Doppia colpa

The movie kept me in constant questioning about who the killer was. However, the end left me confused and felt rushed and blended in a way that couldn't be followed. It was an interesting concept, poorly executed. There were too many flashbacks and too much future and present footage that was blended in a way that was hard to be followed. There was a lot of questions unanswered.

This film isn't amazing, but it isn't terrible. It's just an average movie.

A good thriller is often referred to as a cat-and-mouse affair. Here there are literally multiple mice plaguing the home of a respectable Philosophy of Linguistic Professor, at precisely the same time as he is the mouse in the hunt for a female student's presumed murderer. Geddit? Don't worry: if you miss it the first time, you'll get it when it comes up again later, as it does again and again.

Pierce Brosnan plays (well) out of his usual range and assumes the puzzled gravitas of the cool-headed cop with a drinking past. Minnie Driver is ok as the Prof's doubting, suspicious wife, but she's not given much to do apart from doubt and be suspicious. Guy Pearce is de ent as aforementioned Prof, but his early arrogant posing gets a bit tedious as the story progresses. (His name, by the way, is Evan Birch, which in a movie that mixes its metaphors and symbols like a drunk in a cocktail lounge, must surely be meant to suggest both Evenness, if that's a word, and, well, that's he straight and upright as a birch.)

Alexandra Shipp, as the young female student the Prof is most recently entangled with, owns the screen at every appearance, and shows the kind of potential that makes everyone else look like they're simply passing the time while waiting for her undeniable star quality to be recognised.

Too much of the time, though, all this feels like something from 1988 rather than 2018 (the heavy-handed symbolism, the clichéd tortured genius who comes across to everyone around him as an arrogant monster, etc etc). As a fast ride through desire and guilt, fear and self-loathing, it has something going for it and might even have worked if it relied less on off-the-peg movie clichés and, instead, looked deeper into the central character's motivations.

The first half, at least, is more than watchable and quite engaging in its own way. The ending, as many other viewers have said here, is simply bad. Even/Evan awful. Between the two, there are intriguing glimpses of the better movie this might have been but isn't, not least because the young women in it all remain beautiful temptresses and not one is ever realised as a fully formed character in her own right.

That's a mistake. And a real pity. As every philosophy student knows, we are made, or revealed, in our interactions with others.

I loved to see Brosnan as an American homicide detective. The man has been becoming more and more of a genuine actor lately. Magnificently paired with Guy Pearce this time, providing the correct kind and dose of contrast. And maybe for the first time ever, I can state that Minnie Driver feels "right" in her role.

Though similar stories have been covered zillions of times, in the past decades mostly by TV shows like CSI, the focus is on something else here: The difference between reality and the perception of it. A mid-aged man teaching philosophy, one who raises genuine questions on his actual culpabilitiy, functions very well as the central character, more so than you might expect.

A couple of visual tricks helped the film grow on me as well. One was the shot in which we saw the pole to one side of which the poster for the (fake) bunny search was just stapled, whereas on the other side the suspect saw the poster for the missing girl. The other was how the dialogue between the husband and wife was shown, reflecting from two mirrors standing side by side, the couple talking to each other physically whereas the visual trick functioned to reveal they were rather speaking into oblivion in solitude, with their reflections looking the opposite ways. I wonder if this was a homage to a way older scene from the history of cinema, something by Tarkovski maybe, or if the filmmakers came up with the idea on their own.

There was almost nothing "wrong" with the movie. The scenes functioned, tension and mystery built up well enough till the final act. And then...

Well, the film ended in a way that you could expect. That's it.

As a viewer, I felt deprived of a potentially awesome version of that very same finale, which could have been created simply by re-editing certain scenes. Ending such a story with questions hanging in the air is not awkward at all, but there was either some laziness, or some confusion on what emotions to extract from the audiance.

With Pierce of previous "memento" problems in the cast, this could well have become as captivating as Seven. Maybe a false lead was needed to provide some distraction from the main issue.

Wasted opportunity but still worth a watch.

The film's narrative evolved in complexity to the point that different paralel narratives, the blending of past and present, identities and versions of the same stories made everything confusing. Some people got that it was very deep because it questioned the reliability and indeed the concept of memory, etc., etc. However a more clear narrative and another, confusing finale would have been desirable

"Spinning Man" is a very intelligent film that draws interesting parallels between a philosophy teacher's search for truth and that of a detective. The performances, particularly by Pierce and Bronson, are excellent. The plot is satisfyingly complex with an ever-tightening noose of circumstantial evidence, but seems a bit contrived and ultimately disappointing with a bit of a deus ex machina ending and a bit of misdirection in the denouement. Production values are adequate, with several parallels involving rodent traps, dependencies and posters for missing pets, although some of the parallels seem a bit spot-on. The picture is gloomy with weather suggesting an impending storm, reflecting the mood of the characters.