Short synopsis: Three people stop to withdraw some cash before going out for a meal. As they are about to leave the building housing the cash machine, a stranger is staring at them from outside.
Detailed synopsis: Three office colleagues are heading home together after their company’s Christmas party and decide to buy some pizzas. To do so, they need cash and stop at a cash machine in the deserted car park of a shopping centre. They find themselves trapped there, threatened by a strange, imposing, dark-clad man. His face is concealed by the hood of his anorak, which protects him from the cold. He is a psychopath and has just murdered, right before their eyes, someone who was approaching. Terrified and with no means of communication, these young people barricade themselves in to escape the killer, but the heating has been cut off and the temperature is around -15°C. By an unfortunate twist of fate, they have no way of calling for help. Their brief stop at a vending machine quickly turns into a fight for their lives.
Okay! Yet another film that flopped!!!
Some people would even prefer to be locked up for a night at -15°C in a vending machine, with a daft killer outside, rather than watch it again! If only that dream could come true!!!
Want to know my exact opinion? Here we go!
Despite its unique setting and plenty of truly daft ramblings, the film still manages to build good suspense and entertain, even though you know exactly what’s going to happen next (except for the ending). Many people criticise this, but I quite like it.
Someone wrote this about the killer: ‘It isn’t always necessary to explain why and how he acts. Everyone can make up their own mind. A very well-executed ending (even if I’m perhaps one of the few who think so).’ Well, I only half agree. Killers who do this for no reason, just for the fun of it – we’d seen that in 8MM (1999). It’s always unsettling!
The running time of 77 minutes (excluding the end credits) is spot on. Anything longer than that would have been too long. The dialogue is, as is often the case in low-budget films (3 million), relatively mediocre, but the acting ranges from decent to quite good. The picture and sound are very good!
On the DVD, the extras are really sparse (the ATM trailer plus 5 other trailers). Not even a short ‘making-of’ feature, which is a must-have. A shame 😦
Another thing: numerous reviews on other forums point out a host of inconsistencies that can no longer be ignored – like lighting a wet wick. I reckon some people only watch films to spot that sort of detail, but never mind (I didn’t even notice that the glass was sometimes empty, sometimes full, amongst other things). There are about a handful of inconsistencies that caught my eye too… but they were obvious. Still, in a low-budget film, I expect that. Even films like Spider-Man, The Dark Knight or James Bond have inconsistencies. They’re films, after all, and they’re there to entertain, not necessarily to be logical and perfect. That’s also part of their charm!
By the way, who are these three actors?
Josh Peck plays the most annoying, irritating character. He was in the remake of Red Dawn (2012), which I really liked. I haven’t seen his other films.
Brian Geraghty, the lead character, is in The Hurt Locker (2008), which is also very good. He’s appeared in a few TV series. He also stars alongside the excellent Krysten Ritter in a drama called Refuge. He’s no stranger to horror, having also appeared in Open House (2010) with Anna Paquin, amongst others.
As for Alice Eve, although she’s appeared in action and sci-fi films alongside actors such as Gary Oldman, Antonio Banderas, Keanu Reeves, Gal Gadot, Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones and Ryan Reynolds, she’s never done anything that’s really made an impression on me. She was also in an episode of Black Mirror’s third series. This actress doesn’t have a great deal of charisma. I even read somewhere that in this film, all she does is whinge and warm her hands. That’s quite harsh, but not entirely untrue, alas!
Here’s a nice, concise review: ‘The director of Buried brings us another closed-room thriller, though less successful than his debut film. ATM remains commendable entertainment, but a few inconsistencies may bother purists.’ Indeed, it’s a good second feature film for the director, with a few good ideas.
There’s a good sense of tension. Who’d want to go out with, at best, a two-in-three chance of escaping? What’s more, the killer’s modus operandi involves deliberately letting time pass to ‘visualise’ a survival scenario. The central thread remains that ‘impassable’ door; you try to charge through it, but you’re very quickly brought back to reality, trapped.
Very gripping and quite unnerving at times. ATM is actually a good psychological horror film. It focuses more on suspense than on gore. Yes, the ending isn’t satisfying. In fact, what bothers me most about this film is the total lack of hope. What’s more, the criminal seems to draw up detailed plans before and after each attack… but gets caught off guard and has to make do with whatever’s to hand. For example, he breaks into car boots and improvises with whatever he finds on the spot. Anyway!
Conclusion: a decent film, with plenty of suspense, to pass the evening, but once you’ve seen it, you’ll probably never watch it a second time.
Discover more from BiboZ-ification Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
