Identity 2003: Like A Hit To The Head From Left Field

Identity 2003
Like a hit to the head from left field

the_yellow_brick_road23 January 2007
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.
137 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Edge of the seat thriller
gardenwriter11 November 2004
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.

Permalink
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 moo18 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Permalink
8/10
Who Are You? Who who, Who who
BrandtSponseller17 March 2005
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.
Permalink
10/10
Phenominal!!
bloggster6 April 2004
To be honest I didnt want to watch this movie but it was my wifes turn to choose
so I had no choice. After 20 minuites into the movie I was so glad it wasnt my turn
to choose. This movie was absolutely fantastic. The Premise as you will read here
on IMDB or on the back of the dvd in the shop/rental store seemed very lame to
me but I was so wrong.
It starts off as a classic "Whodunnit" movie but then flips and twists on its head so
many times your left astounded. I cannot imagine anyone who would not enjoy this
movie, It keeps you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end and I loved
every minuite of it. Throw in an all star cast (Cusack and Liotta are fantastic here)
And you have one Hell of a movie.
10/10
You Have to watch this, Trust Me :)

Permalink
10/10
Unpredictable,exciting,full of mystery and horror psychological thriller
alexandros85sof23 February 2005
For a start,i would like to say that this film is worth seeing.It is one of the best
psychological thrillers that exist so i highly recommend to those who like this kind
of movies.The plot was very nice,the twist also and the cast
outstanding.Cusack,Liotta,Peet and Hawkes did their best and the result was
excellent.I liked a lot the flashbacks that were made -mostly in the beginning.
Furthermore,the idea of the whole film was terrific.On the other hand,speaking
frankly there was an excessive gore and emphasis on the murders that didn't
impress me;a big part of the movie was "dedicated" to murders.Another thing that i
didn't like was the continuous rain that made me feel tired,seeing again again the
storm. Moreover,what i liked most-contrary to many people- was the end of the
movie.It was unpredictable and,besides that,it is one of the few thrillers that you
cannot find out the end easily.It was very interesting and made me sit tight on my
couch .If you don't pay attention for a while you will "get lost". I should not forget
to refer to the hot presence of Peer that embellished the movie apart from her
casting abilities. Lastly,you should make sure that you will be 100% concentrated
on the film in order to understand what is happening cause i regard it as one of the
most difficult movies to understand.It is certain that this film will dominate you
with mystery and in parallel make you think a lot of things that will be predicted
wrong in the end. I would give 9 -at least- out of 10 to Identity.
Permalink
10/10
Identity brings a new meaning to the term "A Psychological thriller"
roblop18 August 2003
Let me tell you that I will give away nothing about the plot in this review and no
spoilers will be included.
The movie is really a multi genre film. Thriller, Suspense, Horror but I would
definately put it more into the mystery category.
The story is hard enough to explain but trust me see the movie and you will not
regret it.
The acting is perfect, each character is played extremely well by their respective
actors, Ray Liotta, John Cusack, Amanda Peet and many others really do make this
a top notch movie and one that will keep you guessing right till the final credits.
I must also state that this movie involves one of the biggest twists that I have ever
seen in a movie since the sixth sense or even the others. The twist is unforgettable
and is enough of a reason to go out and see this amazingly written and directed
edge-of-your-seat-thriller.
Let me finish by saying that I gave this movie a perfect 10, you cant beat it and for
a genuine shock and thrill see this one because I know that you will enjoy it.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent and Intriguing Even When You Watch It For the Second Time
claudio_carvalho21 August 2004
Today I have watched "Identity" for the second time in less than two months, now
on DVD. Again, I found it an excellent and intriguing film. There are two versions
in the DVD, and I selected the one with scenes that were cut in the final edition
(the other option was the theatrical version). Now I paid more attention on the
details of the plot, trying to identify flaws in the screenplay, but the story is very
tight. There are many extras in the DVD, including deleted scenes, making of,
filmography, comments etc. It is amazing the filmography of John Cusack,
composed mainly of good movies. I keep my initial vote (nine).
Title (Brazil): `Identidade' (`Identity')

