Identity (2003) User Reviews

Like a hit to the head from left field

[the_yellow_brick_road · 8/10 · 23 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.

Who Are You? Who who, Who who

[BrandtSponseller · 8/10 · 17 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.

It's a good film full of suspense , thrills , intrigue and lots of killings

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 21 September 2004]

The movie centers a motley group who are looking for shelter in a deserted motel , being caught up in a severe rainstorm and stuck at the strange place , located in the desolate Nevada. They are strangers from all different walks of life : a limousine driver escorting a tarnished television star, parents with a young son whose marriage is broken , a policeman transporting a dangerous convict, a gorgeous call girl, a pair of young newlyweds, and a nervous motel manager are shut themselves up during a rainy night . But , the hosts have been murdered one by one . Who's the killer ?.

The film is a fascinating whodunit, we have got really intrigued from start to finish . The storyline has a twisted plot and the final has an extraordinary surprise.

The flick is inspired by Agatha Christie's classic novel : ¨Ten little indians¨ that has several cinematic adaptations.

In the movie there is suspense , thriller, noisy action , emotion and a little bit gore when the assassinations happen.

All the cast is nice, but interpretations from Rebecca Mornay and Pruitt Taylor Vince are specially riveting . Alan Silvestri musical score and Papamichael cinematography are atmospheric and adequate. It was shot on a huge sound stage at Sony studios in Culver City . Decent direction by the notable filmmaker James Mangold (Logan, Walk the line , Kate and Leopold, Heavy).

Rating 7/10 , above average

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 moo · 18 April 2004]

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.

This is NOT a horror movie!

[jomipira · 7/10 · 16 September 2003]

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.

Explanation

[WatchinMovies01 · 9/10 · 27 May 2005]

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.

Identity Cleft

[dunmore_ego · 7/10 · 29 July 2005]

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)

Edge of the seat thriller

[gardenwriter · 9/10 · 11 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.

I wanted so much more, this can't be it.

[baumer · 6/10 · 1 May 2003]

Very few times have I been more excited to see a film than I was to see Identity. With the healthy revival of the horror genre in the last few years, film makers have been doing it right more times than I can remember since the early 80's. I think The Ring has set the bar so high for so many films that now writers are trying to do the next great thing to scare the hell out of you. And every film has a shocking twist to it now a days as well. Think back to films like The Sixth Sense, The Usual Suspects, Fight Club and a few others and it seems that everyone is now trying to give us the next great twisted film. Whatever works I guess. The only danger of that mentality is that when you market a film like the way Identity was marketed, you better make sure that your twist pays off and doesn't make the audience feel cheated. I read Roger Ebert's review of The Usual Suspects and one of the reasons why he didn't like the film all too well is because he felt that the twist was so truculent, so brash and so unexpected that he felt cheated. There was no way that he could figure it out and he felt that the creators of the film didn't play fair with it's audience. While I do not agree with that assessment of The Usual Suspects, I do understand what he was complaining about because that is how I felt here. The twist is so unexpected, so convoluted and so unfair that when it did happen, I looked at my wife and said, "What the hell...are you serious?" And from that point on ( and there was still about 15 minutes left in the film), I just couldn't enjoy what I was watching. I just couldn't buy into what they were asking me to accept. Without giving away the film, a good comparison perhaps is to say that if you were told that your two best friends were in a fist fight and you had to stop them from hurting each other, but then found out that it was all spurious expose, would you really fear for their safety or would you watch with a crooked grin on your face?

Identity is a film that is blessed with a plethora of excellent horror film elements. You have ten strangers that all seem to have some sort of connection. It is a dark and stormy night and the small area in Nevada that they are in is going through a torrential storm. It is flooding the roads so that everyone has to take refuge at a dingy looking Batesesque looking motel. The film starts out beautifully with a terrible car accident that may have been triggered by one of the other patrons when she lost some of her luggage on the road which caused the flat tire and this caused the accident. Everyone seems to be meeting by suspiciously conspicuous circumstances. What they all have in common and why they are all here is the million dollar question.

