returns home to stumble across the body, and the perpetrator (Barry Sloane) is still in the apartment. He is joined by the brains of the organization, Hollander (Keaton) and together they try by various sadistic means to find out where the loot is.
This is really cliché-ridden claptrap, derivative, predictable, and how dare anyone compare it to Wait Until Dark. You know every move the villains are going to make. What's more, you know where the diamonds are hidden. You also know what the end of the film is going to be. It's all too obvious.
Michael Keaton does a terrific job, but this is a generic mean guy role. Michelle Monaghan does okay, but these are all generic characters there to serve the predictable action.
There were a lot of holes in this thing. First off, why not look for the diamonds in the apartment? Or a key to a safe deposit box? How do you know Sara knows where they are? Quite possibly she knows nothing of Ryan's past and therefore nothing about any theft. And what a place to hide them. If this had been shown in a theater, the entire place would be yelling out the hiding place.
Secondly - and this I really didn't understand - this is a 2013 release. Okay, Sara gets into a room and locks the door. She gets on her computer, which takes vocal commands. And she's going to send an email. Well, I hope the person is checking messages.
No cell phone with a quick connection to 911? A phone she can keep on so she can be found, should she not be able to get out her address? Though in the time it took her to get onto her email, she certainly could have.
The woman is blind, and all she has if she needs help is a computer where she can e-mail someone? We know she had one while she was out. I think someone physically challenged would have it on her at all times.
I can't go on. Skip this movie. Rent Wait Until Dark where an entire audience screamed OUT LOUD at one part. They would have screamed here too - at the box office for their money back.
Monaghan plays a former photojournalist, Sara, who was blinded by a suicide bomber while covering a war and still suffers from PTSD. If she didn't suffer from it, she would have been by the time the action in this film finished.
On New Year's Eve, the man she is living with, Ryan (Andrew Walker) is killed by a former associate from whom he stole a fortune in diamonds. Sara has been out, and it takes her a while after she returns home to stumble across the body, and the perpetrator (Barry Sloane) is still in the apartment. He is joined by the brains of the organization, Hollander (Keaton) and together they try by various sadistic means to find out where the loot is.
This is really cliché-ridden claptrap, derivative, predictable, and how dare anyone compare it to Wait Until Dark. You know every move the villains are going to make. What's more, you know where the diamonds are hidden. You also know what the end of the film is going to be. It's all too obvious.
Michael Keaton does a terrific job, but this is a generic mean guy role. Michelle Monaghan does okay, but these are all generic characters there to serve the predictable action.
There were a lot of holes in this thing. First off, why not look for the diamonds in the apartment? Or a key to a safe deposit box? How do you know Sara knows where they are? Quite possibly she knows nothing of Ryan's past and therefore nothing about any theft. And what a place to hide them. If this had been shown in a theater, the entire place would be yelling out the hiding place.
Secondly - and this I really didn't understand - this is a 2013 release. Okay, Sara gets into a room and locks the door. She gets on her computer, which takes vocal commands. And she's going to send an email. Well, I hope the person is checking messages.
No cell phone with a quick connection to 911? A phone she can keep on so she can be found, should she not be able to get out her address? Though in the time it took her to get onto her email, she certainly could have.
The woman is blind, and all she has if she needs help is a computer where she can e-mail someone? We know she had one while she was out. I think someone physically challenged would have it on her at all times.
I can't go on. Skip this movie. Rent Wait Until Dark where an entire audience screamed OUT LOUD at one part. They would have screamed here too - at the box office for their money back.
The storyline in "Penthouse North" was fairly generic and predictable, but it still made for an entertaining enough movie. However, it is not the type of movie that you watch more than once.
The story is about a war photographer by the name of Sara, who loses her eyesight while on assignment. Years later, living a reclusive life with her boyfriend, Sara comes home to find her boyfriend murdered and the killer still in the apartment.
Story-wise then "Penthouse North" wasn't particularly innovative or outstanding, but it was entertaining enough for what it turned out to be. It was adequately paced, but didn't really have many 'edge-of-your-seat' moments, which a good thriller should have.
What made the movie watchable was the acting performances of Michelle Monaghan and Michael Keaton.
There are far better and exciting thrillers available, but "Penthouse North" is still worth giving a chance. Who knows, it might just be what you have been looking for.
The story is about a war photographer by the name of Sara, who loses her eyesight while on assignment. Years later, living a reclusive life with her boyfriend, Sara comes home to find her boyfriend murdered and the killer still in the apartment.
Story-wise then "Penthouse North" wasn't particularly innovative or outstanding, but it was entertaining enough for what it turned out to be. It was adequately paced, but didn't really have many 'edge-of-your-seat' moments, which a good thriller should have.
What made the movie watchable was the acting performances of Michelle Monaghan and Michael Keaton.
There are far better and exciting thrillers available, but "Penthouse North" is still worth giving a chance. Who knows, it might just be what you have been looking for.
Almost came close to giving it a 6 but I don't really think it has much replay value so I'll just leave it at a five.
Got interested in watching this after being pleasantly surprised by Michael Keaton's performance as a hit-man in MERRY GENTLEMAN so I was a little let down when he hadn't shown up in the first 25 minutes, but once he pops up (closer to the 30 minute mark), he becomes one of the key characters in the film.
Has a bit of a rough start in terms of truly getting going and feels slightly amateurish but once it gets going it gets decent enough to keep watching, Michelle Monaghan initially felt a little miscast during the war-segments but once she goes blind she feels more natural.
