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

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

It's a swell thriller: a reasonably sophisticated plot, with some neat twists and turns, good camera work, and a kind of satisfactory ending. But just as with the murder story in question, the flaws become apparent at closer examination.

Most important, the characters are not sufficiently presented and explained. The deadly duet shows a very close relation, but not what keeps it so close. It would be easy enough to understand, if they were lovers. Then their quarrel over a girl also makes sense. Since they are not - as far as the movie shows us - their relation remains a mystery.

The same, to a lesser extent, is true about the detective duet. Bullock is not really able to convince with her tough exterior to hide inner wounds, although that should be easy for an actor of her experience, and her male colleague gets no room in the film to show us why he stands her, after what she puts him through the very first days they work together.

Although it's mainly a thriller, I guess this movie would have needed some additional efforts on the drama of it, the emotional processes included in it. Maybe it's all too logical - like numbers.

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.