337 reviews
- MOscarbradley
- Aug 3, 2005
- Permalink
I definitely liked this movie, despite several flaws. The premise is fairly original (although Hitchcock's "Rope" inmediately comes to mind), the pace is fine, and the acting is overall great, with a 22-year old Ryan Gosling standing out in his multi-layered portrayal of the self-assured, manipulative, spoilt rich kid Richard. And in my opinion Sandra Bullock did a pretty convincing job (while watching her is by the way always a treat). I even liked the cliché shoot-out ending, it gave this otherwise low-on-action movie an exciting finale.
What did annoy me however, was the way Bullock's character detective Cassie Mayweather was written. Why this elaborate traumatic background?! It did not serve any purpose for the central story of the movie (the ordeal in her past being totally different from the crime that she now had to investigate) but did take lots of screentime. I guess it had to explain her cranky behavior, and maybe her apparent casual attitude to sex. But she was also pictured as a brilliant professional detective. So why this totally inappropriate sexual harrassment of her newbie partner? Or the innuendos of a sensual attraction towards her major crime-suspect?
It's a strange convention in so many crime-movies, that detectives on duty have to have some troublesome past or an addiction or a conflicting bad divorce or whatever, I always yawn when yet another one of these traumatized police-officers comes along. Either make it essential to the story, or leave it, I would say.
Anyway, as an interesting psychological portrayal of two young wannabe killers, and as an extended well-acted CSI episode, it made for an entertaining but slightly overlong two hours.
What did annoy me however, was the way Bullock's character detective Cassie Mayweather was written. Why this elaborate traumatic background?! It did not serve any purpose for the central story of the movie (the ordeal in her past being totally different from the crime that she now had to investigate) but did take lots of screentime. I guess it had to explain her cranky behavior, and maybe her apparent casual attitude to sex. But she was also pictured as a brilliant professional detective. So why this totally inappropriate sexual harrassment of her newbie partner? Or the innuendos of a sensual attraction towards her major crime-suspect?
It's a strange convention in so many crime-movies, that detectives on duty have to have some troublesome past or an addiction or a conflicting bad divorce or whatever, I always yawn when yet another one of these traumatized police-officers comes along. Either make it essential to the story, or leave it, I would say.
Anyway, as an interesting psychological portrayal of two young wannabe killers, and as an extended well-acted CSI episode, it made for an entertaining but slightly overlong two hours.
- johannes2000-1
- Jun 21, 2022
- Permalink
- jon.h.ochiai
- Apr 29, 2002
- Permalink
When the dead body of a woman is found in the woods near the river, feisty homicide detective Cassie Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) and her new partner, Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin) are assigned to the case. Determined to solve the crime, Mayweather follows her hunches and microscopic bits of evidence, focusing her investigation on two teens: Justin Pendleton (Michael Pitt), a brilliant, misunderstood nerd, and Richard Haywood (Ryan Gosling), a smooth talking, spoiled rich kid. From the beginning, the audience knows that this unlikely duo has formed a secret bond that pushes the boundaries of morality and the law in their attempt to commit the perfect murder and experience complete freedom. It's up to Mayweather, who buries herself in her work in an attempt to forget her own tormented past, and Kennedy, a transfer from Vice who is working his first homicide case, to ignore the stereotypical profiles and see past the obvious in order to solve the crime.
Murder by Numbers is an interesting and entertaining small little thriller that doesn't excel but never disappoints either. The film is gripping, engaging and has this somewhat mysterious atmosphere that creates quite a bit of tension. The story does have some small plot holes but nothing that will ruin the film. Gosling delivered a great performance as usual and I can see why he felt attracted to his project, the film ends up being more of a character study then a thriller often reflecting on the human nature. Michael Pitt was excellent as the ostracized teenager and Sandra Bullock (who also served as producer) did OK as the seasoned detective Cassie Mayweather. What really threw me off and dragged the film down was not so much Bullock's performance but the way her character was written and her past story. It was extremely cliché and contrived. Still, I was entertained by what I think is, a decent and well acted thriller.
