Sola nel buio

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.

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!

I'm old enough to remember being scared silly by Audrey Hepburn's movie of the 60's - a blind woman being terrorized for something her husband stole. The hand grabbing her ankle still makes me screech. This movie is nothing original but still suspenseful in a more current way - more violence, more sexual threat. However, a huge plot hole - a dead body STINKS. Blood stinks, a body "letting go" in death stinks, a sweaty killer stinks. Also, if she could hear the guy on the balcony at the end, why couldn't she hear (or smell or feel) a guy standing a foot in front of her?

It's New Year's Eve in New York City. Sara (Michelle Monaghan) is blind and living with boyfriend Ryan in his penthouse apartment. She returns home to find Ryan murdered by Chad (Barry Sloane) who is looking for his stolen money. She manages to escape to the street where police detective Hollander (Michael Keaton) protects her.

This is another blind-beauty-in-danger movie. It's an old trope, most notably Wait Until Dark (1967). Monaghan is the beauty. Barry Sloane is very creepy. Michael Keaton is very good. There are two big issues. First, it's such a worn-out premise. This needs something more to surprise the audience. While it has some interesting scenes, it never actually surprises. I like the look of the stairs. I like the ice cubes. I like fireworks. Non of it raises the movie to anything compelling. Second, it's obvious that this is Canada for New York. The green screen work out on the balcony is uncomfortably close to The Room. It makes the movie look cheap. It would be better if the location is unknown. This is derivative by definition and execution.

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.