Permalink
10/10
Motel as metaphor for rooms in the mind
mbrose20 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER - Now knowing the ending I find it so clever that the whole movie takes
place in a motel and each character has a different room. Even sane people have
many different aspects to their personality, but they don't let them become
dominant -- they are controlled. Malcolm's various personalities and needs were
personified in each character. The prostitute mother (Amanda Peet), the part of him
who hated her for being a prostitute (Larry), the loving mother he wish he had, the
loving father he wish he had, the selfish part of himself (actress), the violent part of
his personality (Ray Liotta and Busey), the irrational emotions he feels and his
need to be loved (Ginnie) and his attempts to control those feelings (Lou), the hurt
little boy who sees far too many traumatic things in his life, and of course, John
Cusack who seems to represent Malcolm himself trying to analyze and understand
all the craziness in his mind, tries to follow the rules (accepting responsibility for
the car accident), help others (giving Amanda Peet a ride, and stitching up the
mother). Very cleverly done!
Permalink
10/10
One of the best thrillers with a different ending
srakesh30 July 2004
Story genre: a thriller which borders on the lines of a horror movie
Storyline: 10 different ppl get stuck in a motel room on a stormy night.. they start
getting killed one by one and the blame keeps shifting from one alive person to
another
Cast: John Cusack rocks in his role - very well supported by the rest of the cast
+s : the suspense is maintained well, individual performances excellent background

music
-s : the ending might not be appreciated by some folks

Permalink
8/10
Very good
preppy-326 April 2003
On a dark and stormy night 11 strangers have to take refuge in an isolated motel
when a rainstorm turns into a monsoon. One by one they begin to be killed...but by
who and for what reason?
The set-up is neat (if predictable) and there's a great opening showing how the
actions of one of them (Amanda Peet) inadvertantly causes some serious damage
for the others. There also is some great acting by Peet, John C. McGinley and Ray
Liotta (who REALLY chews the scenery). There are also some moments that will
make you jump and there are two neat twists at the end.
The only bad things about this movie is some clumsy exposition (John Cusack tells
his whole life story while photographing a corpse), some truly bad lines and a
surprisingly lousy performance by Cusack. What's happened to him? He looks
worn-out and haggard in this film.
However, these are minor problems and the film is well worth seeing and keeps
you guessing about what's going on till the last moment. Worth catching.
WARNING: This film is NOT for children!

Permalink
10/10
Great thrilling horror movie!
Movie Nuttball18 September 2003
Identity is a very thrilling and spooky film! The all star cast performed very well
especially Ray Liotta, John C. McGinley, Amanda Peet, Jake Busey, Pruitt Taylor
Vince, and John Cusak! The music by Alan Silvestri was good. The film is a little
hard to understand so it not predictable! If you want to watch a horror, a mystery, a
action, and a murder film then see Identity today because it has all of that in it!
Permalink
10/10
stupendous spine-chilling mystery with brilliant plot and twists
avisecjena13 June 2010
Seeing the plot and reviews at IMDb,i decided to see this movie . It is one of the
best mystery movies which keeps you at the edge of your seat until the last
moment when you are baffled . If you are a suspense movie lover , you cannot
miss this one . It is one of the best well written plot and the characters though not
that famous (apart from John Cusack) still they glue well with this plot. ------
"When I was going up the stairs ,
I met a man who was not there,

