Calculs meurtriers

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.

This is exactly what Hollywood does badly. Very Badly. Typically awful who-dunnit featuring more bluffs and double bluffs than you could shake a stick at. This movie is up there with horrendous plotless rambles like Copycat, Along Came A Spider and even Kiss the Girls. Horrendous in that it is possible to work out just about every plot detail in the first 25 minutes. The constant "twists" and "surprises" are tedious to say the least.

Don't get me wrong I like Sandra Bullock but when is she going to get a role that truly makes her shine. She seems to manage to choose the wrong movies time after time. I think she should maybe look to more comedy roles as I feel some of her best parts have been in films like Demolision Man and even last years Miss Congeniality wasn't too bad (ok it was was that bad but not as bad as Murder By Numbers).

Michael Pitt on the other hand is awesome. I saw him in Bully not so long ago in which he was fantastic and also last years Hedwig and the Angry Inch. He does evil particularly well. I think he could be destined for very great things.

And what the hell is Chris Penn doing in this tripe?! Nice guy Eddie is far better than this!

It was worth going to see this movie just for the guys walking around in the Slipknot costumes whenever they were going to murder someone.

On the whole this film was very poor, it scores only a ** out of ***** on the Meejoir-meter. But if Sandra Bullock is reading this, I still love you!

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.

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.