Stephen King was one of the most profound influences in me becoming a writer.  The way he could use words, simple, everyday ones, to generate the extremes of emotions, mostly terror, both internal and external, is what lured me towards this profession.  But if I may be so bold, one of my criticisms of his storytelling ability, is the way he starts so many different ideas, most good, some out of left field, and then doesn’t know how to tie them all together cohesively.  Books like The Stand, Christine and Cujo bear the proof of this.  This is the same fate that befalls Barbet Schroeder in Murder By Numbers, a sloppily executed attempt, using an interesting, if not wholly unoriginal idea.  Schroeder overdevelops his characters (a flaw consistent with Single White Female as well), and underutilizes his story, then tries to bring it all together to generate a message of inner strength and individuality.  Instead, what starts off very interesting, fades into something tedious, unstable, and just downright messy towards the end, ironically, the antithesis of his characters modus operandi. 

The advances in the information age have bred not only smarter law enforcement officers, and techniques, but smarter criminals as well.  The idea of a criminal playing a mental chess game with police has been done before, Se7en did it well, Along Came a Spider had the right idea, but Murder By Numbers took a unique approach, then clouded it all up with extraneous and unnecessary details.  Justin is an intelligent loner, with his gothic good looks, flashy vocabulary, and ability and enthusiasm for “taking the indefensible idea, and making a case for it” As the movie starts, he gives a speech relating to the link between freedom, and the fight for it, and criminals.  He is challenged by Richard, a blonde haired rich kid, who seems to be the antithesis of Justin.  But there is much more to it than that.  Richard and Justin have a bond, hinting not so subtly at love, and it drives them to try and pull off the perfect crime.  Reminiscent of Leopold and Loeb, the two commit murder, and then in a more modern twist, think through every step the police will take in their investigation.  The case is pursued by Cassie, also a loner, with a strong will, a feisty attitude, and of course, a past.  Her partner, Sam (Chaplin), is thrown in, just because they needed a positive male character I’m guessing.  The mind games between the cops, and the criminals, make for very compelling and interesting situations, unfortunately, Schroeder gets distracted with side stories, involving Cassie’s mysterious connection to a parolee, and with Justin’s attraction to a pretty classmate.  These seem to exist, to provide background into who the people are, but is more of a complication, since too much focus is given to these stories.  Schroeder is apparently so obsessed with us knowing these characters backgrounds and quirks that he forgets to weave them into a cohesive story.  In order to generate suspense, curiosity and interest, this must be done, and that’s where Numbers primarily stumbles, and in the end, collapses under the weight of.  Admittedly, half of this story really had me interested, but unfortunately, Schroeder spent too much time on the parts that did not.  The chemistry, bond and of course performances of Pitt and Gosling as the cocky teenagers, was compelling and interesting, when it focused on the crime, the aftermath, the tension and such, of trying to pull of the perfect crime.  Granted, that aspect has been covered many times in film, but rarely with two such interesting personas as these too.  The smart loner, misunderstood yet attractive in his own way, and the spoiled rich pretty boy, who everyone assumes must be happy, because he has it all.  Their relationship, not Bullock’s past, or her relations with Chaplin, or anything else, should have been the main focus of the film.  Since it was not, the film fails

As much as I love Sandra Bullock, I am not sure that she is quite ready to tackle a movie where she is the lead AND cannot flex her ability to be cute, vulnerable, clumsy and quirky.  As Cassie, she does lend the occasional dose of sarcasm and playful innocence, but cannot give her the inner determination, strength, and believable intellect that this character needed.  No doubt she can carry romantic comedies with best of them, but she is a bit out of her league here.  The best performance to take from this film is from someone I consider to be the best young actor that you’ve never heard of.  After lending a youthful innocence opposite in John Cameron Mitchell in Hedwig, and a playful, sensual indifference in Bully, Michael Pitt finally gets a chance to play a near lead role, and he capitalizes as much as this story lets him.  With his bee stung lips, pouty eyes, and Beatle-esque bobbed haircut, he brings depth to the intelligent, mysterious, but lonely soul, seeking only love and acceptance, and understanding much more about life than most of those around him.  Unfortunately, his character becomes yet another casualty of Schroeder’s impatient storytelling, by his inconsistent actions and dialogue towards the resolution.  There was such a great chance, with a decent cast, mixed with veterans and newcomers, but Murder falls prey sloppiness and impatience in the end.

Ultimately, Murder by Numbers that doesn’t add up to much more than an example of an interesting idea, compelling and complex characters and good dialogue and ideas, complicated by being overcrowded in an attempt to be deep and insightful.  Shows like CSI, Autopsy etc have shown that the public has an interest in the motivations, investigations and curiosities of the criminal mind.  What is it that drives people to these horrific actions, and what ways do we have to catch them?  Also touched on, was the attempt, as criminals do, to pull off the perfect crime by trying to out think, anticipate and react to law enforcement.  As I mentioned before, films like Se7en have done this, no doubt inspired by the arrogant dark memories of serial killers like David Berkowitz (who corresponded with NY Post writer Jimmy Breslin) and Northern California’s Zodiac Killer (who taunted police through the mail).  But the film drifts away from this ideal, gets lost, and never finds its way back. Schroeder may have wanted to explore too many aspects of these questions, and in doing such, muddied his vision with inconsistent characters, and a story that meanders away from its premise, then totally forsakes it for an attempt at a twisting ending of sorts.  In a film where there is little mystery as to the identity, there is a necessity to make the characters believable and interesting, while also making their actions consistent.  Murder cannot decide if it wants to be a mental chess game, a class analysis, a story of overcoming fears, or a detailed mental analysis of the criminal mind.  In trying to explore all of these things, Schroeder and company open up several different doors, then struggle to resolve them in a sensible manner.  If you want to see a genuinely solid, King-esque suspense movie about the modern horror of everyday life, see Frailty, and avoid this one.

Agree? Disagree, Questions? Comments?

Tell Me Here