He was not there again today,
I wish I wish he would go away "-----
The film begins with this line and as the film gets over you can understand its
intrinsic meaning.The performances are great and the direction and screenplay are
above normal standards.Many events are first shown and then why they occurred
are shown.I liked scream series , jack the ripper(Michael Claine TV film),sixth
sense and some others but this one is in that league also.You will surely earn your
DVD price seeing this movie.It was not that big a hit and i wonder why , may be
because of absence of big stars ,whatsoever i am quite a big fan of this movie.
Permalink
7/10
This is NOT a horror movie!
jomipira16 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Identity is not a horror flick. This is a mix of several genres, from thriller, to
mystery, a who'dunnit with gore. But still a very surprising movie. Normally I
don't respond well to movies who lie to the audience, who show a whole story and
suddenly, in the end, without warning just say "oh well, after all it was nothing like
that at all, the guy was just asleep!". Hitchcock once said you should never lie to an
audience, you should never show something that isn't true. It's one thing to tell a lie
in a movie, the other is to show it to the audience as if it was the real thing. It's the
easiest trick in the book, of course you'll be surprised, anybody will. To understand
it better see the difference between "The Usual Suspects" and "Seven". The first
shows a story that wasn't there and in the end pulls a rabbit out of the hat(easy!).
The other builds up to an explosive and unexpected finale without any cheap shots,
it just carries you through. With Identity the movie suddenly pulls a fast one on
you and leaves you wondering... But Mangold doesn't gives the twist at the very
end, and keeps a tense film until the last frame. It's a worth see, inventive film and
with a great cast to back it up.
Permalink
7/10
Identity Cleft
dunmore_ego29 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
More than a murder mystery. More than a psychological thriller. More than a
horror movie.
With most viewers being either misled by the similarities to Agatha Christie's "Ten
Little Indians", or just pompously broadcasting their knowledge that this movie
was inspired by such, they seem to have missed the point that this was not a
"murder mystery" per se, but rather, a finely-crafted journey through the mind of a
multiple personality during the course of purging his violent personas.
I believe that premise (and its attendant "twists") were a TEENSY bit much for
audiences to comprehend. Even taking into account the fact that film-makers
construct films of this ilk to the whims of "test-audiences" and "focus groups",
(read as lowest common denominators, i.e. swineherders), this particular case still
elicits misunderstanding, even WITH the kindergarten paint-by-numbers
explanation in the final minutes.
It seemed to be a Patrick-Duffy-shower-scene cop-out, but director James Mangold

and writer Michael Cooney, were using sleight-of-hand to misdirect viewers
through most of the film.
I envision those loose-lipped test-audiences (comprised of societal castes who have

nothing better to do with their Tuesday afternoons) believing that the movie was
taking place in real time, only to be chagrined when it is revealed that most of the
action was occurring in a psychopath's disturbed mind. Instead of appreciating
WHY this filmic device was used, they immediately wished they'd spent their
Tuesday afternoon downing that Haagen-Daaz tub and watching McMillan & Wife
explain every last G-rated detail to them like they were the last retards on earth.
Ten guests are flood-stranded at a Motel: among them, Rebecca deMornay, almost
unrecognizable with her ample boob-job and burgundy hair, playing a character
whom she is assuming the mantle of with each passing botox-ed day - a woman
who "used to be that actress"; Amanda Peet, whose stage direction was kept simple
- "Back that booty up some more, honey!"; John C. McGinley playing against type
as an uber-dweeb, Jake Busey playing *exactly* his type uber-psycho; Ray
Liotta always darkly mysterious One by one, these refugee guests start dying
all Agatha-Christie-like.
Intercut with this storyline is a somber eleventh-hour appeal by doctors and
lawyers to an ill-tempered judge to stay an execution. We are intrigued as to how
these two disparate tales are related, but we DO sense a connection in due course,
because the dry, somber doctors are talking about a "killer" and in that wet parallel
Motel story there're KILLIN'S GALORE.
By the end of the second act (after the film's most neck-hair-raising moment, when
all the corpses at the Motel are found to be missing), it is revealed that the Motel
scenes have been taking place within a psychopath's mind, and that each Motel
character was merely one of the multiple personalities of the psychopath.
That's Twist No.1 that all this rain-drenched piling in and out of rooms like the
Spanish Inquisition with shocked pusses is merely a psychopath's
IMAGINATION.
For a few moments we are led to believe the Shyamalan trap has been sprung but
there's a trump card through Grand Misdirection on the film-maker's part, the
doctors believe they successfully purge the psychopath's mind of his "killer"
persona, but it is revealed in the last few seconds of film that the psychopath was
too adroit in concealing his *real* "killer" persona in the form of the least likely
hotel guest.
THAT was the true "twist" to the movie: discovering that the doctors' cure did not
go deep enough; discovering that the psychopath was able to disguise his persona
as a benign presence in full view of both the viewers and doctors.
The movie could have opted to wrap neatly with the first Twist, or could have
taken any number of juvenile turns, blaming spirits from an Indian Burial Ground,
or any of the lesser characters (who all sported damaging secrets), but the writers
led us on a merrier, more interesting goose chase.
Thus, this deponent sayeth: Bravo to the road less traveled.
On the other hand, my "feminine personality" thought the movie brutalized women
too overtly and my "killer psychopath" personality is going to make the film-
makers pay for giving away my secrets...
(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)

