Cálculo mortal

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.

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.

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.

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.

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