Soon everyone is settled into the rooms but other eerie events just keep popping up all over the place. And then finally someone dies. And in a most heinous of ways. She has her head cut off and placed in a dryer. Pretty gruesome stuff. But what is the significance of everyone being here and why can't they get out? It is almost like they have been brought here by some mystical force and it is keeping them here. Radios don't work, cars won't start, the storm is flooding everything except the motel and to make matters worse, there is a psychotic prisoner chained to the bathroom wall in one of the rooms. Add to the story that they all share the same birthday, some strange names and the you now have one seriously confusing film. And that is where the films stops being suspenceful and confusing and it heads into the absurd.

There are enough red herrings introduced in the film as well to throw you off of the real deal but some of those red herrings would have made a more compelling story than they one that the writer's want us to believe. But what does keep the film flowing is the actors. With a film blessed with a cast that includes Amanda Peet, Ray Liotta and John Cusack, there is never a dull moment. Cusack carries the film and every second he is on screen he makes you listen. He has come such a long way from his days in films like Sixteen Candles and The Sure Thing. I have never seen him better than he is here.

But ultimately what transpires in the last half hour of the film is what put me off. That is not to say that it will put a typical viewer off the film off, it probably won't. I have talked to many people that saw the film and loved it. They liked the twist, they liked the outcome and they liked how it all played out. I can't really tell you why I didn't care for it, but I just didn't. And this is coming from a guy that loved the twist in Fight Club, Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects. Go figure. Maybe I didn't feel cheated in those films the way I felt cheated here.

6.5 out of 10

Maybe the best thing to do is just judge for yourself.

Motel as metaphor for rooms in the mind

[mbrose · 10/10 · 20 September 2003]

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!

HEAR ME OUT on THIS explanation of the ending!

[tarinbansal · 7/10 · 15 May 2021]

Okay so it's a decent edge-of-the-seat mystery thriller with an ending that doesn't really give as big a payoff. There's a simple explanation to the ending that the treatment of Dr. Mallick failed and all the sane personalities got killed in Malcolm Rivers' head leaving him with the one evil identity of Timmy that eventually takes over Malcolm and makes him a pure cold-blooded killer.

But this is NOT the main twist is what I feel. My explanation of the ending goes one layer above this. I say Malcolm Rivers didn't just make up those personalities due to his Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), he MADE UP the MPD too in order to save himself from the execution and get a chance to run away once he's out of police custody via an insanity plea. Why do I think so? Hear me out!

Let's play by the movie's rules for a while. Let's assume his MPD was real. If it was, the Motel story in his mind, despite being fictional to the rest of the world, is very real to Malcolm. Now Malcolm is probably insane in the real world, but he's fully sane in the Motel world. Therefore, everything that he thinks happened at the Motel has to be plausible, something that could really happen in a real world. No sane person would believe that it's plausible for a 9 year old kid to be able to kill people in that motel in those ways. He knifed a few of them, none of whom could tackle a 9 year old? A 9 year old was able to shove half a baseball bat down the throat of a conscious convict? A 9 year old was smart and resourceful enough to plant a bomb in a car, wait for someone to give an idea for him to run away with someone to that car and then fake his own death in the bomb blast in order to kill the rest? Really?!

Now why I believe Malcolm made up his insanity? Look at all the scenes where Pruitt Taylor Vince is narrating the motel story and look at this rapidly moving eyes. Kinda like eye movement during REM sleep of dreaming. Vince, being the brilliant actor that he is, gives incredible eye motion scenes. Now compare those scenes with the last scene where he strangles Dr. Mallick. Even though the strangling of Dr. Mallick and the killing of Paris is supposed to be happening simultaneously, Malcolm's eyes while strangling the doctor are stable and focused. He looks sharply at the doctor and he SMIRKS. His plan worked!

The movie is about a killer who weaves a story of insanity, builds 10 personalities, convinces a psychiatrist of his insanity and eventually uses that to escape.

Phenominal!!

[bloggster · 10/10 · 6 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 :)

A Modern-Day "And Then There Were None?"

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 8 October 2006]

Somewhat of a modern-day "And Then There Were None," as a group of people all meet at a motel, get trapped their in downpour that has blocked roads out of the place......and murders start happening rapidly.

Not everyone dies in this movie, however, and there is a very neat twist at the end. The movie keeps your interest all the way but the bad news is that most of the characters are profane and unlikeable, especially the women in here. The "ladies" are brutal!

John Cusack, as "Ed," has the most interesting role, followed closely by Ray Liotta's "Rhodes." Neither of those two characters had last names in this story.