Permalink
9/10
Not Really Scary, Just Good
MissCzarChasm8 June 2003
A+
Every so often I like to go into films knowing very little about them. It's gratifying
not hearing any news stories, or Internet rumors, or early reviews before you see a
film because you can genuinely feel surprised by every passing minute of it. In the
case of Identity, I only saw a trailer for it once in theatres and I saw various TV
spots before its release, but other than that I knew nothing about the core of the
story. I went in with no preconceived notions or opinions. For a change I was being
a submissive film viewer.
After the credits rolled (by the way I rarely stay until the end of the credits) I was
so amazed and surprised by the film that I had just experienced. Identity is a highly
original, beautifully constructed, and a mildly scary film that will (excuse my
language) do a serious mind f*** on your brain.
The less you know about Identity's plot, the better. This is the kind of film you
need to go into knowing very little about. There are a few twists, plenty of scares,
and also a very surprising ending that will have some people disappointed, or
praising its creativity. I'm definitely in the latter on this one.
Identity is also a masterpiece of atmosphere. Something that I think is the most

important aspect of any movie in this genre. Whether it's Halloween, setting the
scene for small town horror, or The Ring, drenching us in very dark and Gothic
scenery, atmosphere is what makes or breaks a horror film. Thankfully Identity
succeeds by creating an atmosphere that is truly frightening and visually
impressive. The motel is a perfect setting for the proceedings that take place
throughout the night.
A nice ensemble cast rounds out Identity's many incredible attributes. John Cusack
gives a very good performance as Ed. Cusack has always been good at playing the
'everyday normal guy' and he uses this to great effect here. It's a layered
performance that offers some surprises throughout the picture.
The other high profile performer is the always-reliable Ray Liotta as Rhodes.
Liotta never seems to disappoint whenever he's performing, even in sub-par
material. He's just as good as he usually is in this picture and he uses his
sometimes-abrasive personality to its utmost potential.
Amanda Peet gives her best performance to date as Paris. She has some nice
moments where she's allowed sprinkle some comic relief throughout an otherwise
dreary picture. However, when she's required to exhibit real fear, she is more than
capable. She also shares some good scenes with Cusack during a few key moments
in the film.
Clea Duvall and William Lee Scott supply some youth and tenacity as Ginny and
Lou. Duvall probably has the role typically called the 'scream queen role' in most
horror films and she does well with what she's given. There were times that I could
genuinely feel her fear. Scott is given less to do as Lou but he does have some
good scenes with Duvall that requires a decent amount of emotion.
John Hawkes and John C. McGinley are also adequate in supporting roles. Hawkes
is given a fair share of the comedic lines and for the most part he plays the part
well. McGinley fairs better as the husband who must tend for his injured wife and
social inadequate stepson. If I felt sympathy for anyone the most, it was his
character.
Rebecca Demornay is given very little to do as the failed movie actress but there
are some funny jokes made at her expense as one character asks her 'didn't you
used to be that actress?' This is some clever commentary on Demornay's obviously
fledgling career. The same can be said for Jake Busey as the convict, who is given
little to do and seems out of place when paired with the more talented actors in the
picture.
What's important is the work these actors do when they're all together. This is very
much an ensemble and they play off each other's fear. Their reactions to these
situations make the picture all the more frightening.
On the other end of the story, Alfred Molina brings a bit of substance to his role,
despite have limited screen time as the psychiatrist and Pruitt Taylor Vance will
shock, amaze, and terrify you as the murderer waiting for his execution. Vance's
portrayal is very frightening, and an ultimately brilliant performance. Given the
limited screen time he does a lot with the role.
Identity is filled with secrets, surprises, and scares that will have moviegoers
talking for quite some time. Much like The Ring it has the potential to have some
word of mouth appeal. However, don't listen too much to what people have to say
about it because it's best to experience this modern masterpiece of fear, knowing
very little about it. I guarantee you will be surprised.
Permalink
10 Conversations about One Thing
tedg30 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers herein.
About half of all films today are of the type that directly tinker with the narrative in
some way. Usually the game is intended to play with the role of the viewer,
tricking him into being a cocreator of the story. Sometimes it is simpler, where the
writer takes the viewer aside to have a conversation ABOUT the story while the
story is underway.
That latter is what we are meant to think is going on at the start of this project.
There's a 'Scream' -like stance, flavored with the time-hopping multiple threads
from similarly-motivated Tarantino-inspired efforts. But then we shift into more of
a challenge: this is a mystery, it seems. 'Ten Little Indians' is cited (though the
original title would have had more edge) by one of the characters as we shift into a
struggle with the writer over who creates the future. It is as if our relationship with
the writer changed from comfortable confidant to adversary, a clever, clever
writing trick.
But no, we do not stop there. We now have two dynamic situations, the action on
screen and the newly insecure relationship with the writer. Another shift! This time
we move into what I think is a genre that has only appeared only in the last couple
years. That's where we see multiple actors, but they are all playing the same
character. Happened first for me in 'Thing You Can Tell By Just Looking At Her,'
there cloaked in a magical realism. Most recently it happened in '13 Conversations
about One Thing.' In both cases the unified character was a woman.
Here it is a man, but the backbone of this film is Clea DuVall, though the apparent
narrator is Cusack. Cusack already has made a specialty of these sorts of self-
referential folding where he is the narrator but not really. DuVall was the central
character in '13 Conversations,' and she plays precisely the same persona and
narrative anchor here.
All this is important if you want to understand the trick at the end. Which character
is the murderer? Nope, not the kid: Ginny.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.

