Rating: 
Summary: boring!
Review: This movie is boring and pointless! There is nothing scary, shocking or even thrilling in this movie! Just a lot of wasted talent!
Rating: 
Summary: If you've seen one murder/cop movie, you've seen this one.
Review: Boy o boy. I really enjoy Sandra. I like her acting and she is sort of hot, but this movie was not that good. I was completely unenamored of the entire story. The idea of the two young men doing the deeds started out as really cool, but it went no where, but to a very predictable "cliffhanger" ending. If you have seen any other forensic type cop movie, you've seen this one. The background story did nothing to add to the depth of the movie, but eh, they can't all be winners right?
Rating: 
Summary: Well Crafted and Delivered
Review: An individual with a disturbed mind and a convoluted philosophy that incorporates crime, personal freedom and autonomy is a ticking time bomb; add to this a bored sociopath with too much time on his hands, and the two working in concert makes a potent combination that must necessarily at some point result in a blatant disregard for the laws of man as well as the laws of nature. And it is just such a scenario that is visited by director Barbet Schroeder in his taut thriller, "Murder by Numbers," a psychological crime/drama over which the shadow of Hitchcock looms large. To the discerning viewer, it's evident early on that this film is going to probe a bit deeper than the a typical offering of the genre, and happily it's not an empty promise, but one which Schroeder fulfills entirely. It's absorbing stuff, and the route he takes for the journey makes this a thoroughly satisfying and thought provoking cinematic experience.The story revolves around a pair of high school seniors, Richard Haywood (Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Michael Pitt), two polar opposites living in an upscale seaside city in Northern California, who for their own sundry reasons concoct in theory a "perfect crime," or more specifically, the perfect murder. And when the body of a young woman is found in a nearby woods, it falls to veteran detective Cassie Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) and her partner, Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), to investigate and sort it all out. The evidence seems to lead in one direction, but certain circumstances and Cassie's instincts come into play, indicating otherwise. Eventually, the question is, are Richard and Justin involved? Which is precisely what Cassie-- who is currently dealing with some personal issues-- and Ben have to determine. All they know for sure is that a woman who should still be walking around isn't; and they have to know why. And soon. The screenplay for this film is clever and extremely well written by Tony Gayton, and he goes to a number of sources to create a rather astute and insightful commentary on the human condition, including man's inherent capacity for good and evil. Reminiscent of the infamous Leopold/Loeb "thrill killing" murder case of the 1920s, Gayton's story evokes a philosophical sense of Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment," and references 19th Century French poet Arthur Rimbaud's "Lettre du Voyant," the famous manifesto in which the visionary poet discusses the goal of the "voyant," the poet who must practice the "deranging of the senses" to attain a transcendental state, which he calls the "unknown." Or, as Justin, especially, sees it, "freedom." It's an intelligent treatment of a concept almost too terrifying to even contemplate-- the cold blooded murder of an innocent victim chosen at random, and for nothing more than the singular purpose of the experience. And it's disconcerting to say the least when you consider the fact that there "are" people like this walking around loose in a world we must share with them. The extraordinary thing about this film is that Schroeder was able to translate Gayton's ideas so succinctly and successfully to the screen. This material could easily have been rendered in a dry and academic way that would have been tedious, or it could have gone the other way, losing the sagacious aspects entirely in what would have been an ill-advised attempt to capture the attention of those less inclined to embrace an offering demanding of some deliberation. It created a dangerous line to tread between the possibilities, either/or to which a director of lesser integrity would easily have succumbed. Schroeder, however, obviously had a firm grasp of Gayton's intent, recognizing from the beginning where the heart and soul of the story lay, and it is that which he proceeded to present in his film. With every film she makes, Sandra Bullock proves herself increasingly worthy of respect and regard as an actor and as an artist. She can be America's Sweetheart (Lucy, "While You Were Sleeping"), the not-quite-the-girl-next-door type (Sarah, "Forces of Nature"), a savvy FBI agent (Gracie, "Miss Congeniality"), or a very real person with very real personal issues who just happens to be an accomplished professional in her field, as she portrays here as Cassie. With every role, Bullock continues to grow as an actor; here, she refuses to trade on her natural charisma and proven, personal qualities to play what could have been just a variation of another "cop." Instead, she creates a character who is obviously conflicted, but who deals with it in her own way in her own time, which adds the kind of personal mystery to Cassie that makes her at once sympathetic and interesting. It's a convincing, introspective performance that shows yet another side of Bullock, and it's arguably one of her best. Ben Chaplin does an excellent job, as well, with his portrayal of Sam. It's a very subtle performance in which he captures the very essence of the mundane realism of everyday life. Sam is a normal guy who is there to do a job, and Chaplin presents him in terms that are credible and convincing, which in turn lends even more credibility to the overall film. It's a very understated performance that makes this part and his character entirely effective. Finally, what really closes the deal for the success of this film are the performances of Gosling and Pitt. Gosling finds the perfect note in his pretentious, arrogant attitude and self-indulgent personality. And Pitt affects an eerily unsettling demeanor that will haunt you long after the film has ended. Together, they are even more effective than Stockwell and Dillman were as the killers Judd and Artie, in the similar 1959 film, "Compulsion." This story is intrinsically closer to the truth than many will be willing to admit, and because of that, "Murder by Numbers" will never achieve the acclaim or stature it deserves; nonetheless, this is riveting drama that is definitely going to make you think and reflect a bit.
