suffered greatly when the producers of that film cast English actors to portray Frenchmen.
c) The cast, including Angelina Jolie, give excellent performances in an ordinary film.
d) Very good overall direction including a great hand-held camera foot-chase through the Old City of Montreal.
e) a couple of scenes that will make you jump in your seat.
f) They also get a lot of the small details right including slipping in a line justifying Mrs. Asher's (Rowlands) being put up in a very ritzy Hotel. One detail they get wrong is the reference to Moncton, which is in the neighboring province of New Brunswick, and definitely not a 3 hour train ride from Montreal.
These are the things I disliked about the movie:
a) The killer (don't want to ruin it for you) has been on a 20 year homicidal rage that has gone unsolved despite the sadistic and ritualistic nature of most of the murders. The killer's choice of victim and aptitude for changing his appearance never adequately explains why this serial murderer didn't come to the attention of the authorities before. The script undermines its own credibility, in this regard, when a complete list of the killer's victims, the accompanying crime scene pictures and modus operandi is quickly produced.
b) Once this serial killer eludes authorities, after killing a police officer, the killer continues to kill, doesn't even bother changing his appearance and a manhunt for him is apparently not even undertaken.
c) Numerous plot holes including, but not limited to, how the killer and his hostage get to the car in the time allotted (an earlier scene establishes there is a rear exit but only Superman could have achieved this feat).
c) While I was prepared to accept Angelina Jolie, as a psychological profiler that gets absorbed in her work, there is nothing else to her character. Its possible that the lack of originality of the character (its been done before - Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs etc.) led the screenwriter to believe further character development wasn't necessary (i.e. we all know the drill). It's more likely just evidence of bad writing.
d) What little we do find out about psychopaths, in general, and the killer in particular, is pretty standard fare and of a limited nature. The combined effect is to give the viewer almost no reason to be interested in the outcome. As written, Costa (Ethan Hawke), is one of the most forgettable and uninteresting serial killers in movie history.
e) Lastly, the movie confuses plot twists with good story telling. There are two main twists. The first, though somewhat obvious, doesn't really play fair. The second twist, while creative, isn't realistic and is blatantly obvious. If you can't see this one coming you've never watched a murder mystery before.
The cons outweigh the pros in this well acted and directed murder mystery that relies totally on dubious plot twists to keep the viewer even mildly interested.
Running time - 103 minutes
Alternative Reviews:
Roger Ebert's Review
Peter Travers / Rolling Stone Review
Rotten Tomatoes Reviews
Taking Lives Official Web Site
Comments by Halo Scan:
1:08:41 AM 
|