Permalink
8/10
Nice psychological thriller...
nuno-vilaca13 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
well, this was a great surprise for me since only yesterday i heard about this
movie... i saw it today and i am delighted!!! it's really my kind of thriller!!! i am a
passionate by psychological thrillers and i think that this won't disappoint the genre
fans!!! all of the main story characters are very well developed and anyone can be
the assassin, although some are easily excluded from that role... there is also a low
developed (because it is supposed to be like that to leave us disoriented) secondary
story going on on a particular court session... the killings are very well conceived
and the random accidental deaths make us think on souls, spirits and so on, so you
only can tell who the murderer is as well as understand what is all the plot about in
the last film's minutes... so, no suspense is lacking although i cannot say it's some
great suspense feeling on your head, but still is quite entertaining!!! goes with a 7.5
turned into 8...
Permalink
8/10
A puzzle of personalities that lead to the true one.
BattlesA5 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
A very well played out movie about a killer with Disociative Identity Disorder.
Malcom Rivers remembers his mother as a whore and that he was abandoned at the
age of nine and found in a motel. The movie takes that background and sets the
scene in the very same atmosphere that Malcom was traumatized in. The movie
begins to introduce the differing personalities that were involved in Malcolm's life
as a child. The Stepfather who followed the letter of the law almost obsessively
compulsive and even recited them. But because his mother was a whore the
stepfather only represented the men that he met and tried to be nice to him but
never really getting involved. The little boy Timothy who represents the silent
killer as his silence denoted that he was only seen and never heard thus
representing his abandonment. The actress who was only concerned with herself
and basically is a not so nice person, The Driver who is a helper and one who is
concerned for people. Other personalities were represented by the Boy and girl
named Lou and Jenny who were married young. Lou had a temper and was known
for infidelity and jenny who was vindictive and made Lou marry her. Officer Rose
and the prisoner who both turned out to be escaped convicts however officer rose
turned out to be the "more evil" of the two where as the other was a narcissistic
know it all. Finally the whore, who stole mens wallets and tried to get out of her
life and into a new one. Each character represented fragmentations of personalities
that were created inside of Malcolm and Timmy was the personality that killed
each one off as retribution to his mother and the atrocities that he encountered at
the age of nine. I wish I had more room to write as I can talk about the
psychological relations that were represented in each character of the movie all
day. Timmy's last words "whores don't get a second chance" no doubt referred to
his hatred of his mother...and his real life killings represented personalities that he
saw in his mother and so deemed necessary to dispose of them. In my opinion the 6
killings left 4 people alive which represented the four different personalities of
Malcolm but the strongest personality represented by Timmy killed the rest off
leaving Malcolm hopelessly controlled by his rage and judgement of the traumas
that afflicted him.
Permalink
10/10
Chiller thriller (spoilers)
hexa-28 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This is the sort of good movie that used to be made in the 30's and 40's. In those
days black and white, but this modern style in colour adds to the horror effect. John
Cusack as Ed gives his usual completely professional performance. I don't think
