Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.

Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).

The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.

"Murder By Numbers" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving...

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: As Alan Rudolph's "Breakfast of Champions" slides into theaters with little fanfare and much derision it makes me think back to 1996 when Keith Gordon's "Mother Night" came out. Now for all the talk of Kurt Vonnegut being "unfilmable" it's surprising that he has gotten two superb cinematic treatments (the other being "Slaughter-house Five"). "Mother Night" is certainly one of the most underappreciated films of the decade and I cannot understand why. It's brilliant! It stays almost entirely faithful to Vonnegut's book (without being stilted or overly literary) and adds to it a poetry that is purely cinematic. How many film adaptations of any author's work can claim that? Vonnegut himself even puts in a cameo appearance towards the end of the film, and can you ask for a better endorsement than that? Not only is it a beautiful film, it is a beautifully acted, written and directed film and it is among my picks for the top five or so American films of the 1990s. It's a mournful, inspired, surreal masterpiece that does not deserve to be neglected. I would sincerely encourage anyone to see "Mother Night" - it doesn't even take a familiarity with Vonnegut's work to fully appreciate it (as "Slaughter-house Five" sometimes does). It is a powerful, affecting piece of cinema.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
"One shot, one kill, no exceptions." A must see if you are into marines or snipers. two big thumbs up! Great overall storyline, great camera work, good drama, action, details, and more. Pretty close to the real thing. But this isn't a film to breakdown and pick out the editing faults. this is to sit back and have a good 99 mins. The plot has some depth but this movie isn't really about making you think. its about enjoying the sniper lifestyle and action. sniper 2 and 3 are pretty good follow ups but the first is still the best overall movie. Tom Berenger does a great job playing his character and showing the hidden side of the sniper life. the plain of dealing with all of the death. Must see for sniper fans.