6.5/10
Murder by Numbers is an interesting and entertaining small little thriller that doesn't excel but never disappoints either. The film is gripping, engaging and has this somewhat mysterious atmosphere that creates quite a bit of tension. The story does have some small plot holes but nothing that will ruin the film. Gosling delivered a great performance as usual and I can see why he felt attracted to his project, the film ends up being more of a character study then a thriller often reflecting on the human nature. Michael Pitt was excellent as the ostracized teenager and Sandra Bullock (who also served as producer) did OK as the seasoned detective Cassie Mayweather. What really threw me off and dragged the film down was not so much Bullock's performance but the way her character was written and her past story. It was extremely cliché and contrived. Still, I was entertained by what I think is, a decent and well acted thriller.
6.5/10
I predicted too many things in this movie and the only thing that kept my interest were the two young actors playing teenagers. They seemed to have the stronger and by far, more interesting scenes. They definitely seemed to have more to do than our star, Sandra Bullock.
Bullock always plays this independent character that lives alone and has predictable "back story" issues. I would like to see her do something a little more challenging.
Not bad, just not great. 6/10
Bullock always plays this independent character that lives alone and has predictable "back story" issues. I would like to see her do something a little more challenging.
Not bad, just not great. 6/10
Cassie Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) is a homicide detective with a disturbing past, she and her partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin) are called in to investigate the murder of a young woman found abandoned in a ditch. When everything seems to point at the killer, Cassie's gut tells her that things are not quite as they appear, and the real killers find that they can't hide as easily as they first thought.
Murder by numbers does have some good intrigue and suspense in the plot, and yes it does try very hard to do something a fresh and different, but in the end it just seems pretty run of the mill.
6/10 It entertains and it does have a good cast, but its just not quite sharp enough on the details.
Murder by numbers does have some good intrigue and suspense in the plot, and yes it does try very hard to do something a fresh and different, but in the end it just seems pretty run of the mill.
6/10 It entertains and it does have a good cast, but its just not quite sharp enough on the details.
Like I said in the header it's definitely cliche but it'd harsh to give a 6. Ive seen a lot of 6's but I couldn't personally go that low. It definitely didn't blow me away. You've got to remember though this film came out nearly 20 years ago. The acting was all round was really good absolutely no complaints there. I'd have to say Ryan gosling shined the most, he played his psychopath role really well which is a hard role to master well especially at his young age. There's not much to say on it, it's good but not amazing. You won't be disappointed, it's also just fun watching younger actors then compared to now.
- nathanmanson
- Apr 27, 2021
- Permalink
It's a swell thriller: a reasonably sophisticated plot, with some neat twists and turns, good camera work, and a kind of satisfactory ending. But just as with the murder story in question, the flaws become apparent at closer examination.
Most important, the characters are not sufficiently presented and explained. The deadly duet shows a very close relation, but not what keeps it so close. It would be easy enough to understand, if they were lovers. Then their quarrel over a girl also makes sense. Since they are not - as far as the movie shows us - their relation remains a mystery.
The same, to a lesser extent, is true about the detective duet. Bullock is not really able to convince with her tough exterior to hide inner wounds, although that should be easy for an actor of her experience, and her male colleague gets no room in the film to show us why he stands her, after what she puts him through the very first days they work together.
Although it's mainly a thriller, I guess this movie would have needed some additional efforts on the drama of it, the emotional processes included in it. Maybe it's all too logical - like numbers.
Most important, the characters are not sufficiently presented and explained. The deadly duet shows a very close relation, but not what keeps it so close. It would be easy enough to understand, if they were lovers. Then their quarrel over a girl also makes sense. Since they are not - as far as the movie shows us - their relation remains a mystery.
The same, to a lesser extent, is true about the detective duet. Bullock is not really able to convince with her tough exterior to hide inner wounds, although that should be easy for an actor of her experience, and her male colleague gets no room in the film to show us why he stands her, after what she puts him through the very first days they work together.
Although it's mainly a thriller, I guess this movie would have needed some additional efforts on the drama of it, the emotional processes included in it. Maybe it's all too logical - like numbers.
