A lot of critics have allegiance to certain directors. I’m still baffled to this day how Roger Ebert gave “Dr. T & The Women” three and a half stars, when I certainly can’t see why anyone would give it more than zero. But to say that I too don’t share the same faithfulness to the many filmmakers whose work I’ve respected over the years would be downright hypocritical. I can safely sit back and say that yes, I do like “Alien 3,” not because David Fincher’s name is attached to it, but because I like what he brought to the movie as a visual stylist. I like the guy. Period. I think that several critics get far too caught up in film politics or being quoted on some poster rather than just focusing on the film itself or the director and what he goes through to make it work. As I’ve stated in previous reviews, I tend to “forgive” more than I should and maybe this is my weakness as a critic. Still, maybe I just walk into a movie with preset expectations, or hell, perhaps I’m just in a good mood that I tend to block out what defects it may have.

A movie like “Murder By Numbers” I probably should tear apart. But I can’t. The fact is, I wasn’t bored, and the film’s pace, although longer than it should be, didn’t feel deadening at all. Simply put, I was entertained. And sometimes that’s all I require to walk out in order to give a film a decent review. I truly DO want more out of movies, for the most part, but every now and then, I am relieved that despite the shortcomings of a script, or the stilted predictability, or even the lack of freshness, I still can’t argue with the fact, that for 120 minutes, I put my criticisms on the backburner and go with it.

And yes, I do have some reservations. But back to what I was referring to earlier, a lot of average filmgoers simply don’t care about who shot “Miller’s Crossing” or even the director’s name. I always find myself laughing to myself when I see a trailer and hear “this film was Directed By Jon Amiel.” The average Joe simply doesn’t care. They pay their eight bucks for a quick diversion, and that’s cool. It’s more than just a job to remember who shot what, or who wrote the script, it’s a passion to know these things. So, after all is said and done, I walked into “Murder By Numbers” with pretty high hopes because Barbet Schroeder directed it and I have a predilection for just about all of his work.

Barbet who? This guy’s done some of my favorite films, from a certain guilty pleasure (“Single White Female”) to a couple of real gems (“Reversal Of Fortune, Barfly”). Heck, I’m one of the few critics who didn’t dislike his flop “Before And After” simply due to some fine acting and some solid directing. The same goes for his latest “Murder By Numbers.” It’s not going to rank up there as one of his finest hours, but because he’s such a confident filmmaker, he’s one of those cool cats who can be given a recipe for toast, and turn into a club sandwich. (Still, his worst is “Desperate Measures” of course which is still fun just to watch Keaton play a psycho).

“Murder by Numbers” is not a great movie, but it somehow takes a by the numbers formulaic script and makes it extremely watchable from frame one. Surprisingly, the casting of Sandra Bullock turns out to be a small blessing. Sorry guys, I’m not the type who bows down before her forced “aren’t-I-so-cute” persona, much like the bloated and overstuffed Barbie-Doll Cameron Diaz. So how refreshing is it to see Bullock play against type, and actually try something unexpected: like actually acting! There’s a rib-tickling scene between her and Ben Chaplin as she tries to coerce him into bed by playing footsie that actually made me laugh out loud. This is something that doesn’t ordinary happen when Bullock is on-screen.

We’re introduced to both Bullock’s portrayal of a homicide detective, Cassie, as well as the two high school killers all during the setup of the story. To give away the identity of the killers is not spoiling anything if you’ve even seen the trailers, but their Nietzsche-inspired murder plot is somewhat intriguing, and despite the fact that it goes where you expect it to, you roll with the punches.

The victim's found lying by a river wrapped in a plastic sheet, eyes staring and bloodshot from strangulation. Nothing-new here. One fingertip hacked off. No clues except a patch of dried vomit. On the one hand, the killing looks unsystematic. On the other, well, Cassie is seeing evidence that it could have been premeditated. Then, when a suspect is quickly identified, then seemingly offs himself, Cassie gets even more suspicious. It’s all just a little too convenient, don’t ya think?

The two aspiring maniacs are the jock Richard Haywood (Ryan Gosling) and introverted book nerd Justin Pendleton (Michael Pitt). Pretending to be sworn enemies at school, they're actually in murderous league. Justin, studies forensic science for fun and brushes up on CSI textbooks, while Richard, a rich-boy who can pick up any chick he wants, meet regularly in a remote house on a cliff. As the film goes on, there’s a bit of a cat-and-mouse game element to it that isn’t as tiresome as one might expect. Cassie’s subplot of a previous murder is muddled, unfocused, and unnecessary. I’m not exactly sure what it was trying to get at by the film’s end, even after some melodramatic speeches. But again, despite the film’s flaws, it remains engaging, even when the puzzle pieces come together and you find yourself squirming or hating the boys for their deeds.

“Murder By Numbers” is certainly unsettling and not always enjoyable to watch, but thanks to its terrific ensemble cast and solid directing from a reliable filmmaker, it’s a strangely distracting good serial killer movie that is heavy on cliché, but rich in entertainment value. Every performance is right on, except the sloppy caricature of Cassie’s boss who is right out of a bad 70s exploitation flick. Bullock, as Cassie, really branches out here, but it’s the two killers that really hold your attention. Both Pitt and Gosling are talents to watch, and they make their characters believable, creepy, and convincing with echoes of Columbine not too far behind.

“Murder By Numbers” won’t shake your foundations, or make you think like “Frailty” or “Changing Lanes,” two much better films, but you’re better off with this then renting something like “Kiss The Girls” or “The Bone Collector.”

GRADE: B-


Recommended:
Yes

Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age