Although well shot and unfolded, the film is too ambiguous and not concrete enough to satisfy the basic of requirements in its genre.

Rating: 5/10 (13 January 2008)

I can certainly see what writer Michael Cooney and director James Mangold were trying here with Identity; a thriller-come-whodunit set in an isolated motel in the back o' beyond, but to me the end result falls flat and it falls sort of its attempted goal. I think Identity is a refreshing attempt at a genre that, let's face it, has been done close to death with numerous persons all gathering at a required place in order to be picked off one by one.
The characters seemingly doomed in this particular tale to not submit to the usual stereotypes but they manage to take part in and create a series of annoying trends that have you dislike them. I suppose I was expecting characters in the form of: the black guy; the sluttish girl; the sexually active couple, the male of said two-some takes an attraction to the sluttish girl and vice-versa; the wise old character and some sort of stoner in his twenties. For the film not to have this sort of a cast of people was a relief but to have the ensuing story revolving around what we're given owes a lot to characters and their, quite frankly, stupid behaviour at times with people storming out and acting like children despite a killer on the loose. It is not until the authoritarian figure of former cop Ed (Cusack) tells them to stay put, like children at a primary school, until they all settle down.
And then there is the character of Ed; an interesting one at that solely for the reason the twist that this film has revolves around him, but I won't say any more. What I will say revolves around Ed as a character and how the film is told from his point of view. This is no spoiler because the film makes it obvious to any active film watcher watching Identity since the film is told from Ed's point of view. We know this because he has everything a nice guy could have. He's nice, good natured, kind, educated and is involved in practically every scene. When someone is bleeding, he is the one that knows how to stitch them up; when someone dies, he's the one that does the police work and when everything needs to be sorted out and people need to be calmed down and organised, he's there to steady the ship. Ed is so fantastic that he is even able to tell us how much a room at the motel actually costs for one night since it says so on the billboard at the entrance; let that be a clue.
Following the obligatory start this film has during which the phones don't work (obviously) and the electricity fails after a while, the film would have us transported back to a board room where officials argue over weather to execute a mass-murder. The question that I, and probably the film, fail to grasp is: are the events at the hotel even real? Is any of it actually happening and if so, why are we even seeing it? Yes, Identity is sort of a film about stuff that didn't really happen, or did it? This is no Usual Suspects but it so desperately wants to be given a suspected criminal is in a police station telling us all what's what. Regarding the actual killer who you will only know if you read this after having seen the film, I cannot fathom any incentive for said events to happen and said character(s) to do what he/she/it/they did. It just doesn't make sense but then again, it is age old memories of a psycho, isn't it?
On an aesthetical level, Identity works but its narrative and consistency with what's what doesn't make sense. Towards the end of the film, one girl even states that the whole situation is 'like something out of a movie'. Too true as she goes onto state that in 'said movie' people were gathered at a certain place because they all had something in common. Now, providing this person even existed in real life or whether she existed through imagination alone; how the hell do you explain what she actually says actually forming the basis for the film's final act? Either this is incredible sloppy writing where they have rather obviously run out of ideas and are actually using another film to bail them out OR it's a clever piece of writing where the person having a supposed flashback is mixing up a film they might have once seen and using it to carry out the conclusion of the nightmare. This raises two questions: 1. How would a death row inmate be able to recollect a film they MIGHT have seen years ago and be able to adapt it into their own fantasy? 2. What film was it they're thinking of? My guess is 1945's The Spiral Staircase which I saw several months ago but it is a very, very long shot.
Like I said, the person is able to inform us what the motel's rates are. Based on this, it seems they're also able to recollect everything from the colour of the curtains right down to what people were wearing and driving since we're seeing it. But then the argument again surfaces: did any of it even happen? There are enough incidences of reality being broken to suggest it didn't. While Identity isn't an awful film, it is a confusing and an ambiguous one; one that does not have a satisfying enough pay off to warrant a re-watch and one that fails in what it tries to achieve. Not an embarrassment for all involved but one that will get some people rather excited.