- stefan-144
- Jan 13, 2003
- Permalink
All the elements are there: Two privileged teens with a latent homosexual relationship commit murder for the thrill of it, and to see if they can outsmart the law. That's L&L, as told in "Compulsion", "Rope", "Swoon" and who knows what else. Add in an angst-ridden investigator (could still be "Rope"), make her a small-town detective with a sordid past that she's trying to escape, and throw in her green partner, with whom she has an uneasy, sometimes sexual relationship, and give their relationship some heavy-handed subtext as well. Any cliches jumping out at you yet? All it needs is for the boys to have neglectful parents and for the detectives to have a commander who wants them off the case and, oh, wait, we've got that, too!
People tell me I'm too critical of today's movies. I say filmgoers aren't critical enough. I still love movies, even some Hollywood output, but I really hate it when I can watch a movie and, without even thinking much about it, recite the "high concept" pitch that the writers or producers or whoever made to the studio exec. This is the tenth movie I've seen in 2002 that's been that easy, and the message it sends is that no one in Hollywood is even bother to THINK anymore, much less be creative. And Barbet Schroeder, God bless him, was at one time a genuinely creative director, turning "Reversal of Fortune" from a bland rehash of a story, to which everyone knew the ending, that had flooded the media a few years prior, into a compelling character study by making it just that. "Murder by Numbers", on the other hand, is a by-the-numbers character study with even its subtext having been co-opted from countless films noirs and 60s and 70s psychological drama/mysteries like "Peeping Tom" and "Klute".
Even Sandy as a cop was much more convincing as her typecast "lovable klutz makes good" character in "Miss Congeniality". She still shows promise as a dramatic actress, but she hasn't realized it yet. The teens are appropriately intense, but despite all the claims the film makes, they're really not that bright, and experienced homicide cops would definitely be smarter than they are here. In this way, the film even manages to co-opt from 80s and 90s teen farces.
Basically, there's nothing new here. And if the celluloid flophouses want four times as much as they did 20 years ago for me to sit my ass in their chairs, they better be prepared to offer more than a rehash of the same stuff I watched back then.
People tell me I'm too critical of today's movies. I say filmgoers aren't critical enough. I still love movies, even some Hollywood output, but I really hate it when I can watch a movie and, without even thinking much about it, recite the "high concept" pitch that the writers or producers or whoever made to the studio exec. This is the tenth movie I've seen in 2002 that's been that easy, and the message it sends is that no one in Hollywood is even bother to THINK anymore, much less be creative. And Barbet Schroeder, God bless him, was at one time a genuinely creative director, turning "Reversal of Fortune" from a bland rehash of a story, to which everyone knew the ending, that had flooded the media a few years prior, into a compelling character study by making it just that. "Murder by Numbers", on the other hand, is a by-the-numbers character study with even its subtext having been co-opted from countless films noirs and 60s and 70s psychological drama/mysteries like "Peeping Tom" and "Klute".
Even Sandy as a cop was much more convincing as her typecast "lovable klutz makes good" character in "Miss Congeniality". She still shows promise as a dramatic actress, but she hasn't realized it yet. The teens are appropriately intense, but despite all the claims the film makes, they're really not that bright, and experienced homicide cops would definitely be smarter than they are here. In this way, the film even manages to co-opt from 80s and 90s teen farces.
Basically, there's nothing new here. And if the celluloid flophouses want four times as much as they did 20 years ago for me to sit my ass in their chairs, they better be prepared to offer more than a rehash of the same stuff I watched back then.
Richard Haywood (Ryan Gosling) is a wealthy and popular high school kid who befriends nerdy introvert Justin Pendleton (Michael Pitt). They plan out murders adding false forensics to baffle the police. They kill a woman to set up Richard's drug dealer janitor Ray Feathers (Chris Penn). Police detective Cassie Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) and her new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin) investigate. They have a romantic relationship but it's not working out. She's the only one who suspects Richard and Justin, but nobody believes her. They then stage the janitor's suicide, and everybody wants to close the case. Justin is infatuated with fellow student Lisa Mills (Agnes Bruckner), but Richard sleeps with her. This and the fact that Cassie is closing in cause a rift in the partnership.