Was doing so well

[maroispear · 4/10 · 10 July 2022]

Identity has a strong premise. . . Until it unravels on itself. First and second act are brilliant, building tension in an isolated motel. It's dark and gritty and builds tension around its mystery so well. And then it feels like the writers were only focused on trying to trick the audience. The third act is embarrassing. Using an overused trope, and badly misrepresenting an often misrepresented illness, it tries way too hard to be clever, ending up being ridiculously stupid. Hard to get into without spoiling the "twist" but seriously, the "twist" is weak and ruins a great build up. Not to mention they end the film on another "twist", which despite being well set up through hints it still feels predictable from a writing standpoint.

It was so close to being great. . . Just needed a third act which was smart, instead of trying to be smart.

Confusing but mostly satisfying

[vchimpanzee · 29 July 2013]

At the start of the movie, Dr. Malick is evaluating Malcolm Rivers, who is about to be executed for a series of murders, unless Malick can convince those who need to hear that Rivers was insane.

Then a seemingly unrelated series of events take place. And while we don't see Malick or Rivers again for a while, they are somehow connected with these events too. Exactly how I've never quite figured out.

The one common thread is that all the parties involved (except Malick) are driving through rural Nevada in heavy rain that is causing so much flooding everyone will end up at this one motel. A hooker who wants to grow oranges in Florida, the spoiled actress Carolina Suzanne and her driver Ed, the York family, newlyweds Ginny and Lou, and Rhodes, who is transporting prisoner Robert Maine.

Motel clerk Larry calmly checks everyone in, not exactly upset by all the chaos. But there's no working phone, and one of the potential guests seriously needs emergency help. Ed tries, but there's too much flooding to make it to a hospital and even cell phones don't work.

Ed, a former cop, tries to take charge of the situation, though Rhodes seems to think he should be in charge. And then people start dying. And the prisoner escapes. The newlyweds are in Room 6, and the number falls, making it look like a 9. The main clues to the murders are keys found with the bodies, and the keys seem to be showing up in sequence--10, 9, 8, 7 ...

So who will survive? Who is really behind the murders? And how are Malick and Rivers connected to all this?

I found the early scenes fascinating. Everyone was connected to everyone else, and if one event hadn't happened, none of the others would have. Eventually, I was just plain confused because I didn't know what was going on.

And when the murderer was finally revealed, he or she was not really revealed. I felt like I had heard three different possibilities but not been told which one was the right one. Then again, maybe I was told more information than was needed, and some of it was irrelevant. But I can't believe they would go THIS far ...

There were a lot of good acting performances. I genuinely dislike John McGinley, but he played a totally different character here than what I am used to. He seemed compulsive and somewhat mentally ill but genuinely desired to do the right thing.

Gary Busey was scary and almost funny, not too different from some of his other bad guy characters.

Bret Loehr didn't have much to do early as the little boy who had lost one parent and seemed likely to lose two more. But he was quite good later.

John Cusack carried the movie. He showed frustration but also competence. His character wasn't perfect but he wanted to do the best he could and didn't have patience with those who didn't care about others or couldn't handle the situation.

And Rebecca DeMornay did the demanding celebrity routine quite well.

I'm not going to recommend this for family viewing because some of the bodies are hard to look at.

It's mostly a worthy effort.

Psycho meets The Sixth Sense: I Don't See Dead People

[w00f · 6/10 · 27 April 2003]

"Identity" has some solid performances by several fine actors, not the least of which are John Cusack and Ray Liotta. The story and the plot have terrific potential. It could have been a great movie, despite being a somewhat shameless rip-off of a short film made a couple of years ago that manages to tell the exact same story in about 20 minutes (sorry, I don't recall the name of the low-budget, black and white short that appeared as filler between features on the Sundance Channel).

Unfortunately, this movie blows it BIG TIME at the end. I don't want to give it all away, but this is one of those movies that would have been an excellent psychological thriller if the writer and/or director hadn't decided that it needed a big surprise ending. They achieve this ending by suddenly splicing in a bunch of extra scenes at the very end that turn all of the build-up in the rest of the movie into nothing more than a bunch of red herrings. The ending chosen opens up a bunch of huge holes in the story that can only be explained away by a variant of the old "it was all just a dream" cop-out ending. Personally, I hate it when a film makes such a transition in a glaring, rough way that almost takes the viewer by the back of the neck, shakes him violently and screams in his face, "No, look stupid, we fooled you! Now look at all the things we didn't let you see during the rest of the film! Thanks for your $8.00, schmuck." I suppose the film makers HAD to do this, though, since the movie's twist is otherwise given away halfway through the film, at which point the balance of the movie is utterly predictable to anyone who hasn't been watching it with a burlap sap tied over their head. Clearly, desperate moves were called for in order to achieve a blockbuster ending. Did I say blockbuster? Change that to "lackluster."

