Identity (2003) Reviews

• Like a hit to the head from left field

  the_yellow_brick_road2007-01-23

  This movie totally surprised me on every level. I had never even heard of it until recently; when an observant video store clerk noticed how many thrillers I was hiring and suggested it. Having missed it at the movies, I figured it would be the usual B-grade mystery murder flick, a bit of fun at best. Instead this movie had me hooked from the opening sequence; I almost thought they'd put the wrong DVD in the box! The story is like one big twisted, turning tunnel- with barely a glimmer of a light at the end. The cast is great, the setting appropriately scary- with no short measure of red herrings to keep you guessing. The cast really delivers too; the characters are diverse and given enough attention to keep you engaged but not so much as to slow the action down. John Cusack is in fine form as the easily likable ex-cop trying to hold it all together; Jake Busey plays the psychotic to perfection as usual. I don't usually go in for gore, but there's really barely more than a few hints of blood & guts. Definitely one to watch in the dark with a group of friends to scare the hell out of yourselves. You won't regret this one.

• Edge of the seat thriller

  gardenwriter2004-11-11

  I've never before seen a film that made me sit on the edge of my seat practically from the opening credits. And I never got to sit back. This was a psychological thriller of the best type. There is plenty of opportunity for you to nominate the "bad guy" and while you may be right in a sense you will probably also be wrong. The ending is a real shocker - and I suspect that the typical reaction of many viewers is to say "No way" - but if you think about it, it is the only possible ending. But you have to think about it - and the film is so action-filled that you never have time. SO the realization must come after the closing credits roll. I'd never seen John Cusack in anything but a comedy before (except for a film called "Max", but I saw that before I knew who Cusack was). He pulled off drama equally as well as he does comedy. An impressive talent. And an impressive film.

• Explanation

  WatchinMovies012005-05-27

  OK, everyone seems to be confused about this movie so let me explain it for everyone. The killer has a multiple personality syndrome, and was being treated in a psychiatric home. They have tapes of him portraying many different personalities, and they believe that one of his many personalities is the killer. The reason everyone has the same birthday is that every person is really him, all of these characters are made up in this guys mind. The way they figure they can cure him of his multiple personalities is to have them all come together inside of his head and hopefully they will all be killed off, with the risk that the killer will be one of the personalities killed. Let me repeat, the point of that motel, is to have all the personalities come together hoping that they will all die except for one, that one takes control of his life. As each character dies, that is one less personality he has left. In the very end they think he is OK because all of his personalities are dead, except for the girl. But really that kid is still alive, and he kills Amanda Peet. The exercise that they tried to do was complete, all the personalities died inside of his head, unfortunately the only personality that survived was the one that was the killer. I hope that clears it up a little bit.

• The twist is cleverer than the genre should allow but needs you to be totally into the film to accept it - the cast and the direction are both quality in quite an exciting and enjoyable movie

  bob the moo2004-04-18

  In the middle of a rainstorm, the judge and lawyers involved in the case of murderer Malcolm Rivers (due for execution the next morning) are called together to discuss evidence that the defence believe had been illegally suppressed. Meanwhile a series of accidents, damaged phone lines and flooded roads means that a group of strangers are forced to hole up at a motel. When the prisoner of a cop escapes and a murder occurs, they group together to try and capture him. However with him dead the deaths continue - each with a room key forming a morbid countdown as the remainder try to survive the night. For the majority of this film (more or less the first hour) the film is a standard horror thriller that is quite thrilling as the guests are picked off one by one. However more or less on the hour comes a twist regarding the connection between the guests that is at first silly, but then actually quite clever - even if it takes a bit of swallowing. From then on it continues in the same vein, with this twist changing our perception of the action onscreen. I imagine about as many of the audience will scoff at the twist as will accept it and like it. I liked the twist and thought it was pretty clever even if I have to acknowledge that it is pretty touch and go for a minute or so at least. The deaths are a mix of gory and shocking (without pushing it to an 18 certificate) and the first hour is pretty effective in terms of tension and drama. The director opens with several clever shots that freeze frame before moving onto the next scene - this is pretty slick and helps start the film with a good sense of urgency. His direction within the motel is hardly original but again it works well enough. The heavy rain serves to put walls around the motel (ie by not being able to see further than the perimeter) and this also increases the tension and the feeling of being trapped. Of course it's not brilliant as it is really still just a slasher thriller but it is an effective one. The cast go a long way to helping this by having quite a few big names as well as pretty good performances. Cusack and Liotta are both good despite the temptation to slum it in this. They both up the tension and the urgency by their performances. Peet is the standout from the rest but McGinley, De Mornay and others all do well. In the hearing Vince is as good as he always is when called upon to do a character with darting eyes and he is effective doing what he does (as little as that is here). Other than the big name actors, many people will wonder what about this film made it stand out so much that it got good critical reviews. I think the critical twist will annoy as many people as it pleases and you do need to have been absorbed into the story by the hour mark to really appreciate it. I'm not a big fan of this genre but I enjoyed this movie and suspect that fans of this type of film will as well.