Director Barbet Schroeder isn't able to instill the proper amount of tension. There are just a few too many side stories. He needs to concentrate on the three leads. The romantic entangle with Ben Chaplin's character is a distraction. It just makes her look weak. I think she could be damaged, but not necessarily weak. Ryan Gosling puts in a good creepy performance. Michael Pitt is likewise creepy but in a different way. Ben Chaplin's character is the most normal and the most expendable. The movie generally could use more excitement or scary thrills.
Director Barbet Schroeder isn't able to instill the proper amount of tension. There are just a few too many side stories. He needs to concentrate on the three leads. The romantic entangle with Ben Chaplin's character is a distraction. It just makes her look weak. I think she could be damaged, but not necessarily weak. Ryan Gosling puts in a good creepy performance. Michael Pitt is likewise creepy but in a different way. Ben Chaplin's character is the most normal and the most expendable. The movie generally could use more excitement or scary thrills.
- SnoopyStyle
- Mar 8, 2014
- Permalink
An inferior and overlong film based on the Leopold/Loeb case, made famous by Hitchcock in his movie, Rope.
Director Barbet Schroeder disappoints with the thrills and with some horrid CGI. Sandra Bullock is the tough, no nonsense cop out to get the killers but she has her own demons to fight.
Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt play the intellectual types showing their mental superiority in planning the perfect murder but still come across as high school spoilt rich kids, even though one is a geek and the other is a brat.
Young Gosling shows early promise, Bullock is convincing in a straight dramatic role but the film is dull and a let down with some poor writing and plot points. How did Gosling guess Bullock was following him? Who leaked the information that the kids were being interrogated?
Director Barbet Schroeder disappoints with the thrills and with some horrid CGI. Sandra Bullock is the tough, no nonsense cop out to get the killers but she has her own demons to fight.
Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt play the intellectual types showing their mental superiority in planning the perfect murder but still come across as high school spoilt rich kids, even though one is a geek and the other is a brat.
Young Gosling shows early promise, Bullock is convincing in a straight dramatic role but the film is dull and a let down with some poor writing and plot points. How did Gosling guess Bullock was following him? Who leaked the information that the kids were being interrogated?
- Prismark10
- Sep 11, 2014
- Permalink
The psychological thriller genre is my very favorite - I have pretty much seen them all. When Murder by Numbers came out 20 years ago (when I was in my 20s), I really liked it. Yes, it has its problems and is a bit cliche, but it is a solid film that I still go back to for a bit of nostalgia from time to time. Also, I think the acting is overall really good, with Ryan Gosling being the standout.
In the headline, I mentioned that it "hasn't aged well." By that statement, I am not referring to the look and feel of the film - I am referring to the social issues. HYPOCRISY ABOUNDS.
For starters, Sandra Bullock's character (lead detective "Cassie") sexually harasses her new male partner, who is junior to her on the police force. In 2002, audiences seemed to think this was ok..."cool" even, because after all, she is a strong, attractive woman. Also, Sandra's character becomes obsessed with one of the teenage suspects. While nothing ever "happened" between them, the sexual overtones were very strong. She hated him, but she was also attracted to him. It's just...cringe. Finally, a 38-year-old Sandra Bullock (the real person) began dating a 22-year-old Ryan Gosling (the real person) during filming. I don't have an issue with the age difference, but she was a PRODUCER of the film...and the age gap just makes it a bit more...cringe.
It is worth noting that I am not a prude. The reason I have an issue with all of this is the sheer HYPOCRISY of it. If the genders had been reversed (both in the film and the off-screen relationship), there would be outrage (especially in today's world). Not only was it deemed acceptable for Sandra/Cassie to do these things...people actually APPLAUDED her for it! This whole "I'm a strong woman, so I can do whatever I want" theme is just wrong.
Gripes aside, I DO like the film. I just see it through a different lens than I did back in 2002.