This film could have raised a very interesting and original question about the nature of personality (and identity -- get it?), but instead, it lets itself be turned into "Psycho" meets "The Sixth Sense." Instead of "I see dead people," it turns into "I don't see dead people."

Big deal. It could've been a good one. Now it's poop.

If it weren't for the strong performances by Cusack and Liotta, I would've given this one a 5/10. I'll give it an extra point for those guys, though.

Not Really Scary, Just Good

[MissCzarChasm · 9/10 · 8 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.

Murder mystery with an outrageous twist

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 4 August 2016]

An intriguing whodunit, a murder mystery, packed with shocks, violence, gore, and death, but oddly respectable thanks to the strong casting, which makes this movie a lot more entertaining than it might have otherwise been. Now, the success of this particular film hinges on a major plot twist towards the end which, however, is largely guessable if you consider the clues and the evidence leading up to it. I'm not sure whether I like this twist or not, but it does make the film different; without it, it would have appeared to be just another run-of-the-mill slasher. With it, it sits oddly on the borderline of being original and being extremely cheesy. I'm content to sit on the fence and say I enjoyed the film on its strengths alone.

Such strengths include a number of effective shocks (sometimes, this film veers close to FINAL DESTINATION territory in the sheer shock value of the death scenes alone), good music, and developed characters. The casting is excellent, with the dependable John Cusack putting in a typically strong performance and Ray Liotta stealing all his scenes as an aggressive, intense cop (no surprises there). Other familiar faces show up – Alfred Molina, Rebecca De Mornay – to add strength to the show. For the most part this is entertaining murder-mystery stuff, moving from one strong and violent moment to the next; the twist somehow makes it all seem silly, but I'd say its worth a look anyway.

Unpredictable,exciting,full of mystery and horror psychological thriller

[alexandros85sof · 10/10 · 23 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.

Cool film, awful ending

[jnsftsdj · 6/10 · 19 January 2021]

The ending killed the cool atmosphere the film made

Excellent and Intriguing Even When You Watch It For the Second Time

[claudio_carvalho · 9/10 · 21 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')

Entertaining pulp

[petra_ste · 7/10 · 8 March 2014]

Perhaps the most scathing criticism against Identity is how it bears an uncanny resemblance to Nicolas Cage's bogus, deliberately silly script The Three in Spike Jonze's Adaptation. Contrived high-concept aside, this thriller is a good example of cinematic guilty pleasure.

Identity features tight performances by a strong cast (Cusack and Liotta are always reliable, but watch out for John Hawkes' stellar turn as a sleazy motel owner) and an enjoyable variation of the classic "And then there were none" formula for contained thrillers. Mangold is a fine visual director; both set pieces and quieter character moments are lean and intelligently crafted.

7/10

Identity brings a new meaning to the term "A Psychological thriller"

[roblop · 10/10 · 18 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.

With a World of Better Direction, This Could Have Been a Lot Better

[jzappa · 7/10 · 28 October 2008]

Identity has the wild unpredictability of the essential horror film, set at a timeworn motel in the middle of nowhere. The only guests have only stopped there because of the same freak accident. Alas, it falls through every cliché trapdoor on the blueprint, entirely preventable ones, too, ones that won't open unless you consciously open them, and its wild unpredictability is relegated to merely an offshoot of its absurdity. We still have fun, and, yes, it is still eerie sometimes, but it too much wants to be our friend. It has a star-studded cast of actors we love, the way it gets to its mindblow twist is through a ridiculous and completely avoidable contrivance in dialogue and moreover, the score is too often superfluous, signaling what we are supposed to feel, and as a consequence we don't have to feel it if we don't want to. The film would have been much more effective, far-fetched points and all, if the tension were allowed to grow genuinely rather than be explained by the underscoring.

