Cálculo mortal

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

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.

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

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.