In the headline, I mentioned that it "hasn't aged well." By that statement, I am not referring to the look and feel of the film - I am referring to the social issues. HYPOCRISY ABOUNDS.
For starters, Sandra Bullock's character (lead detective "Cassie") sexually harasses her new male partner, who is junior to her on the police force. In 2002, audiences seemed to think this was ok..."cool" even, because after all, she is a strong, attractive woman. Also, Sandra's character becomes obsessed with one of the teenage suspects. While nothing ever "happened" between them, the sexual overtones were very strong. She hated him, but she was also attracted to him. It's just...cringe. Finally, a 38-year-old Sandra Bullock (the real person) began dating a 22-year-old Ryan Gosling (the real person) during filming. I don't have an issue with the age difference, but she was a PRODUCER of the film...and the age gap just makes it a bit more...cringe.
It is worth noting that I am not a prude. The reason I have an issue with all of this is the sheer HYPOCRISY of it. If the genders had been reversed (both in the film and the off-screen relationship), there would be outrage (especially in today's world). Not only was it deemed acceptable for Sandra/Cassie to do these things...people actually APPLAUDED her for it! This whole "I'm a strong woman, so I can do whatever I want" theme is just wrong.
Gripes aside, I DO like the film. I just see it through a different lens than I did back in 2002.
There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.
- loogenhausen
- Sep 30, 2002
- Permalink
- Lechuguilla
- Oct 8, 2005
- Permalink
Murder By Numbers has detectives Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin assigned to the murder of a young woman who was blitz attacked by an intruder in her home. Bullock gets the right scent on things, but the 'facts' keep getting in her way.
This updating of the Leopold/Loeb story that has seen such films as Rope and Compulsion inspired by that famous true thrill kill story has as its protagonists Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. I think that the author gives us a big hint to the characters of these two right in the beginning when we see Pitt reading a paper he's written for a class about Nietschean superman philosophy and Gosling just pretending to be asleep in class.
The homoerotic tension crackles off the scene with Gosling and Pitt. They are truly into each other until Agnes Bruckner enters their lives. After that it's every bisexual for himself.
These two go far beyond Loeb and Leopold. Not only do they randomly pick some poor women for their kill experiment, but Pitt is a science wiz and he manufactures the forensic evidence that throws suspicion on Chris Penn the school janitor. Unfortunately Gosling really rubs her the wrong way when he's questioned. He's the kind of rich kid you love to take down.
But speaking of rubbing the wrong way, Bullock is rubbing her own superiors just that way. Part of it is male chauvinism, part of it is they don't want to ruffle the feathers of Gosling's father who's the richest guy in town.
Bullock and Gosling dominate the film. Her with her dogged determination to take down the rich kid and him with a terrifying charisma that just about everyone is taken with.
Loeb and Leopold never had problems like these.
This updating of the Leopold/Loeb story that has seen such films as Rope and Compulsion inspired by that famous true thrill kill story has as its protagonists Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. I think that the author gives us a big hint to the characters of these two right in the beginning when we see Pitt reading a paper he's written for a class about Nietschean superman philosophy and Gosling just pretending to be asleep in class.
The homoerotic tension crackles off the scene with Gosling and Pitt. They are truly into each other until Agnes Bruckner enters their lives. After that it's every bisexual for himself.
These two go far beyond Loeb and Leopold. Not only do they randomly pick some poor women for their kill experiment, but Pitt is a science wiz and he manufactures the forensic evidence that throws suspicion on Chris Penn the school janitor. Unfortunately Gosling really rubs her the wrong way when he's questioned. He's the kind of rich kid you love to take down.
But speaking of rubbing the wrong way, Bullock is rubbing her own superiors just that way. Part of it is male chauvinism, part of it is they don't want to ruffle the feathers of Gosling's father who's the richest guy in town.
Bullock and Gosling dominate the film. Her with her dogged determination to take down the rich kid and him with a terrifying charisma that just about everyone is taken with.
Loeb and Leopold never had problems like these.