It has been too long since we've seen the unbelievably sexy Rebecca DeMornay in a mainstream film. Had her performance in The Hand That Rocks the Cradle not been a wake- up call for filmmakers, the very kind that like to makes movies like this? Ray Liotta can by now play this kind of role in his sleep. Alfred Molina is hardly a part of the action and does not get to have the kind of fun as he does with so many other roles, but that is no matter for us simply to joy in seeing him. There is also the character actor John C. McGinley in a high- strung dramatic role, having never before been boring anyway. So this seemingly ambitious psychological thriller has star power which results in our immediate enjoyment instead of our deep involvement.

Yes, we are truly wondering how this and that could possibly happen, or who could possibly be responsible, and if so, how? Its script is one step away from being ludicrous with cheap pseudo-impressive buy-offs, but depending on the audience, one could either take the bait and be wowed or laugh out loud at its final unraveling, which is what I did. Basically, you can see that the certitude lies in the hands of a skillful enough director, and, with a world of better direction than James Mangold's, this could have been a lot better.

Two good films spliced together to make a bad one

[JamesHitchcock · 5/10 · 23 January 2008]

The twist- a sudden, unexpected development- is a common plot device in the modern cinema, especially in thrillers. Unfortunately for scriptwriters, most of the classic twists have been so over-used that they no longer come as a surprise to the audience. It no longer seems original to reveal that, for example, the hero's girl or best friend is really in league with the villains, or that a police officer investigating a crime is in fact responsible for committing it, or that a character believed to be dead is still very much alive.

Of course, the fact that a particular twist is so hackneyed as to have become a cliché does not prevent film-makers from continuing to rely upon it- "Reindeer Games" and "Along Came a Spider" are two examples of modern thrillers likely to leave audiences with a "seen it all before" feeling. The challenge to the really inventive scriptwriter is now to come up with as novel or outlandish a twist as possible. "Identity" is a good example.

The setting of the film is an isolated Nevada motel. (Motels, in the cinema, have always seemed sinister places ever since Hitchcock's "Psycho", set in the neighbouring state of Arizona). A sudden and violent rainstorm brings together ten strangers; the motel manager, a spoilt, arrogant movie star and her chauffeur (who turns out to be an ex-policeman), another policeman and the convict he is escorting, a prostitute, and two married couples, one of them with a young son. The mother of this boy has been injured after being struck by the film star's limousine.

One by one the members of this group start to die violent deaths. One of them must be a killer; the question is "Which one?" The film seems to be a traditional thriller along the lines of Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None", challenging the audience to work out who is the murderer. We can, for example, rule out Caroline the film star (first to die), or the convict (too obvious), or his police escort. (His violent, aggressive personality also makes him a too-obvious suspect, and in any case "the policeman did it" was a plot line famously used by Christie in another of her murder mysteries).

Intercut with the scenes set in the motel, however, are scenes set in a courtroom. The judge, prosecution and defence lawyers and a psychiatrist are discussing the case of a convicted murderer named Malcolm Rivers, who has been condemned to death. The psychiatrist claims to have new evidence about Rivers' mental state which could save his life. Rivers, however, is not one of the group at the motel, and cannot possibly be responsible for the killings there.

Then comes the twist, which shows what the connection is between the two seemingly unconnected plot lines. It is revealed that none of the events at the motel have ever taken place. The characters gathered there do not exist outside Rivers' mind. He suffers from multiple personality disorder, and each of the characters at the motel represents one of his many separate personalities. The supposed "killings" represent a struggle between these personalities for dominance. His psychiatrist believes that at the end only one of his personalities will survive- the personality responsible for the real-life murders committed by Rivers.

This is certainly an original twist. The trouble is that as soon as the truth is revealed it renders everything that has gone before essentially meaningless. It becomes difficult for us to care about the people in the motel, or to concern ourselves about which one of them is killing the others, once we realise that they are no more than the fantasies of a madman's sick mind. This is a pity, because the motel part of the film is actually quite well done- highly atmospheric with some good acting contributions, especially from John Cusack as Edward the chauffeur and Ray Liotta as the policeman escorting the convict.

"Identity" contains within it two potentially good films, one a murder mystery, the other a courtroom drama about the battle to save a mentally ill killer from the death penalty on the grounds of insanity. Unfortunately, these two good films have been incongruously spliced together to produce a bad one. 5/10