Identity (2003) - 7/10

I've noticed since starting this project that I gravitate to things I've already seen or have at least heard of. So I'm trying to force myself to mix it up. That's the short and boring story of how I came to watch the 2003 mystery/thriller Identity. So with that wildly entertaining introduction in mind, lets jump in. 

1. Acting

Identity, with its modest $28 million budget, was able to attract a pretty good ensemble of actors including the likes of John Cusack, Amanda Peet and Ray Liotta. Despite a shorter runtime, the large number of characters do all get moments in the spotlight and everyone is doing good work; though not a ton stands out. Just a bunch of professional actors being good and professional.  

Honestly, the most impressive thing was how shitty it probably was to work while being constantly soaked by the continuous rain storm on set for almost the entirety of the film.

2. Cinematography

I imagine one of the challenges of bringing this screenplay to life was deciding how to make a singular setting visually compelling.

The first thing that stuck out to me in this regard was a dark color palette with splashes or bright and neon tones. The overall look matches nicely with the dark thriller/mystery plot surrounding its characters, but also has moments of lightning flashes and neon lights that help break it up and look slick. Its visual style is reminiscent of (or possibly just overtly nodding to) David Fincher. 

The second thing was a kinetic approach to the shooting. In particular the first half of the film feels like it is moving quickly and with a purpose. Things slow and get a bit more stationary in the latter half of the film, but the kineticism early on definitely hooks you in and also help set the stage for some of the plot moments in the third act.

3. Production/Costume Design

Having a film that is largely set in one place is probably actually very nice for a production team. Not only are you constructing less, but you get to build it out and fill it with more personality then you normally would. The motel setting is well fleshed out and all the little touches to the environment make it feel real to life and immersive. There is a noticeable lack of artificiality to the setting which was nice.

4. Writing

I was most pleasantly surprised by the writing of the script- despite some of its letdowns. Early on the nonlinear structure felt like a nice way to introduce all the characters and the ways they are starting to entangle within the plot. The best 'mystery' part of the first act is trying to get to know all the characters and alluded to some of the heavier concepts humans struggle with; who are we really? What do we strategically show to others? What are the stories of all the strangers in a room?

Sadly, one frustrating choice came in towards the end of act one when a character just overtly mentions how it is like they're in an Agatha Christie novel. Like yeah, no shit lady - why break the 4th-ish wall with that. 

Anyway, the other strength to this script (and its integration with cinematography and editing) is it has... A TWIST! Despite my sarcasm, the plot does actually feature two twists; one of which that works quite well. And another that, well, falls a bit flat. 

Twists can be a very hard thing to pull off in movies. If you hide it too much, the audience won't think it is earned because it came out the blue. Telegraph it too much and it will also fail because the audience will be 3 steps ahead of the characters and it can create frustration and/or break immersion. Identity manages to find a nice sweet spot. In retrospect, I should have seen the first twist coming but the kinetic movement of the script served its purpose - I got so wrapped up in the Motel mystery that I forgot the bigger picture. It was a pleasant surprise though and reminded me that sometimes going into a movie completely cold is a great thing as an audience member. 

The second twist of the movie comes right as the film is concluding. However, this twist in the plot feels more contrived. Almost as if the filmmakers felt like they needed a different button to end on after an initial cut. It makes the ending a bit bleak, which I usually like. But the end result here just didn't land right for me.  

5. Sound Design

I imagine it was difficult to cut the sound up with all the rain on set, but the final product never suffered.

6. Editing

I really enjoyed the way this film was cut up. Its first half was a nice mix of nonlinear plot reveals and a great opening montage to set the stage. The pacing was brisk and helped setup the twist later on. And the 90 minute runtime makes sure that the film doesn't overstay its welcome. Much like Agatha Christie's books, the editor seemed to understand that you don't need 900 pages to tell a compelling story. 

7. Visual Effects

Again, I think the mostly singular setting helped out in this regard. It allowed for a lot of things to be made practically instead and the VFX team only had to tackle a few major sequences. The rest was likely invisible touch up work. 

For 2003 - the murder involving the car felt particularly well done.

8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation

The film certainly doesn't hide its Agatha Christie roots. And the key to any good mystery story is a satisfying reveal or conclusion. In this regard, Identity succeeds, but doesn't really do much that isn't new. Also its first reveal is better than its ultimate conclusion which suggests a better concept than a final product. 

9. Stunt Coordination

Not much to note here. 

10. Direction

James Mangold has slowly become one of my favorite directors and I didn't even know it. Literally. I've seen a lot of his movies, loved them, and never realized he was the director tying them all together. It is a testament to a director who, despite not having a particular 'style' or 'fingerprint' of his own, has amassed a really impressive filmography just by being highly capable and choosing great projects.

Legacy/Final Thoughts

Identity was a film I chose at random and had no previous knowledge of. Yet I was pleasantly surprised by the little mystery/thriller. Despite enjoying the experience, it is not a huge shock that I had never heard of. Not because it is bad, but it just got lost in the noise of the industry around it. 2003 was filled with blockbuster releases and John Cusack's star power wasn't as strong at this point in his career. It is hard to get noticed when you're surrounded by Finding Nemo, Pirates of the Caribbean, LOTR, The Matrix Reloaded, X2, Elf, Bad Boys II.... holy shit 2003, take it easy. Anyway, this may not be Mangold and team's finest outing, but I'm glad I stumbled upon it.