Identity
The crime genre, as Agatha Christie would agree, relies on a hefty amount of tension, a superbly thrilling plot and a series of hint culminating in a wonderful twist that is both shocking and mind-blowing. It was the simple twist that can really and powerfully turned the world on its head. When done well, after building up the suspense, the twist is a masterfully implementation to a story. And then M Night Shyamalan wrote a bunch of them that made whatever followed seem cheap, because he made them cheap (though the Sixth Sense is brilliant). So any thriller attempting to recreate Christie’s crime drama romps whilst still delicate inserting a twist is subject to scorn and a bunch of people already figuring out your twist before it hits.
Identity suffers from all of this and is still able to be great.
Ten people are left abandoned in a motel after a flooding in the dessert leaves them cut off from the rest of the world. These seemingly strangers are left rained out, with one bleeding out from an accident and others unruly from the clash of personalities. Each with their own secret, when they start getting killed off one by one, they must source out the killer before they are all dead. On the other side of town, there is a hearing and a murderer is desperate to be absolved from execution. There are doctors who plead his innocence by insanity. Could these be possibly link? Could the murderer have escape?
Why Is It Bad?
Watching it recently, it’s clear that Identity had the initial story twist first and built a film around it. The problem with this method that, while your idea may be the prelude to the other parts of writing, here it feels as though fleshing out the plot was secondary to shocking to the audience. Thus, the first hour of the film is early noughties cliché thriller writing, with lines and moments that are neither suspenseful but irritating. I mean, Paris runs out into the rain and says “what do you want?” with very Jennifer Love Hewitt. And, if you watch carefully, you can figure it all out anyway. Even writing that plot, you could possible guess what will happen. For the majority of the film, it feels so flat.
Why Is It Good?
The acting is terrific, partially from John Cusack in a surprising stoic role. In fact, it’s probably Cusack that holds the action together well. Amanda Peet is fantastic as is Ray Loitta. This collection of chemistries from the cast make it much more enticing than usual. And when you are fifteen, which is roughly the first time you watch it, that plot point is mind blowing. Safe to say without the background of HItchcockian affairs or more, Identity’s main crux genuinely makes you go “woah!” There is plenty of bangs and murders to keep you enticed that you kind of forget it’s stale, wooden at the beginning.
It’s no great feet but it’s a good film, one to lazily get your kicks from and swoon over Cusack’s brow and hair. Identity isn’t innovative but it surely is fun.