Murder By Numbers

[CMJ]

Surprsingly good I thought. I went to see it because it has a similar premise to the screenplay I'm currently writing. It's very different...but nonetheless it has just enough similarities for me to be worried and in a foul mood. So...naturally I was bummed going in, but I was pretty engaged by the film. I thought the acting was top notch(especially the younger guys) and it was very well written IMHO. A bit of a shocker to me...a I wasn't expecting much.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Just curious did the trailer give away a lot of the plot? It looked that way to me, but then again they could be holding something back. Some of it does look like Columbo where you know who the killer is and you watch the dectective figure it out.

[CMJ]

Yeah...very Columbo-esque(by the way I LOVED that series of made for TV movies!). I guess the preview gave away alot, but it wasn't really a mystery, it was more of a "how do cops put the clues together" type of thing.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I loved Columbo too, (I always thought Falk was brillant in that show both the original back in the 70's, and the more recent TV movies) okay that does make more sense at least and defintely a different from the usual dectective thrillers like Along Came a Spider where there is some twist in the end.

[CMJ]

Well there is a slight twist near he end of "Numbers", but it's not major. I was amazed with one of the younger actors, I don't remember his name(played the popular one in the duo), but he blew me away.

Sandra Bullock gave a decidely anti-Bullock type of performance. It was nice to see her expand her range as an actress.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I guess they all have to have a twist these days, that is interesting about Bullock, I think she needs to do some more different roles.

[sirdizzy]

hmmm maybe i will end up seeing it then

[JonathanLB]

I didn't think it was that good at all.

I gave it 2.5. It managed to salvage that, at least, and it was "pretty good."

I really liked Richard, the actor who played him did a great job. His character was just cool in general, even if he was a murder suspect, hehe.

"Just curious did the trailer give away a lot of the plot? It looked that way to me, but then again they could be holding something back."

Yes, the trailer gives everything away, which is basically why this movie is so average (just above average). It's just a murder story! Nothing else happens. It has no twists, it doesn't have anything that warrants making yet another film about murder. It's adds nothing to the genre and it isn't even very well done. The writing is decent at best, but the one line is so bad, that one from the trailer: "The profile doesn't fit the profile!" There were no remarkable lines in the film at all. I know not every movie can have a great screenplay, but even mediocre films like Ghost World and The Man Who Wasn't There and Life As A House all had very good dialogue and lines (for the most part).

It was basically just what I expected, though, not worth seeing in theaters or at all, IMO. Not unless you're a big movie buff and you want to see most everything, but otherwise save your money.

My review is done, but not online... I'll post it later.

Haha, well considering I just posted the link to the CNN review of The Scorpion King, and their review of Murder By Numbers is even closer to how I felt, may as well post that too:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/19/review.numbers/index.html

This person is spot-on with their review, said just what I said and more (long review). 15 minutes of footage could have been cut "to positive effect" -- yup!

[JonathanLB]

Here is my review:

http://www.jlbmovies.com/MurderByNumbers.shtml

[CMJ]

I think Roger Ebert summed up my feelings the best. It was rather odd...overall the critical consensus was rather negaive for the film, BUT many of the Big time publications are the ones that gave it the positive reviews(usually it's the other way around).

[JonathanLB]

"CinemaScore audiences gave the picture a disappointing C+ grade"

Yup, that is what I gave it too -- C+. Above average entertainment...

But The Scorpion King got a B, haha, man I gave it a B- and I was being pretty nice I thought.

[CMJ]

Well just because the masses like or dislike a film doesn't mean I must agree. I mean it's like critics Jonathan...you're not always gonna agree with everyone on a given film.

[JonathanLB]

I did not say that, I was just interested to know what general audiences thought. I don't always agree with "the masses," but that's a really pretentious way to describe the majority, I think.

The majority is usually right. Not always, but usually. I mean to say that if a film at IMDB has an 8.0 rating or above, it is probably a very good film. Not always, and there are a few I absolutely hate, but 75 to 85% of the time I would agree with the majority consensus. I bet you would too on the IMDB...

[CMJ]

I didn't necassarily mean for "the masses" to come off in a bad way...BUT I would say people who slam critic's just because they're critics are quite pretentious in there own way. Their have been numerous posts along those lines in the past on this board(along with slamming of the Academy, etc). What I'm saying is, in a way most if not all of us have been pretentious on this board at one time or another.

[JonathanLB]

There are good critics, so it's silly to slam all critics, but in general I must admit I'm not a huge fan of critics. I like some of them a lot, and then there are others that just bother me. David Ansen of Newsweek, for instance, is a total idiot.

Joel Siegel seems like he has fun at least, he seems like he enjoys his job, but it's funny that he seems to give so many good reviews. Maybe that's just the way it seems.

I'm NOT a fan of the Academy, though, I hate them. They are total idiots and wouldn't know a good movie if it ran up and bit them in the butt. Their selections are horrible, which is why only about 25 AFI top 100 films are even best picture winners.

Lately especially their picks are just bad, like in the last 10 years they are worse than in like the 60's or something. At least then there were fewer movies and the popular films were often also considered very good, so they won more. Now, it seems like you have to make some odd little independent film just to get recognized. Or it must be very quirky.

Anyway, no matter, I just don't like the Academy. They are not good at giving awards at all. I saw most all of the critically acclaimed films last year and most of the major popular ones too and I found their selections to be pitiful. 80% of the movies in the main categories were either mediocre or downright awful.

