Relatively minimalist but high-octane thriller

Rating: 8/10 (23 September 2016)

"Don't Breathe" follows a trio of delinquents who plan to rob a wealthy blind man whose house sits alone in an abandoned, derelict Detroit neighborhood. What seems like a relatively easy heist turns progressively worse as the young adults find the tables turned on them.
In a decade that has offered little in terms of high(ish)-caliber horror-thrillers, "Don't Breathe" stands out, not necessarily as an exemplar of excellence, but at least as an example of a hard-edged thriller that is head and shoulders above the majority of its peers. Fede Alvarez, who gave us the divisive 2013 "Evil Dead" remake (a film which, for what it's worth, I thought was unfairly bashed), returns as writer/director, teaming up again with Jane Levy, who also starred in the "Evil Dead."
Conceptually speaking, "Don't Breathe" is straightforward, almost minimalist; there is no pretense to speak of, and after a brief but sufficient exposition, the film jettisons its audience into the cat-and-mouse dilemma that dominates its remainder. Somewhat of a quasi-inversion of the home invasion film, the script allows room for moral ambiguities in spite of its conceptual and narrative straightforwardness, toying with the audience's sympathies and facing us with situations which challenge the moral compass. This is of course not to say that "Don't Breathe" is necessarily a deep psychological thriller, because it's not—the primary focus here is maintaining suspense—but there is food for thought amid the action.
Solid performances from Stephen Lang and Jane Levy help carry the narrative, with Lang as an ice-cold, disturbed veteran and Levy as a poverty-stricken young woman whose desperation jeopardizes both her and her friends' lives. The film is nicely shot and features some impressive cinematography, including a noteworthy single-take pan through the house that follows each of the three protagonists as they search for the man's stockpile of cash. I did feel that the film's final act edged into predictable exploitation territory, where shock value and redundancy came close to overriding the general tension that the first hour had done so nicely, but the final two scenes were solid enough to carry the film home.
All in all, I was impressed by this film; not as a groundbreaking piece of cinema, but as a generally well-plotted, candid thriller that manages not to steer too far off course for its own good. It's not often that such a simple concept is done with so much finesse, let alone is able to keep its fuel burning. A definite standout thriller of the decade. 8/10.