And even though Michael Keaton never feels truly threatening his screen-presence speaks for itself and makes it work somehow, it helps that Monaghan portrays her characters fear very well.
Barry Sloane is the third lead in the film and he's just okay, not bad but he doesn't come across as terribly menacing either and doesn't have the same star-power charisma that helped Keaton to make his role a bit better than it was.
As far as the story goes, we've kinda seen it all before although minor details feel fresh but they could have done so much more with it.
Yeah overall not a great movie, but not a complete disaster either.
Decent to watch on a slow Sunday afternoon perhaps.
Got interested in watching this after being pleasantly surprised by Michael Keaton's performance as a hit-man in MERRY GENTLEMAN so I was a little let down when he hadn't shown up in the first 25 minutes, but once he pops up (closer to the 30 minute mark), he becomes one of the key characters in the film.
Has a bit of a rough start in terms of truly getting going and feels slightly amateurish but once it gets going it gets decent enough to keep watching, Michelle Monaghan initially felt a little miscast during the war-segments but once she goes blind she feels more natural.
And even though Michael Keaton never feels truly threatening his screen-presence speaks for itself and makes it work somehow, it helps that Monaghan portrays her characters fear very well.
Barry Sloane is the third lead in the film and he's just okay, not bad but he doesn't come across as terribly menacing either and doesn't have the same star-power charisma that helped Keaton to make his role a bit better than it was.
As far as the story goes, we've kinda seen it all before although minor details feel fresh but they could have done so much more with it.
Yeah overall not a great movie, but not a complete disaster either.
Decent to watch on a slow Sunday afternoon perhaps.
Let's not beat around the bush: PENTHOUSE NORTH is a modernized rip-off of WAIT UNTIL DARK. Both movies have the same core premise: a woman blinded in an accident (or in this case, a terrorist attack) is terrorized in her NYC apartment by criminals out to find stolen goods brought to her home, only she does not know where they are. Unfortunately for PENTHOUSE NORTH, despite more overt violence, it isn't even an eighth as scary as the older movie, which brilliantly built to a chilling confrontation in the dark and culminated in actual development for the traumatized, insecure protagonist played with real warmth and vulnerability by Audrey Hepburn. Heck, PENTHOUSE NORTH's not even as memorable as other thrillers which also used this concept in the past fifty years. SEE NO EVIL and HUSH are also superior thrillers about women with disabilities in peril, mainly because they are actually, well, thrilling. PENTHOUSE NORTH's highest dramatic moment is when Michael Keaton throws a cat off a roof. That's how lacking in tension this movie is.
The biggest problem with this movie is that the heroine's disability feels needless. Aside from one or two scenes with the men hiding around when she thinks she is alone, Sarah could have been just a woman with sight and the movie would have largely played out the same. The Afghanistan prologue and flashbacks are beyond pointless: the main action takes place three years after Sarah is blinded, by which time she's adjusted to her condition, more or less, making me wonder why the war-scene flashbacks are necessary since they lead to no significant character development or revelations. Aside from learning her boyfriend is a criminal (or... did she? The ending scene suggests she might have known... I think??), Sarah does not change or grow.
The thrills are mostly predictable and the villains are basic types. The character Chad is presented like a scary psychopath, but he's more of a dumb thug, and Michael Keaton phones it in as the smooth-talking brains of the criminal duo. There's not much of a cat-and-mouse game going on between Sarah and her assailants: it's mostly them torturing/groping/threatening her, then she briefly finds a means of escaping, only to be recaptured, rinse and repeat. Stakes don't build. Sarah never changes as a character. Nothing.
And that's this movie as a whole: a generic waste of time that can't even rise to the level of so bad it's good.
The biggest problem with this movie is that the heroine's disability feels needless. Aside from one or two scenes with the men hiding around when she thinks she is alone, Sarah could have been just a woman with sight and the movie would have largely played out the same. The Afghanistan prologue and flashbacks are beyond pointless: the main action takes place three years after Sarah is blinded, by which time she's adjusted to her condition, more or less, making me wonder why the war-scene flashbacks are necessary since they lead to no significant character development or revelations. Aside from learning her boyfriend is a criminal (or... did she? The ending scene suggests she might have known... I think??), Sarah does not change or grow.
The thrills are mostly predictable and the villains are basic types. The character Chad is presented like a scary psychopath, but he's more of a dumb thug, and Michael Keaton phones it in as the smooth-talking brains of the criminal duo. There's not much of a cat-and-mouse game going on between Sarah and her assailants: it's mostly them torturing/groping/threatening her, then she briefly finds a means of escaping, only to be recaptured, rinse and repeat. Stakes don't build. Sarah never changes as a character. Nothing.
And that's this movie as a whole: a generic waste of time that can't even rise to the level of so bad it's good.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis movie is being offered on Netflix under the alternate title "Blindsided".
- GaffesBlood in large quantities has a strong metallic odor. The blind have heightened senses, so Sara would have noticed the smell of such a large pool of blood long before she stepped in it. Similarly, she would be able to detect the scent of an intruder, especially due to how close he was to her. She later said she smelled the men that were in her apartment.
- ConnexionsReferenced in 60 Minutes: Prince vs. Spy/Running Dry/Michael Keaton (2021)
- Bandes originalesBullsh*t
By Umi NiiLampti
Performed by Umi
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Blindsided?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Blindsided
- Lieux de tournage
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 372 209 $ US
- Durée1 heure 30 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant