Identität

A+

Every so often I like to go into films knowing very little about them. It's gratifying not hearing any news stories, or Internet rumors, or early reviews before you see a film because you can genuinely feel surprised by every passing minute of it. In the case of Identity, I only saw a trailer for it once in theatres and I saw various TV spots before its release, but other than that I knew nothing about the core of the story. I went in with no preconceived notions or opinions. For a change I was being a submissive film viewer.

After the credits rolled (by the way I rarely stay until the end of the credits) I was so amazed and surprised by the film that I had just experienced. Identity is a highly original, beautifully constructed, and a mildly scary film that will (excuse my language) do a serious mind f*** on your brain.

The less you know about Identity's plot, the better. This is the kind of film you need to go into knowing very little about. There are a few twists, plenty of scares, and also a very surprising ending that will have some people disappointed, or praising its creativity. I'm definitely in the latter on this one.

Identity is also a masterpiece of atmosphere. Something that I think is the most important aspect of any movie in this genre. Whether it's Halloween, setting the scene for small town horror, or The Ring, drenching us in very dark and Gothic scenery, atmosphere is what makes or breaks a horror film. Thankfully Identity succeeds by creating an atmosphere that is truly frightening and visually impressive. The motel is a perfect setting for the proceedings that take place throughout the night.

A nice ensemble cast rounds out Identity's many incredible attributes. John Cusack gives a very good performance as Ed. Cusack has always been good at playing the 'everyday normal guy' and he uses this to great effect here. It's a layered performance that offers some surprises throughout the picture.

The other high profile performer is the always-reliable Ray Liotta as Rhodes. Liotta never seems to disappoint whenever he's performing, even in sub-par material. He's just as good as he usually is in this picture and he uses his sometimes-abrasive personality to its utmost potential.

Amanda Peet gives her best performance to date as Paris. She has some nice moments where she's allowed sprinkle some comic relief throughout an otherwise dreary picture. However, when she's required to exhibit real fear, she is more than capable. She also shares some good scenes with Cusack during a few key moments in the film.

Clea Duvall and William Lee Scott supply some youth and tenacity as Ginny and Lou. Duvall probably has the role typically called the 'scream queen role' in most horror films and she does well with what she's given. There were times that I could genuinely feel her fear. Scott is given less to do as Lou but he does have some good scenes with Duvall that requires a decent amount of emotion.

John Hawkes and John C. McGinley are also adequate in supporting roles. Hawkes is given a fair share of the comedic lines and for the most part he plays the part well. McGinley fairs better as the husband who must tend for his injured wife and social inadequate stepson. If I felt sympathy for anyone the most, it was his character.

Rebecca Demornay is given very little to do as the failed movie actress but there are some funny jokes made at her expense as one character asks her 'didn't you used to be that actress?' This is some clever commentary on Demornay's obviously fledgling career. The same can be said for Jake Busey as the convict, who is given little to do and seems out of place when paired with the more talented actors in the picture.

What's important is the work these actors do when they're all together. This is very much an ensemble and they play off each other's fear. Their reactions to these situations make the picture all the more frightening.

On the other end of the story, Alfred Molina brings a bit of substance to his role, despite have limited screen time as the psychiatrist and Pruitt Taylor Vance will shock, amaze, and terrify you as the murderer waiting for his execution. Vance's portrayal is very frightening, and an ultimately brilliant performance. Given the limited screen time he does a lot with the role.

Identity is filled with secrets, surprises, and scares that will have moviegoers talking for quite some time. Much like The Ring it has the potential to have some word of mouth appeal. However, don't listen too much to what people have to say about it because it's best to experience this modern masterpiece of fear, knowing very little about it. I guarantee you will be surprised.

I've never before seen a film that made me sit on the edge of my seat practically from the opening credits. And I never got to sit back.

This was a psychological thriller of the best type. There is plenty of opportunity for you to nominate the "bad guy" and while you may be right in a sense you will probably also be wrong. The ending is a real shocker - and I suspect that the typical reaction of many viewers is to say "No way" - but if you think about it, it is the only possible ending. But you have to think about it - and the film is so action-filled that you never have time. SO the realization must come after the closing credits roll.

I'd never seen John Cusack in anything but a comedy before (except for a film called "Max", but I saw that before I knew who Cusack was). He pulled off drama equally as well as he does comedy. An impressive talent.

And an impressive film.

On a dark and stormy night 11 strangers have to take refuge in an isolated motel when a rainstorm turns into a monsoon. One by one they begin to be killed...but by who and for what reason?

The set-up is neat (if predictable) and there's a great opening showing how the actions of one of them (Amanda Peet) inadvertantly causes some serious damage for the others. There also is some great acting by Peet, John C. McGinley and Ray Liotta (who REALLY chews the scenery). There are also some moments that will make you jump and there are two neat twists at the end.

The only bad things about this movie is some clumsy exposition (John Cusack tells his whole life story while photographing a corpse), some truly bad lines and a surprisingly lousy performance by Cusack. What's happened to him? He looks worn-out and haggard in this film.

However, these are minor problems and the film is well worth seeing and keeps you guessing about what's going on till the last moment. Worth catching.

WARNING: This film is NOT for children!

"Identity" is a film that weaves an intricate web of suspense, masterfully led by John Cusack's compelling performance. As viewers, we are taken on a psychological roller coaster, filled with the twists and turns that define a great thriller. Cusack, known for his ability to embody complex characters, leaves us in a state of perpetual wonder-questioning each clue and doubting every revelation.

Plot: The movie unfolds like a dark and stormy night, perfect for those Saturday afternoons when you crave a mystery that keeps you guessing. It cleverly plays with the concept of identity itself, pushing the audience to consider what truly defines us.

Pacing: While the narrative is generally engaging, there are moments where the tension wanes and the pace slows down-a minor hiccup in an otherwise tightly wound plot.

Overall Experience: Despite these brief lulls, "Identity" stands out as an exemplary thriller. It doesn't just entertain; it ensnares you in its puzzle, demanding your attention until its final, satisfying piece is placed.

Whether you're a fan of Cusack or simply love a good mind-bender, "Identity" promises to deliver. Just be prepared for the slow burn-it only makes the eventual payoff all the more thrilling.

At the start of the movie, Dr. Malick is evaluating Malcolm Rivers, who is about to be executed for a series of murders, unless Malick can convince those who need to hear that Rivers was insane.

Then a seemingly unrelated series of events take place. And while we don't see Malick or Rivers again for a while, they are somehow connected with these events too. Exactly how I've never quite figured out.

The one common thread is that all the parties involved (except Malick) are driving through rural Nevada in heavy rain that is causing so much flooding everyone will end up at this one motel. A hooker who wants to grow oranges in Florida, the spoiled actress Carolina Suzanne and her driver Ed, the York family, newlyweds Ginny and Lou, and Rhodes, who is transporting prisoner Robert Maine.

Motel clerk Larry calmly checks everyone in, not exactly upset by all the chaos. But there's no working phone, and one of the potential guests seriously needs emergency help. Ed tries, but there's too much flooding to make it to a hospital and even cell phones don't work.

Ed, a former cop, tries to take charge of the situation, though Rhodes seems to think he should be in charge. And then people start dying. And the prisoner escapes. The newlyweds are in Room 6, and the number falls, making it look like a 9. The main clues to the murders are keys found with the bodies, and the keys seem to be showing up in sequence--10, 9, 8, 7 ...

So who will survive? Who is really behind the murders? And how are Malick and Rivers connected to all this?

I found the early scenes fascinating. Everyone was connected to everyone else, and if one event hadn't happened, none of the others would have. Eventually, I was just plain confused because I didn't know what was going on.

And when the murderer was finally revealed, he or she was not really revealed. I felt like I had heard three different possibilities but not been told which one was the right one. Then again, maybe I was told more information than was needed, and some of it was irrelevant. But I can't believe they would go THIS far ...

There were a lot of good acting performances. I genuinely dislike John McGinley, but he played a totally different character here than what I am used to. He seemed compulsive and somewhat mentally ill but genuinely desired to do the right thing.

Gary Busey was scary and almost funny, not too different from some of his other bad guy characters.

Bret Loehr didn't have much to do early as the little boy who had lost one parent and seemed likely to lose two more. But he was quite good later.

John Cusack carried the movie. He showed frustration but also competence. His character wasn't perfect but he wanted to do the best he could and didn't have patience with those who didn't care about others or couldn't handle the situation.

And Rebecca DeMornay did the demanding celebrity routine quite well.

I'm not going to recommend this for family viewing because some of the bodies are hard to look at.

It's mostly a worthy effort.