• Who Are You? Who who, Who who

  BrandtSponseller2005-03-17

  Because of what seem to be unusual circumstances, eleven people, strangers to each other outside of their respective "groups" (two families, two professional associations), end up stranded in a desolate Nevada motel on a dark, stormy night. One of the "strangers" is a death row murderer being escorted to another prison for execution. When bodies start turning up and the murderer goes missing, he's the obvious suspect. But things are not what they seem. Identity provides a "double mystery"--a traditional whodunit and an increasingly bizarre "rubber reality" mystery that we must figure out along with the characters. This is my second viewing of Identity. I didn't like it quite as much this time, although it still earned a "B". The two aspects I had a slight problem with on the second go-round were one, the plot didn't quite envelop me to the same extent (maybe because I remembered the twist?) and two, since first watching it, I've seen a lot more films in the rubber reality genre, and Identity is nowhere near as mind-bending as many other examples. Still, this is a great film, with a lot of assets. Director James Mangold effectively employs a number of interesting techniques here. The main standout in the first reel is the use of Tarantino-like "multiple viewpoint" shots, where we see the same span of time from one character's point of view, then another, then another. He also effectively creates two very attractive atmospheres, especially for fantasy fans--a "Twilight Zone"(1959)-like conundrum and a sustained dark ambiance. The Twilight Zone aspect makes itself most obvious beginning with the scene where the convict, Robert Maine (Jake Busey), tries to flee, but discovers that he's still at the motel, after all. The constant, Blade Runner (1982)-like rain underscores the dark ambiance, which is reminiscent of films such as Fallen (1998) and Se7en (1995). While Identity isn't exactly a bastion of graphic violence, there are a number of strongly visceral scenes and shots that are extremely well done and effective for seeming realistic. The atmosphere is also greatly enhanced by the hotel set, which matches the Bates Motel from Psycho (1960) in dingy gloom. The film also has a wonderfully nihilistic ending. Even though I wasn't as enraptured in suspense this time, one is still drawn into the film by the gradual quickening and spiraling of loss of control experienced by the characters. While slowly killing each one of them off as they're stuck in an isolated setting is a traditional "10 Little Indians" horror film motif that writer Michael Cooney employs, the Twilight Zone aspects allow him to trump the sense of horror and despair, as the surviving characters come to realize that they are not in charge of their own lives, they can't call the shots, and their illusions about their realities crumble before their eyes. One of the negatives is that the rubber reality resolution is a bit too telegraphed, too overt. The solution is given too early, and ends up being spelled out note-for-note. It's a bit like giving a lecture on a joke right after one gives the punch line. It might be difficult to blame either Cooney or Mangold with this, however, as American film studios and test audiences are notoriously allergic to ambiguity, which is depressing, because I love ambiguity in films. Still, maybe the Identity is just easier to figure out when you've seen tens of rubber reality flicks. When I watched the film upon its theatrical release, I overheard more than one fellow theater-goer still trying to figure out the gist as the lights came up. One might be tempted to claim that Mangold under-uses his fine cast--who all turn in excellent performances, including one of my favorite character actors, John C. McGinley. But on the other hand, it makes sense that there is this large number and broad range of characters. Under this scenario, you either under-use them or you've got a 3-hour-plus film (not that I'd complain about a 3-hour-plus film). Of course the theme of the film, as well as all of the subtexts, has to do with personal identity, and especially veiled personal identity. None of the characters are who they seem. Most of them are lying to each other in some way when they first meet, and even some of the ones who know each other already are also lying to each other. Cooney and Mangold explore the various social facts, actions, ceremonies, rituals and so on that help provide personal identity for us, such as birthdates, names, residency, marriages, benevolent versus criminal or unethical actions, and occupations. They also explore a more dynamic identity of action, as relationships continually shift throughout the film.