What did Ebert mean in his review of Identity? (Spoilers)

[Morbo]

Spoiler in the title = unboxed spoilers below. Stop mousing over the thread title now if you wish to remain unspoiled.





I just saw Identity last night. I'd call it rather entertaining; you'd have to be paying almost no attention to not figure out the "surprise ending," but I enjoyed it anyway.

Today I read Ebert's review of the movie, and I can't understand what he means by this:
And there is something to be said for the performance of John Hawkes as the motel manager, although I can't say what it is without revealing a secret (no, it's not the secret you think).

What is he talking about? I enjoyed his performance, sure, but I'm failing to grasp what the big secret was supposed to be. Was it that he took over the hotel and hid the previous owner in the freezer? OK...so? How does that relate to "something to be said" about his performance? Replace John Hawkes with Ray Liotta above and you could say the same thing. Have I forgotten something?

[Snooooopy]

You're probably right.

[SPOOFE]

Yeah, I just saw it too, and I didn't really notice anything particularly spectacular about that character. Loved seeing Ray Liotta and John Cusack, though. And Amanda Peet.

It helps if you get really blazed before a movie like this... the hard-to-miss twist becomes a little less obvious.

[Ellis Dee]

And there is something to be said for the performance of John Hawkes as the motel manager, although I can't say what it is without revealing a secret (no, it's not the secret you think).I'll take a stab at this. I don't claim to be correct or anything; just offering a possibly interpretation of what he was saying.

The "something to be said" may be refering to a fairly decent portrayal of the misogynistic vitriol that personality was a manifestation of. That reveals a secret. (That the characters are manifestations of multiple personalities.)

The "no, it's not the secret you think" is a reference to the Crying Game. Or maybe even The Sixth Sense. Basically he's dancing around the fact that there is a twist, but that the twist is not a rehashing of any other famous "twist" movie.

Plausible?

If Ebert is pointing to that particular character as having the most jarring and memorable lines, I would have to agree. The first time I saw it, I kept thinking "damn that was harsh" every time he spoke to Amanda Peet.

[Kaspar Hauser]

I think it's probably just another example of Ebert totally missing the point.