Identity

Okay, movie fell apart for me about halfway through. Frickin’ brilliant up till that point, but after a certain scene which will go unnamed, I noticed the frat boys in front of me exchanging dubius stares at each other. They had previously been riveted with rapt attention to that point.

That’s about as spoiler free as I can be for now, because I still don’t want to ruin it for people.

The easiest way to not ruin it for people is to tell them not to go see it. I was pretty bored up until the twist, interested by the twist, and then quickly bored again. But you’re right; it is impossible to talk about the film without giving a lot away.

I thought it was a interesting movie up until the twist as well - my GF was trying to cut off all circulation to my hand up until that point, but then she stopped after the stupid twist.

It’s not a terrible movie, but it could have been a lot better. I’ll leave the spoilers to others.

I liked it better than you all. The first 85%–up to the twist–I thought was good. Not great, but good. The acting was good, the tension was kept up pretty well, and there were only a few awful lines (“Did you feel that?” “What?” “Cold.”) The twist itself I thought was terrific. Everything after the twist was awful. If they had wrapped the movie up five minutes after the twist, without feeling the need to throw in three or four twists after it, it would have been a pretty solid film.

I can’t help but wonder if we’re all talking about the same major twist? A couple of the reviews I read of the film prior to watching it suggest that it isn’t as easy to catch as it could have been. The writers of said reviews missed it, forcing them to discuss the film in terms of its overall “plausibility.”

For what it’s worth, I really enjoyed the movie – twists and all. I thought the story was tight and the performances were excellent. Unlike many whodunit flicks, I didn’t walk away fretting over stray loose ends.

-Vede

EDIT: I just read a few more reviews and it seems pretty clear that people are getting the twist – they just aren’t liking it. Oh well.

*** ROAD FLOODED WITH MAJOR SPOILERS! TURN BACK WEST OR BE DOOMED ***

I’m getting a bit tired of movies that are about someone’s mental state and/or condition (there’s been far more of those movies made in the last 5 years than were made in the previous 50)… filmmakers really need to find something else to film. But setting that aside for the moment…

How exactly is the doctor producing the deaths of the identities? They say some mumbo-jumbo about some technique but either I’m blind or they never showed the actual technique, they just REFERRED TO the technique. Given that the whole movie was essentially a RESULT of the technique, why couldn’t they come up with what it was? It could have been at the end in order not to give anything away.

How old was that kid? 8? Yet he kills lots of people, often violently, crams a baseball bat down a guy’s throat… the physical strength necessary for that seems beyond an 8-year-old. I mean, he’s not even a muscle-bound 8-year-old.

Also, its raining the whole time and the kid was obviously in the rain to commit the murders (even the first one) yet unless my memory is hideous (I saw the movie just a few hours ago) he is DRY throughout most of the movie. What… does he have some kind of invisible super-blowdryer he uses?

Where did the kid learn to re-wire the car to explode?

How does the kid travel to Florida from Nevada? He obviously doesn’t have any parents left to take him.

The obvious answer to all of this is that the kid gets mental help from Pops… that Pops is possessing the body of the kid so to speak.

But if that’s the case then Pops knows the kid is special, which should have come out during the interrogation assuming Pops is insane.

All of the other identities never once seem to believe they are the figments of someone’s imagination… they act entirely believably.

Now, lets look at this from another angle. An angle that I believe truly enhances and clarifies the movie.

Pops is abused as a child. The doctor treating him is 100% wrong. Pops is NOT a schizophrenic. He always had and always will have only one personality. That personality is himself as a child.

But he has been abused. And he has seen many a human all of whom he dislikes. And guess who he has seen?

The Prostitute: His Mother (the final death)
Varieties of Cops (two in film, sort of)
The Weak Man: His Father (doting father in film)
The Weak Woman: His Mother (injured woman in film)
The Psychic (per his psychological state)
The Psychic’s husband (I don’t understand that one)
Movie Actress (self-referential to the events?)

