Okay, so I've read most of the reviews on this movie, as well as comments left by visitors to this site, and the feeling I get is that most people who wrote reviews really didn't like this movie. That's why I'm writing now-I represent the minority because, I did. I admit, I went to see the movie because I am very impressed with Ryan Gosling's compelling abilities, and the projects he has been a part of lately have been nothing less than incredible. He is an amazing actor. That aside, I wanted to see this movie because it seemed intriguing to me... why? Because it's a whodunit where you know `whodunit' from the start, and that's kind of unusual.

As the plot goes, two teenage boys endeavour to commit the "perfect crime" because they believe in a twisted philosophy that only through committing acts of crime are human beings truly free-the uninhibited, and let's remember, guiltless, acting out of one's will. The relationship between Richard and Justin was complex, hinted at homosexuality, and was brilliantly acted by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. Gosling was the manipulating, controlling smooth-talker, and Pitt was the extremely book-smart, socially awkward outcast. Enter Sandra Bullock's character, who it seems most people didn't particularly appreciate. I think when people see she was the executive producer they automatically assume any role the actor has in it is a self-glorification thing. I didn't see that as the case here. Without "Cassie's" personal history about the ex-husband that nearly killed her, who, not surprisingly, shared similar traits with Richard Hayward, she never would have pursued her instincts about Justin and Richard. The case was seemingly airtight against Ray, the unsuspecting school janitor and friend of the boys. Even when the boys are questioned near the end of the movie neither Bullock nor her partner have much solid evidence about them other than the fact that they lied about knowing each other, and the vomit Justin left at the sight. Therein lay the genius of the movie because the philosophy the boys were trying to prove through the act of killing, the guiltless acting out of will as `true freedom,' ended up working against Justin, who ended up having a conscience after all (and ended up leaving part of his conscience at the body dump site). Without that crucial piece of evidence, they almost had a "murder by numbers." And to readers out there who have puzzled over the title as much as I have, I looked in to it and found that something done "by numbers" (such as a painting) suggests careful and critical planning and exacting. There's also a song by Sting called "Murder By Numbers", but that's beside the point. :)

Many readers questioned the necessity of the relationship between Cassie and her partner, but I think it really meant to show how cynical and manipulative she had become because of her history. Like it or not, her history does play an important role in this movie because without it, she would likely have never followed her instincts about Justin and Richard. Yes, it was a bit of the cliche `women scorned, woman acting out vendetta in every facet of her life' plot, but I think without the depth of Cassie's character you have just another movie about teenage killers, and they just may have gotten away with it. There's no movie there.

And to the reader who commented that the teenagers obviously didn't commit the perfect crime because the police were on to them from the beginning, can I remind you that the reason was because of the purposely placed, and totally traceable shoe prints. The boys wanted to be involved-it was a game. They were so confident that they had committed the perfect crime that they wanted to see first hand the difficulty the investigators would have in uncovering what they think is the truth. What they didn't expect was that Cassie Mayweather had an overactive case of instinct working on her side. A little unbelievable? Maybe. But many crimes have been solved by police officers who have followed their instincts. However, this is a MOVIE!

I saw this movie in theatres about three times, and each time it revealed a little more to me, and I liked it a little more. The more I watched it, the more I was captivated and frightened by the psychological depth Richard Hayward-there are people really like this. My main complaint about the movie would be that they should have had Justin and Richard's interactions a little more central (because, let's face it, there lays the intrigue in the entire film) and my main props go to characterization-each character was very distinct and interesting in his/her own way. It was very well acted, although I would have given Ben Chaplin's character a little more depth to work with (he's a good actor) and maybe pared down Bullock's character a smidgen.

I think everyone should keep in mind that for a Hitchcock type thriller like this to basically tell you the "whodunit" at the beginning, it poses a very big challenge for the writers to keep the attention of the audience until the very end. I think they did so quite well by utilizing a few small plot twists throughout, slow revelation of the different character dynamics, and by lighting up the screen with some really emotionally charged performances by the young actors Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. I think if we remove our innate cynicism and attempt to see how psychologically complex the characters and their interactions are, we may be able to look beyond any apparent plot holes and see the real texture and quality of this movie, if only in the characters who were brilliantly portrayed. Especially Richard Hayward. Not that I'm biassed. :)

Sentiment: positive