- bkoganbing
- Dec 5, 2013
- Permalink
slowest moving film I've seen in a long time. Include this with the fact it's basically boring (especially Sandra Bullock) throughout, and you've got a film that starts out with lot's of potential, but drags along with plot holes that are so evident...it's a "crime" in itself. The two boys in the film do a great job though..and make up for Sandra Bullock's obviously "over the top" acting as the "tough guy" female detective. If it wasn't for the two adolesent plotters...this movie wouldn't of even attained the 5 rating I gave it.
The movie was better than I thought it will!
I didn't had any expectations for this since I never really heard about it, the reviews are so-so and it came out 21 years ago.
BUT, plot-twist (including the end), I was captivated by the story and how things will turn out. The cast was fantastic (hi to baby Ryan Gosling!) and I thought it was an original and intriguing story. I could imagine a remake of this.
Of course some parts were a bit cringy and didn't aged very well. We can also see a few times that it was definitely a green screen behind the characters.
I recommend it if you like murder-mystery movie without being too complicated. It's definitely a movie you can put on a week night when you don't know what to watch.
I didn't had any expectations for this since I never really heard about it, the reviews are so-so and it came out 21 years ago.
BUT, plot-twist (including the end), I was captivated by the story and how things will turn out. The cast was fantastic (hi to baby Ryan Gosling!) and I thought it was an original and intriguing story. I could imagine a remake of this.
Of course some parts were a bit cringy and didn't aged very well. We can also see a few times that it was definitely a green screen behind the characters.
I recommend it if you like murder-mystery movie without being too complicated. It's definitely a movie you can put on a week night when you don't know what to watch.
- alexduhamel94
- Oct 24, 2023
- Permalink
Can some one tell me the point of this film!!??!?
You know exactly who did it right at the start, Bullock plays a 'character' who you care nothing about, Ben Chaplin is wasted, it slow boring and has no climax, the one small twist at the end is just that small and does not make up for what seems a life time to get to
I beg you do not waste your valuable life on this!!!
You know exactly who did it right at the start, Bullock plays a 'character' who you care nothing about, Ben Chaplin is wasted, it slow boring and has no climax, the one small twist at the end is just that small and does not make up for what seems a life time to get to
I beg you do not waste your valuable life on this!!!
When it deals exclusively with the two misguided teens (Michael Pitt and Ryan Gosling), their classroom scenes, their conspiracy, their tense relationship, the movie springs to life. When it focuses on Sandra Bullock as a detective with Ben Chaplin as her assistant, it falters badly. First of all, Bullock's character is not understandable until one learns her whole story--but even then, it doesn't let us like her. She's definitely not the usual Sandra Bullock sympathetic character here, and, in fact, as the central character in the story, she's rather unlikeable from beginning to end. Nor does the script give Ben Chaplin much to do except look as if he'd rather be elsewhere, especially since he has to put up with the shenanigans of his most unlikely partner. Bullock is better suited to romantic comedies than serious character roles.
But the boys are wonderful, a Leopold and Loeb sort of pair, who plan the perfect murder and then let things fall apart when they find themselves up against a determined female detective who sees through them from the start.
Slowly paced, the whole thing would have worked better as a one hour crime drama on television. But the charismatic performances of Pitt and Gosling are well worth watching. They're both completely believable as the pair of misguided youths. Gosling is superb as a master of casual menace--grinning and smoothly avoiding detection even when under pressure--until the finale. They are far more charismatic than the nominal leads, Bullock and Chaplin.
But the boys are wonderful, a Leopold and Loeb sort of pair, who plan the perfect murder and then let things fall apart when they find themselves up against a determined female detective who sees through them from the start.
Slowly paced, the whole thing would have worked better as a one hour crime drama on television. But the charismatic performances of Pitt and Gosling are well worth watching. They're both completely believable as the pair of misguided youths. Gosling is superb as a master of casual menace--grinning and smoothly avoiding detection even when under pressure--until the finale. They are far more charismatic than the nominal leads, Bullock and Chaplin.
Hard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do "by the numbers" Hollywood thrillers.
This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.
Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.
Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.
This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.
Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.
Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.
- robert-jalberg7
- Jan 17, 2004
- Permalink