The Weak Man/Weak Woman HAD the child. The Psychic/Psychic’s husband did NOT have the child. That may have been the link there. An almost kind of mother for him. Why he chose a Psychic as his “almost mother” is unknown.

The movie is not the doctor’s cure of Pops (which finally failed in the end)… it is the playing out of a fantasy of Pops. He is taking revenge upon the people that he sees an intimate to his pain.

Pops is incredibly irrational obviously… unless there is a lot we don’t know only his mother abused him. Perhaps in order to protect his mother he decides that other people are to blame and must be punished.

So he turns the events of May 10, 1998 which are the results of a kind of triggered rage into an entirely LOGICAL fantasy. He kills everyone who deserves to die, in his estimation.

Now, how about his book, which is the thing that fooled the doctor into believing him to be schizophrenic? How about the words written in different handwriting?

Schizophrenics are people who do not control their identities. They move from one to another, unaware of the moving.

Pops was obviously consumed with these identities, consumed with his need to punish them. He was SO consumed with them that he wrote according to THEIR identities.

But, unlike our doctor thinks, he didn’t BECOME them. He always maintained a seperate identity. Apart from his writing. The child.

His life is frozen in time at his abuse (pretty melodramatic given that his abuse seemed mild)… the murders and the following fantastical re-write OF the murders are his attempt at a cure.

I thought it was a a good thriller type movie overall.

Me too! Who needs all this character introspection jazz? I can already hear Tom Chick and his limp-wristed Andersen humping peanut gallery intonning in a high-pitched nasal whine: “But, given that there are only a very finite number of story ideas that can be combined and recombined into movies, isn’t it incumbent upon a director to make those ideas fresh by casting them through the infinite mental and emotional states inherent in the human psyche?” My response: whatever, fags.

Like Brian Koontz, I wish there were more movies just about stuff, you know, the kinda stuff that happens to regular joes like you and me. Brian and I both agree: more movies should be about the just-plain-stuff that happens to various mindless, motivationless automatons between watching Monday Night Nitro, smashing that last Budweiser can into a crumpled argentine disc with their cromagnon foreheads, working in the company mailroom and belching out our passions into the faces of their cousin-wives. This sort of film will only be less interesting if characters actually have an introspective take on their own lives. Tom Chick et al.: “But even Teutonic puppet shows have characterization!” Me and Brian Koontz: whatever, fags. Welcome to the future of art.

(there’s been far more of those movies made in the last 5 years than were made in the previous 50)…

No, there haven’t. Good to see you back, mein alter-ego.

Jeez, you ever gonna let that go :P

Me too! Who needs all this character introspection jazz? I can already hear Tom Chick and his limp-wristed Andersen humping peanut gallery intonning in a high-pitched nasal whine: “But, given that there are only a very finite number of story ideas that can be combined and recombined into movies, isn’t it incumbent upon a director to make those ideas fresh by casting them through the infinite mental and emotional states inherent in the human psyche?”[/quote]

Riiight… filmmakers are so thorough and impressive that they can actually EXHAUST the non-psychological possibilities of film in a mere 80 years. I bow to your vast insight on this matter… hail to the psychological! The last bastion of freshness in this stale world!

Riiight… filmmakers are so thorough and impressive that they can actually EXHAUST the non-psychological possibilities of film in a mere 80 years. I bow to your vast insight on this matter… hail to the psychological! The last bastion of freshness in this stale world!

I find it entertaining that someone who has represented himself as a “philosopher” has such contempt for the psychological. Terminator 3 will be right up your alley, Brian - its all about the philosophy of time travel and how introspectionless cyborgs and personality-less John Carmack (Koontz-proclaimed creator of MMORPGs) use it to change the past in order to rock the future.

Its not about psychological movies, its about encouraging the understanding that non-psychological movies are not defeated.

Its fine to think “Hey, I have this good idea for a psychological movie. Lets go with it.”

Its not fine to think “Hey, I look around and see a wasteland of non-psychological ideas. As a last resort I will make a psychological film… it is the last bastion of freshness in a stale world”.

