Don’t pay $9.50 to see Identity if you think it’s a mystery. It’s not.
It’s not a mystery at all. It’s a stupid psycho’s dream, where everything seems impossible because the dream keeps changing things. Yawn. What fun is a mystery when there’s nothing you can hope to solve? A body’s there, a minute later it’s gone and all the blood is gone. How? It’s a dream. Etc.
Yeah, I’d call it a thriller but not horror and not mystery. The explanation was disappointing to me, but it wasn’t a half-bad thing to sit through, I thought.
Dunno how to do the spoiler box thing, but I’ll try not to give anything away for those who absolutely insist on tossing their ten bucks away…
The “mystery” that takes place is a patently obvious ripoff of one of Agatha Christie’s most famous books (one that has already been adapted into a much better movie long ago) and the “killer” should be obvious to any one who has ever watched a horror movie. The very moment the “killer” appeared on screen I thought “(this person) will be revealed as the killer.”
As for the “surprising third act plot twist”…well I admit I didn’t see it coming. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t any less lame and pretentious. I agree entirely with outburst, this flick should be skipped.
I thought this made sense, since…
…as the mystery was taking place in one character’s head, it’s understandable that it would be composed of various easily-recognizable mystery clichés. When one character mentions that the hotel’s built on an Indian burial ground, my first thought was “Oh, pleeeease, not another spooky burial ground piece of tripe.” But after the third-act twist, I decided that James Mangold, the director, was winking knowingly at the audience for most of the movie.
A clever flick, IMHO