ATM

Year: 2012
Genre: Horror thriller
Director: David Brooks


Plot: Three people are trapped in an ATM booth late at night by a stalker.


The gist: You know those movies where the trailer makes the movie look better than it actually is? This is definitely one of them.

So here we have three friends; two guys and a girl, stopping by the ATM late at night to make a withdrawal, only to find a guy standing between the booth and their car. They don't know why he's there, only sensing that he's trouble, which is confirmed when a passerby shows up and quickly gets killed by the man.

The film is sort of in the tone of Frozen (three kids stuck on a chairlift at a ski resort), except that film was quite believable. ATM is implausible and hopelessly stupid. You won't believe the number of bad decisions these three people make while being stuck in there, or even before they get there, to be honest.

For instance, why park the car far away from the booth? Why wait for the right moment to make a run for it when they outnumber him three to one? Why not fight back instead of freezing to death in the booth? The fact that the killer leaves the front of the booth several times to tamper with something or execute his next move would have given them a chance to run, but they never do. The audience ends up figuring out a dozen ways to deal with this problem before the three of them do.

The director is trying to make this a smart thriller, judging by how the film ends, but it just doesn't work. I pity the three actors who must have taken this gig for a paycheck.


The good: The best thing actually is the playing of Silent Night (the film is set during Christmas season) during the film's credits. It's extremely slowed down to the point of creepiness, which suits the tone they were going for. And okay, for some moments of the film, the three actors were decent enough.

The bad: The script obviously. I lost count the number of times the three friends said things like "What's he doing?" or "What's happening?" or "What do we do?". The stupid decisions they make, like tampering with the ATM or their reaction to the first person who walks into the booth after it begins.....it's unbelievable.


Verdict: It's bad. It's bad enough to make someone curious enough to see it, but I wouldn't waste 90 minutes on this again. (2/5)

Nick Of Time

Year: 1995
Genre: Suspense thriller
Director: John Badham


Plot: An accountant who has just arrived in Los Angeles is forced by two people to kill the Governor or they will kill his daughter. 


The gist: I remember this film when it first came out at the theatres back in 1995. The film's main selling point was the whole thing taking place in real time. But truth be told, now that I've seen it again, that fact isn't so significant anymore.

What is significant is watching Johnny Depp, way before he became the star he is now, play an everyman forced into a tough situation. It's a far cry from being Jack Sparrow, the Mad Hatter or Willy Wonka, but he pulls it off nicely. He shares great rapport with Christopher Walken, who is always reliable as a villain. Walken pretty much plays it the way he usually does, but it never gets old.

Overall the suspense isn't edge of your seat stuff, but the film makes up for it with solid performances from the cast.


The good: Depp and Walken shine here, and so does Charles S. Dutton as a shoe shine man who becomes Depp's only ally. Roma Maffia also deserves mention as Walken's accomplice, though she hasn't got much to do here.

The bad: The movie's main flaw is logic. I recall this question being asked back then: why didn't these guys do the assassination themselves instead of forcing a stranger to pull the trigger? It probably would have been easier this way. Another stretch of logic is watching Depp trying all sorts of ways to get help, only to be foiled by Walken again and again. It's noted that Walken is always about a stone's throw away from Depp when this happens, but it seems like he has ESP or something, because his timing is always perfect. And what's with the "fool the audience" fantasy sequence? I didn't buy it when it happened, and I don't think anyone would have. It was just weird.


Verdict: It's a decent thriller. It's watchable thanks to the cast's fine performances, but the logic of the whole plot needs some fine tuning. (3/5)