Rating: 
Summary: Murder By The Numbers...
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: 3.5 stars rounded up: children are our future
Review: The young Ryan Gosling and Richard Pitt make all the difference in a film headlined by Sandra Bullock. Playing the characters of Richard and Justin, two troubled teens of opposite social circles, the psychopathic duo philosophize the justification of a short but effective serial killer career. Sandra Bullock as the investigating detective almost takes a backseat to the dynamics of Gosling and Pitt who attempt to counter forensic techniques with shrewd and evil methods. Watching the characters of the suave and arrogant Richard together with the introverted yet brilliant Justin scheming against investigating authorities makes the film all worthwhile. One almost wants to see how far the pair can proceed with their evil doings in this combat of minds against the police. But just like any true serial killer's "M.O", we want them to be caught, and here is where the themes collide to make the story interesting.
Sandra Bullock's character is also one of interest, as she plays a former victim-turned-detective with a masochistic preference for relationships. Ben Chaplin gives some balance as her partner, in more than one way, but again it's high schoolers Richard and Justin who make the film move. I will be curious to see the next roles Ryan Gosling and Richard Pitt play, but for now watch Murder By Numbers for its general appeal as a criminal psychology thriller.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining but forgettable thriller
Review: "Murder by Numbers" is an okay thriller that provides a decent way to pass a dull evening. One suspects that it is not nearly as good as its makers had hoped it would be. The weaknesses lay in a script that gives us neither especially interesting characters nor many intriguing twists and turns. Even the 'surprise' ending is fairly predictable. It's not that the movie isn't entertaining. It's that its impact is minimal and, thus, forgettable. Two high school seniors [Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt], too smart for their own good and alienated by life in a small, affluent town, decide to commit the perfect murder. They pick not only a victim but also an unsuspecting friend to take the blame. There's only one hitch - one local homicide detective [Sandra Bullock] doesn't think that the carefully laid out crime scene evidence adds up. She and her less-than willing partner [Ben Chaplin] set out to find out the truth. Everything about "Murder by Numbers" is competent. Bullock, Chaplin, Gosling and Pitt are quite convincing in their roles. If only their roles had had a little more substance to them, this might have been a quality thriller.
Rating:
Summary: Bullock should not try "serious" roles...
Review: Sandra Bullock is a very good actress and in throw-aways like the flick where she plays an FBI agent posing as a beauty pageant queen, she holds her own. But as the disturbed and ornery detective in this movie, she comes across as just another actress trying to be tough -- and not succeeding. The plot's OK, but the ending is pretty much standard Hollywood issue tripe and can be seen coming long before it arrives. There's no chemistry of any sort on the screen and the modern-day Leopold and Loeb are more like Laurel and Hardy than two teenagers who kill for philosophical reasons. I managed to sit through the movie, and it's OK one time around. But I wouldn't sit through it again...
Rating:
Summary: Lifetime Network movie masquerading as big screen film
Review: ..."Murder by Numbers" is supposed to be a big screen forensic thriller. It isn't. The fault isn't Ms. Bullock's or the fine cast of actors, who all do very good jobs in their roles. (Of particular note is Ryan Gossling, who is just great as one of the teenaged killers). No, the problem here is the director and the script. This film has its slight exciting moments, but it doesn't take advantage of them and sustain the excitement. There are two false endings on this film and by the time the first one has hit, you're wishing the film would end, because it is really dragging. Bullock's character, Mayweather, is on the hunt for the murderer(s) of a young woman left next to a creek. She is haunted by this crime because she or someone else near and dear to her has had a terrible experience also near a creek ...Back to the basic plot....Two teenagers are responsible for the murder - we know this and we are supposed to know this. This film is intended to allow us to understand the mind's of the killers and enjoy the forensic detective work done by Mayweather and her partner (Ben Chaplin). The boys have committed the murder to prove that they can commit the perfect murder because of their superior intellect. "Murder By Numbers" is an updated remake of Hitchcock's "Rope". The trouble is that the writers and director aren't up to the task. This is a story that could have been told in thirty minutes or in a Law and Order episode - and to a much better degree...Ultimately, this film isn't worth watching. For really exciting forensic detective work tune into "CSI" each week on television. For a good version of this same plotline, rent Hitchcock's "Rope"...
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't add up to much
Review: There's nothing really wrong with "Murder by Numbers" - it's just that you've seen it all before. Sandra Bullock, in turtlenecks and authentically messy hair, plays tough Detective Cassie Mayweather, who with her neophyte partner Sam (Ben Chaplin) is called in to solve a murder case in a small California coastal town. A trail of clues leads them to two local teens whose alibis seem suspiciously airtight, but Cassie is determined that they are guilty of what might have been the perfect murder.
The film isn't an emotional thriller like "Silence of the Lambs," but it does have some interesting, smart characters. Some will not like this film because it doesn't offer easy answers. It doesn't have the usual, pat Hollywood ending The film is pretty slow-moving, and it doesn't have much in the way of suspense or drama. It is more of a character study
Rating:
Summary: Girl Power at the Expense of Society
Review: This movie tries to force the viewer to sympathize and even praise the efforts of a detective who uses criminals to satisfy her feelings of revenge for injustices in her own past. Such are the ethics we admire?!
|
