Tolerable sci-fi suspense thriller

Rating: 7/10 (5 June 2013)

It is the near future, and the USA has discovered that it can enjoy a near zero crime rate by means of having a once a year amnesty, when anyone can commit any crime, including murder, with no consequence. Over one night, from 7pm to 7am, sensible people batten down the hatches while danger roams the streets. While the poor, unable to afford security, suffer particularly badly, the Sandin family have done very well due to Dad James being very good at selling high-spec security systems. However, he didn't bank on daughter Zoey's boyfriend sneaking in just before the shutters came down, nor of son Charlie raising them to allow a fugitive from a murderous mob to escape within. And the mob want him back...
This film - which seems to have caused enormous annoyance to those who find its basic premise unbelievable - falls clearly into 3 acts. Act 1 sets up the basic conceit of Purge Night and introduces cocky nouveau riche Dad James (Ethan Hawke), everywoman Mom Mary (Lena Headey) moody teenage daughter Zoey (Adelaide Kane) and neurotic and sensitive son Charlie (Max Burkholder), as well as various neighbours. Act 2 kicks off purge night and deals with the immediate consequences of the two unwanted guests. This is also perhaps the most interesting sequence in that it poses the moral question of what should the family do? Provide shelter and protection for the mob's victim despite the risk to themselves if the mob can breach their security, or hand him over for slaughter? Act 3 is fairly routine action/adventure stuff involving fighting back against home invasion.
If you find the basic conceit so unbelievable that it becomes a deal-breaker, then I quite understand, and it is very unlikely that I am going to change your mind: if so, I suggest that you do not see this film. Personally, I was happy to go along with it. I liked the moral dilemma in act 2, I liked the action shenanigans in act 3, I thoroughly enjoyed Rhys Wakefield's unsettling mob leader, I liked the fact that it didn't play out exactly as I expected, and the final sequence contained the most gratifying piece of physical violence since John Wayne laid out George Kennedy with a wooden ladle in The Sons Of Katie Elder (darn it, I'll go back to Wayne smacking Akins in the back of the neck with a shotgun in Rio Bravo).
But on the other hand, there were a number of things which irritated me. One was expected follow-ups which never happened - was Charlie's hypochondria really only there so that he had a heart monitor for a later sequence? Couldn't better use have been made of Zoey's boyfriend? Likewise Charlie's remote control video thingie. Also, even if you accept the premise of the story without question, there was much that was unbelievable in what happened, foremost among which was leaving it until the last minute to put the shutters down. Come on, you'd have them down as soon as everyone was indoors, wouldn't you? You wouldn't sit there, have dinner and an argument, and then put them down at 6:59? I quite enjoyed this as I was watching it, but the more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that it's probably not as good as I thought it was last night! I'll still watch it when it pops up on TV, though.