this bloke has ever made a bad movie. Like "Mulholland Drive" I didn't have a
clue what it was all about when I walked out of the theatre. I'm just staring to work
it out now, two days later. ("Mulholland Drive" I've still got to work out) This is
21st century cinema noir! Don't miss it!
Permalink
10/10
A real shocker..
Starlights19874 May 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Wow. Boy, I was not expecting that ending. But before I talk about the ending, the
plot is another wow. Its confusing, and wonderful all at the same time. Its creepy
and thrilling and keeps you jumping all through the movie. My kinda movie.
Holy crap. I'll say it again: I was not expecting that ending. Some parts leading to
the ending were confusing, but later made sense, example: Ray Liotta's shirt. Why
was there a hole and a huge blood stain on the back of his shirt? I bet that was what
everyone was wondering when he took off his coat. In the end it all made sense,
and man what a great reason. A stroke of pure genius who ever thought of this plot.
You actually think it is him the whole time, but is it? NO! A 6 year old! I didn't see
that coming. Leaving the keys behind was genius too, counting
down..10...9...8...7...6... Too creepy..
The plot was pure genius, the actors were fabulous and not one out of place, the
ending was amazing, and it will really get inside your head..
8.5/10 Like movies where people are getting picked off one by one? And there is a
reason? See this movie...
Permalink
1/10
Twists for the sake of twists are wearing thin.
timtindy28 April 2003
"Identity" is yet another movie that thinks a "SHOCKING TWIST" is better than a
good narrative. I have had it up to here with movies that continue to play the ol'
"pull the rug out from under the audience" trick when the ONLY purpose behind it
is for the sake of the twist/shock itself.
"Identity" actually is quite good for about an hour. At one point, one of the
characters even makes reference to "movies that gather strangers together and kill
them off one by one only to find out later that there was some connection between
them." Well, I WISH this movie would have gone with the formula instead of
trying to outthink itself. The result is a major backfire and one of the worst final 20
minutes in film history. What genuine suspense there was for the first hour of the
film completely vanished in the final 20 minutes.
I find myself constantly saying, "It's too bad the movie stunk because I really like
John Cusack." Well guess what? I am tired of saying that and now feel compelled
to say that Cusack the actor -- while talented -- is a terrible judge of what is a good
movie and what isn't. How many bad movies is this recently for him?
Pretentious critics will embrace this stylish "exercise," but more intelligent and
sophisticated film audiences will not be taken in by a movie that clearly had no
idea what to do in the final act, other than to be different for the sake of being
different.
Movies with great twists -- The Sting, The Usual Suspects, The Sixth Sense -- all
had great screenplays that never cheated the audience and held up under scrutiny
later. They also turned very very good screenplays into great screenplays. But
movies that resort to twists just for the sake of them are doing their audience and
themselves a great disservice. We and they (in some cases) deserve a lot better.
Permalink
5/10
Another journey to a serial killer's mind... A mindless popcorn flick
CihanVercan24 January 2009
Each Friday night of my teenagehood years passed with watching Horror classics.
When the mysterious killer reveals out to be a child of my age or even younger,
that had always gotten me into an excitement. Watching "Nightmare on Elm
Street" was a proof of mine, saying "-Look, I'm totally grown up, now. I don't
afraid of Freddy any more. Huh huh!" , to mum.
Time's changed. Horror genre is strengthened by mindless mysteries and

