Group Theory

Rating: Null/10 (7 April 2001)

Spoilers herein.
I watch a lot of trash -- for a variety of reasons. One of them is that I am sometimes pleasantly surprised. I was blown away with the intelligence of `Ninth Gate,' for instance. I thought `Scary Movie' was a really clever goof on its viewers.
This film pleasantly surprises. It is unremarkable in most of the normal respects: the cinematography and most acting is pedestrian. The directing and editing is poor. So where's the reward?
The conception is brilliant. The sets are Shakespearian, with no props, essentially no costumes. In fact, essentially the whole film is in ostensibly different, but identical small rooms. It is all pure drama which hinges less on what you see, instead the situation that is created by dialog. The center of this film is built in your imagination, on incomplete fragments rattling around in there -- paranoid fragments about the nature of fate, trust and a society allied against you.
What really appeals to me is how much sense this world makes. The design of the maze makes great sense; the mathematics is accessible and correct (not like `Pi' or `Omega Code'), as is the visual notion of the rooms moving. The logic of the physical space contrasts with the total ignorance about who created this situation and why. Since the cinematic vocabulary is made so clear, the angst about the outside society is made more acute.
I think the basic notion works a whole lot better than, say the second `Alien' or the first `Die Hard,' both of which are basically escape movies leavened by `Ship of Fools.'
This is a likely target for a remake with a better budget, a much better candidate than, say `The Professional.' Imagine if these folks had the money and creative talent of the disastrous `The Cell.' If this was remade, though, the extra money need not go into more elaborate sets. The sparceness of the sets is part of its strength. Instead, the money needs to go into script dialog, better actors (but deBoer isn't bad), a real score, and some competent cinematography. This would be a natural for a real artist.
As it is, it is still worth viewing. Think of it as slightly illustrated radio. Seen this way, it is worthy of a young Welles.