not as bas as critics suggest

Rating: 7/10 (10 January 2009)

SPOILER ALERT - Only read this review after you have seen the movie. In my opinion, you would not be wasting your time in seeing it, but if you do, reading this review will help confirm that, contrary to what so many others might argue.
Jim Carrey continues to infuse his work with a hint of religious or moral message - this movie ending with a Bible quote may have triggered sub-conscious rejection by all those who out and out hate on this movie, which does have a pleasant ending.
The ending, by the way, has the protagonist saying something to the effect that "this may not be the ending you want, but it's the way it should be," as they protagonist did "the right thing" at his own cost.
The movie isn't really about the number 23, although on the surface everyone wants to make it out as such. That's the problem - it's disappointing if the issue is supposed to be about the numerology, weak as it may be.
This is a film about a disturbed fellow who killed someone, hid the body, framed an innocent man who went to prison for the murder; wrote a confession which one of the psychiatrists who dealt with his treatment took possession of and rewrote as a novel. That novel manages to end up in the protagonist's hands, and as he reads he can't help but recognize parallels in his own life that begin to awaken the repressed memories he had of his real life before the attempted suicide.
The madness in which he wrote the book; the re-write that obscured some of the real connections, and his own psyche are the reasons the protagonist had to go through the process the movie follows.
Ultimately, upon remembering everything that happened, what he did, etc., his decision to "make things right" by admitting to the crime, freeing the wrongfully convicted, and being sentenced to serve time for his crime, all on the basis that as a father who wants to send a clear message to his son about justice, this was the right thing to do, is satisfying.
The meandering path the movie followed to get to that point may not have been perfect, and the somewhat preachy tone of the narrative followed by the imposing Biblical quote from Numbers 32:23, "your sins will find you out," may rightly have left a bad taste in some viewers mouths.
But, the resolution that a crime that had not been properly solved was now clear and a person who owns up to his guilt and anticipates a life of clarity after facing his consequences with the full support of his family appeals to one's inner sense of rightness and goodness and honesty and justice.
Perhaps we've become so jaded and cynical in the current state of affairs in our world today that such purity can't be taken at face value.
I would suggest, however, that the manner in which the protagonist's mental condition was presented is a tad curious. Could someone go through such a change of condition over time, from a confused young man from a home with a father who commits suicide who kills his girlfriend in a jealous rage, buries her, frames an innocent to take the fall, writes a convoluted confession infused with pseudo-numerological rantings and then jumps to his intended death to a psychiatric hospital for therapy who leaves the institution "cured" even though he has no recollection of what happened? What life could he possibly have? He settles down in a job which he keeps, has a beautiful wife, a cool teen kid for a son, and mental and emotional stability with no relapses, no recurring nightmares that seem oddly real, no nothing until the book shows up through "providential" circumstances? Are we really to believe the dog saw him bury the woman, understood this to be wrong, and showed up at the restaurant knowing the protagonist would be along and would allow the dog to lead him to the grave, which triggered no recollection in his mind at the time? And, why would his wife remove the bones of the girl? If she knew nothing of his past, she'd have no motive to "protect him" from anything, since she would not have assumed the bones had any connection to him.
There are not a few questions that pull at the over-all execution of the story in film. A perfect movie this is not.
But I've seen plenty stupider movies get much better reviews than this one, and that seems odd to me. A movie with a moral message needs to be given the benefit of the doubt, in my opinion, because too much time is spent on senseless entertainment that often must pander to the lowest sensibilities (toilet humor, sex, violence for the sake of it) and leaves nothing to inspire any sense of higher ideal. This movie attempts to do so. Maybe poorly, but the attempt itself is worthwhile.