sentimentalism. This new type of horror can't make viewers laugh or have fun any
more. If not getting any fun from a horror, why watching it? The plot is solely
good for mystery; yet the director chose to make a horror/teen slasher, which
happened to be a fallacious deduction. Directing and editing is totally awful.
"Identity" is talented director James Mangold's worst movie. From 1995 to 2005,
his first decade of industrial movie making experience had caught everybody's
attention. The present time is 2009. His latest works "Walk The Line" and "3:10 to
Yuma" scored success both on box-office and on film critics. I wish we won't see
any disappointment from him any more.
Reminiscent of Agatha Christie's "And There Were None"(1945), Hitchcock's

Psycho and Kubrick's idea of mystery at Indian cemetery; there is no such thing as
an original idea. The opening scene sparks off a traffic accident profits from each
character's view of the accident. No one was guilty. Followed by coincidences 8
adult, 1 child and the runner of the motel got stuck in a deluge. The story telling
was as good as 2004's best motion picture winner "Crash". Differently, they never
tried to break free from their situation. Instead, they make each other fall into a
calamity. After two more coincidences, we learned as a third coincidence that
everyone shares the same birthday. 10 people, all of them, have born on the 10th of
May. Then Amanda Peet tried to save the situation: "This place used to be an
Indian cemetery".
Even before the first half of the movie, it happened to become a comedy by a chain
of disasters and coincidences. Thanks to Alan Silvestri, who has composed a good
music score. Watching for the reason to learn what's going to happen at the end,
has been the key factor that made viewers think this is better than an average
movie. Quite frankly, it is not. Film editing is dreadful.
1 out of 10 for editing. 8 out of 10 for acting. When you come to the end, you'll
realize that it's not the movie you're watching any more. It's so easy that when a
director puts all the different puzzles and mysteries altogether mixing them with
some sentimentalism, and when at the end his leading actor says:
"Sorry, I am a paranoiac. I was only dreaming. Nothing really happened.

Everything was just a dream."
Permalink
1/10
intelligent flick - if you are easily impressed
cgdesign15 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This movie had such potential, but just became a farce about 30 mins before the
end...bit of a spoiler, but no details at all.
The trailers were great, I HAD to see this flick, wasnt expecting too much, and
didnt get it in the end.
Cusack and Liotta, brilliant, in fairness they really were great. You see, the thing
about this movie was that it is so jumpy and nervey, trying to guess all the
time...terrifically atmospheric and creepy, I was certain this was going to be the
movie of the year for me...until about 30 mins from the end, revealed to us is
something (cant tell as it is a spoiler) but just then for myself, turned everything
that had me spooked for the first part, was now laughable...really laughable,
because it was telling us that what we had just seen did not matter at all in the first
part,thus removing any fear or interest.
Dreadful, the ending of this ruined what good had been achieved with the first part.

Identity 2003: Like A Hit To The Head From Left Field

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identity 2003: Like A Hit To The Head From Left Field

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identity 2003

Like a hit to the head from left field

And an impressive film.

Director James Mangold effectively employs a number of interesting techniques

You Have to watch this, Trust Me :)

Title (Brazil): `Identidade' (`Identity')

+s : the suspense is maintained well, individual performances excellent background

-s : the ending might not be appreciated by some folks

WARNING: This film is NOT for children!

I met a man who was not there,

I wish I wish he would go away "-----

It seemed to be a Patrick-Duffy-shower-scene cop-out, but director James Mangold

I envision those loose-lipped test-audiences (comprised of societal castes who have

Thus, this deponent sayeth: Bravo to the road less traveled.

(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)

Identity is also a masterpiece of atmosphere. Something that I think is the most

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.

Time's changed. Horror genre is strengthened by mindless mysteries and

Reminiscent of Agatha Christie's "And There Were None"(1945), Hitchcock's

"Sorry, I am a paranoiac. I was only dreaming. Nothing really happened.

You might also like