Just because there is a tendency in Hollywood to create very stupid non-psychological movies does not mean the genre is exhausted.

Actually, AFTER the twist, lines like that one make sense. Because someone was being transferred and brought out in the rain, and felt cold.

Personally, I really liked the movie. I thought the twist was handled pretty well, although if they could have saved it for the VERY end it would have been better.

I haven’t seen it, but I read up about it due mostly to mild curiosity. For those who’ve seen both this and Adaptation, is it accurate to say that Identity is pretty much The 3? This helps me figure out whether to save it for a rental or at least try a student-priced matinee.

Yes. Except that in this case, it’s The Ten.

Actually, AFTER the twist, lines like that one make sense. Because someone was being transferred and brought out in the rain, and felt cold.
[/quote]

OK, this is the part where one of my personalities - the sane one that is - snaps. WOT GODDAMN TWIST?!?! I see you folks bantering this twist thing back and forth, yet, after seeing this movie, I can’t remember there being anything resembling a specific twist. I just thought it was, well, a bunch of twists. And as Brian (whoa!! 'hes back!!!) said, that whole thing with the kid is just. plain. stupid.

My brain must’ve been frozen stiff during this movie and probably because I’d seen Confidence first. :roll:

SPOILERS BELOW.

What twist? Have you lost your mind? Did you fall asleep during the last half of the movie? In case you did, the twist was this: it turned out that none of those people were real, they were all just figment’s of a killer’s imagination / split personality. Of course, there were extra twists thrown in after the main twist–Ray Liotta’s not a cop, the kid did it all–but I think everyone would agree that the main twist, and the first twist, is that all the people are fake.

Edit: Spoiler warning. Good point.

Uh Spoilers? Anyway…
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

The Ray Liotta’s not a cop thing was pretty obvious - from him slapping Busey around, to the shot of him putting his jacket on in the hotel room with a big hole in the back of of shirt with a big red stain under it. It was pretty obvious to me he wasn’t a cop - the twist to me was that he wasn’t the killer that the psychiatrist was talking to/about at the beginning of the movie.

Oh that twist? That twist occured around the end of the movie. If you look at previous posts, it would seem that people were talking about a specific prior twist. Thats where I got confused.

FWIW, I never once suspected Jake Busey as being the killer. It was just too obvious. But Ray Liotta not being a cop (when they showed the car incident) did surprise me a bit - but not by much, since he’s always playing sleaze bag characters.

Now, if you want to talk about twists, the ending (with the kid showing up in FL), now that was a twist that I was not expecting.

And as previously stated, I have no goddamn idea how they explain this kid having this physical strength to kill those people - except that since he was just another personality, he may have the physical strength of the host character (the killer), which makes sense since multiple personalities don’t alter the host’s physical attributes. Unless of course you dealing with transvestities; in whch case all bets are off I suppose.

As to how come the kid was never wet. Well then, your guess is as good as mine. I think he just projected his thought to whatever he imagined it to be. So, he can just appear anywhere at any time.

I supposed nobody noticed that when Jake escaped, he thought he was getting away - but then he ended up back where he started. This was probably because this whole scenario was playing out within the confines of the killer’s imagination. Hence the storm water logged road blocks etc etc

It was a decent movie I thought, but not quite the calibre of say, Memento, Lantana etc

More spoilers.

It’s definitely no Memento–not even close. Generally good movie, though. I agree that the stuff with the kid (how does he get out of the car? How does he know how to rig a bomb? Where did he get the bomb from? How did he get to FL? etc.) is all easily explained because the whole universe exists in an insane man’s imagination. Anything goes. It also cured my incredible annoyance at John Cusak’s amazing detective abilities (e.g., when he was picking up the shower curtain rings in the parking lot, I was like, “Come ON! Those could be there for any of a million reasons! How does he know they’re a clue?” Same with when he notices the empty knife sheath. But at the end, it turns out he’s a super-detective because that’s the way the crazy killer imagines him to be).