I don't know what everyone sees in this movie.

Rating: 4/10 (6 November 1999)

I don't understand why people think this is a good movie. The plot is predictable yet not really believable, the hero is unlikeable and the villain, who is supposed to be the movie's moral foundation (go figure *that* one), ultimately pulls the rug out from underneath the movie at the end.
The scene where Brad Pitt allows the killer to escape was irritatingly hard to believe. And what was the Gynneth Paltrow character's (not to mention her unborn child) sin? The killer was careful to choose people who (at least in his mind) deserved to die yet at the crucial climax he completely broke with his pattern in a most incredible way.
And where does a "moral" serial killer come from? Seems like an oxymoron, but of course in the end we see that he's not moral after all. Still, the whole concept rings hollow and leaves one wondering what the point of the movie was anyway? It seems like it was just a story created to give the film makers a chance to show grisly murder scenes one after another in an attempt to shock us.
If you want to see a much better movie along these lines (and much more disturbing because it's believable), watch "Henry, the Portrait of a Serial Killer." And be sure to give it a higher vote than this turkey.