ShareThis Page

Review: 'Breaking In' a lean thriller that could have used some humor

| Thursday, May 10, 2018, 11:09 a.m.

The home invasion thriller “Breaking In” seems designed for the “Payback is a Mother” billboards around Los Angeles in anticipation of Mother's Day.

The tale of young mother Shaun (a stern Gabrielle Union) battling a quartet of burglars to save her children is fairly brilliant Mother's Day programming (or counter-programming), which is why it's a shame the movie itself isn't more fun.

Thrillers should be taut and ruthlessly efficient in storytelling. “Breaking In,” written by Ryan Engle, directed by James McTeigue, doesn't have an ounce of fat on it. We're given only a few minutes of setup before we're thrown right into it.

Shaun and her kids, Jasmine (Ajiona Alexus) and Glover (Seth Carr), arrive at the remote country compound of her recently deceased father. She's long been estranged from him, and Shaun plans to spend the weekend getting ready to sell the house.

They aren't there for more than a few minutes before a crew of four burglars, on the hunt for $4 million in cash they heard her dad kept in a safe, have taken her kids hostage and locked Shaun out. So the riff on the “home invasion” angle is Shaun is the one trying to break into her house to save her children.

No room to play

Everything in “Breaking In” announces itself as significant — here's an insert of Shaun taking off her shoes, her bottle of wine, the alarm system on the fritz, the control panel for the electronically controlled smart home. The whole thing is just a bit too tight, though — there's no room to play, or moments of reprieve to lure you into a false sense of security before a jump scare.

The film privileges Shaun as a supermom who's always one barefoot step ahead of the opportunistic crew, led by Eddie (Billy Burke), who spends more time psychoanalyzing her than actually getting anything done. As a result, we never believe Shaun is truly in danger.

As she hardens her gaze, considering the ways in which they've underestimated her, we worry more for the fate of the attackers than we do about Shaun and her children.

If anything, you wish for a few moments of camp or silliness to modulate the dynamics of the lean thriller. The dialogue eschews any cleverness or humor, instead stating everything plainly up front. Union gets to deliver a few great burns (like she did so well in “Bring It On”), but with such grimness that none of them land with the kind of aplomb to elicit cheers.

One-note performance

Union is incredibly appealing, but her performance is one-note, because that's all she's given to do.

When it comes to the henchmen, Richard Cabral, who plays the knife-wielding psychopathic ex-con Duncan, is a breakout. He's covered in tattoos and has the perfect snarl and crazy eyes to go with it. He's the best thing to watch in the film because he's scary, but mostly because he offers something different.

The disappointment of “Breaking In” is the wasted potential — there are a few plot setups that could have been further fleshed out or brought back around (why was her father being investigated by the DA?) and Union isn't given enough opportunity to truly display her charms.

This thriller could have really used some room to breathe.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me