[JonathanLB]

On a separate note because I don't want to make a separate thread for one question...

Is "Lars" from Star Wars, like Owen Lars and Beru Lars, Lucas's tribute to Hitchcock? In Rear Window, the name "Lars" appears a few times and I was just thinking there might be something more to that.

Actually I was sort of wondering if The French Connection's Doyle (Hackman) was a tribute to Rear Window's detective Doyle too, but I thought that was less likely as Doyle is more common...

Any ideas?

[CMJ]

Doyle IS very common...I doubt a connection. I'm not sure about Lara...quite frankly I never considered it.

As for The Academy....Jonathan to each his own. I've followed the awards season for years, but really hardcore since '97. Since then they've never failed to pick a film below #4 on my personal best of year list for Best Picture. In many of the other categories the recognize I have similar taste as well. So does this mean I have bad tatse and you have no respect for me? ;)

Gee thanks alot. :)

[JonathanLB]

It means I have no respect for the Academy. I just don't pay attention to what they have to say. I know you personally, so it is different, but I don't take any more interest in the Academy's opinions than I would in a single person's, like yours for instance. I would rather listen to what you think is worth seeing than what the Academy thinks is worth seeing.

Then again, you have steered me wrong lately CMJ! lol. All of this filth, Mulholland Drive, Amelie, Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, just so many bad movies and I think you liked them all, lol.

I rarely ever give ratings below 1 star, and in fact I think the only films that mostly go that low is, ironically, Academy Award-nominated movies. You have to literally P*SS me off BADLY to get a rating below 1 star. I really disliked Frailty but it didn't tick me off that bad so it got 1, or like Super Troopers got 1, just stupid but it didn't insult me.

Gosford Park insulted me. It pretended to be an important movie yet nothing happened in the entire film and when you do that to me, waste 2.5 hours of my time uselessly, then you get ZERO stars.

I do not pride myself in being a harsh critic because that would just be silly, IMO, I mean what would be good about that distinction? Nonetheless, you said you are harsher than me once, and I'd like to find out sometime. I don't think that's true. I believe my average rating over the last few months would be significantly lower than yours, but who knows.

Take the AFI Top 100, I bet you gave every movie 4 stars didn't you? ;)

I'm just kidding, I am mostly handing out 4 star ratings like their candy bars on Halloween, haha. The few films that didn't get 4 stars so far: E.T. (2.5, bah), North By Northwest (3.5), Shane (3.5), Some Like it Hot (3.5), but most of them got 4: Goodfellas, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The French Connection, Psycho, Rear Window (loved it), Star Wars (duh), Bridge On the River Kwai, Pulp Fiction, Unforgiven, Dances With Wolves, Dr. Strangelove, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, etc. etc.

I mean, I find it hard to believe that my taste in movies is not pretty wide when I find myself loving basically every movie on the AFI list, which includes the ones I gave 3.5, I still really liked them. I obviously have an appreciation for the movies critics feel are the best around and I have just loved seeing the AFI list so far, it has been fantastic. Their list, while not my personal best 100 list, is an awesome collection of great movies. So for me to hand out about 10 AWFUL ratings to "the best critically acclaimed films of 2001," there must be something different and wrong with those movies. I know none of them would make an AFI list because, quite frankly, they are trash. I will not hand out good ratings to any film just because it is old or just because it is acclaimed. I judge each AFI film by itself and so far I'm giving almost all 4's, but the films that were considered great in 2001 do not hold a candle to even the WORST films on the AFI list. None of them were even close to as good as E.T., which is not even a good movie in my opinion.

Compare In the Bedroom or Gosford Park to anything on that AFI list and both of the movies look like utter dung. Which is exactly the truth: they are trash unworthy of being films at all.

[CMJ]

Honestly Jonathan....I haven't seen all of the AFI list either. There are a few on the list that I don't care for though. As I said earlier to each his own.

I think you might be mistaken with the AFI's list and films of 2001, I think both FOTR and ABM(one of your faves...see my sarcasm) would get consideration. It's really too early to say though...not like they're gonna come out with a new top 100 anytime soon(of course they'll come out with their top 100 thrillers or whatever..I'm speaking of top 100 FILMS). Many films aren't appreciated till years after they are released. That list just encompassed the 1st hundred years of film up through 1996. I doubt they'd do a supplement to that llist anytime soon. Maybe 2046...:)

Oh...I'm just nitpicking now, but you said there were like 25 or so Best Picture winners on the list. I believe it's 31...but don't quote me on that. Not only that but there's a handful of films on the list that were released BEFORE the Academy even started handing out awards. So I think it's like a 31 out of 96 or so ratio...or like one third. I think the first 68 Best Picture winers were eligible...so thats roughly what...40 percent of eligible Best Picture winners on the list. Thats not too shabby if you ask me. Overall neither is a bad percentage considering....

[JonathanLB]

I will check, but I thought it was 24 best picture winners actually. I'd have to see...

Well I do not think A Beautiful Mind would be even close to getting consideration. Maybe FOTR would be if they made a new list 10 years from now, but ABM just isn't the quality that should be on a list like that. Nearly everything on the AFI list is awesome. I end up giving out fours almost constantly, but there are a few I don't like as much. There are 2's and 2.5's, but not many so far. Only 3 movies would get less than 3.5 stars out of the 25 or so I have seen.