Review of Murder by Numbers (2002) by Erik P — 15 Dec 2010

Why is it called Murder by Numbers? I have no idea...

Toted as a psychological thriller with the added bonus of a 'who-done-it' murder mystery, Murder by Numbers is an empty shell of a film that doesn't quite figure itself out.

Filled with clichés and predictable story lines, this film struggles with the writing, and, what I found to be most surprising, the acting. The film stars Sandra Bullock, as a cop who is running from a traumatic past, and Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt as two ideological teens in search of becoming "free" and committing the perfect crime. The film has an interesting premise, however the story does not fully develop any of the concepts in the film, sheltering the audience from what could have been a decent flick.

Interlaced with several flashbacks and random whispers throughout, the story chronicles two high school students who kill a woman and the cop hoping to catch the person(s) responsible for this crime. The kid's plan, meticulously put together, eventually unravels as a desperate Sandra Bullock finds key evidence and begins to 'see' their plan, CSI style. The film is filled with too many storylines and not enough substance to merit the existence of any of them. I found myself feeling sorry for the director, Barbet Schroeder, who actually does quite a nice job despite of what he is given to work with.

Constructed out of the image of a Hitchcock film and based on the Leopold and Loeb murder trial that actually is the basis for Hitchcock's "Rope." And although a comparison between the two is unfair and unjustified, it is inevitable. For a 'thrilling crime drama' was exceedingly stylized leaving me feeling as though I had just watched a PSA for why pot is dangerous instead of a mystery-thriller like I thought.

The film lacked emotion (among others) and was, I think, the fundamental reason that this film failed. You are drawn to a movie based on the plot but the characters are what keeps you interested, however the characters in this were so stagnant that I couldn't care about any of them- entirely the fault of the script.

The acting in this was forgettable, partially (well, mostly) due to the fact that the script gives them nothing, but also due to bad acting. Sandra Bullock was plain and seemed uninterested, but she was okay, Michael Pitt was convincing in his portrayal of an isolated kid with a dark side but it was Ryan Gosling who was horrendous in his portrayal of a privileged suburbanite youth. Half of his screen time he was an asshole and the other half he looked like he was going to cry, he had no feel for his character, he brought no energy, and, also like Sandra Bullock, he seemed only partially interested.

This film was almost so good, quite possibly a 'be-all-you-can-be' speech away from becoming exciting and entertaining. It does nothing with its story, wastes the talents of its leads and outsmarts itself. A film that is an unfortunate turn for some of Hollywood's brighter talents.