Customer Reviews

Suspect Zero

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(24)
3 star:		(20)
2 star:		(14)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

I am usually a huge fan of good suspense movie, but how I missed this one when it came out is unknown. This movie starts off as one that may seem to be about an FBI agent that burned out on "the big case", got demoted, and transfer to the smaller town to keep him busy in paperwork. Thomas Mackelway (Aaron Eckhart, also in the recent film Thanks for Smoking), is this agent, who happens to stumble across, as guessed, a big case in the small town. Benjamin O'Ryan (Ben Kingsley) is a person that becomes of interest to agent Mackelway. Well, this movie does have some of the same things as other suspense thrillers, similar in ways to SEVEN, but with different twist and a much different outcome. In all, a must see if you like suspense thriller. If you liked the movie Seven with brad pitt and Morgan Freeman, then this movie is right up your alley. Check it out, a must own for any suspense fan.

I've come to believe one thing: Paramount makes great movies...Aeon Flux was the exception...

I saw this movie and texted a couple of people, with no positive response...its from Paramount thats a plus. Carrie-Anne Moss who spends her time underacting in such pretty good movies like the Matrix, Reloaded, Revolutions, Memento (which she was pretty good in) and Red Planet. She plays emotionless, yet excitable women, usually and this role is no exception. I have a thing for noses and hers is awful and distracts me through the entire movie. She is definitely an iron weight on this movie, but she does offer a little something...she blends in real well and is forgettable as Detective Kulok.

Aaron Eckhart has been also seen in Paycheck, Erin Brochovich and Any Given Sunday. His acting seems dry and tedious, but he brings something intangible to the screen. It doesn't excite or electrify, but he captivates in "Suspect Zero". He Plays Detective Mackelway.

Oh, yeah there's this other guy, named Sir Ben Kingsley in the movie. He plays the other character, Ben O'Ryan. Ben Kingsley has made alot of roles shine over the years, but none so much as in "Suspect Zero".

The movie centers around three FBI Agents and a case of people gone missing and murdered in New Mexico, specifically on the state line. Yes, it seems like an X-Files Episode in places. Some very strange elements shake nicely into this believable framework and hide a neat science fiction background.

The general interaction between Kingsley and Eckhart is hard to understand, but awesome. The scenes between Carrie-Anne Moss and Aaron Eckhart are forced and laid in, to seem like the X-Files, perhaps. Ignore them, ignore them! Its OK...there's only one or two...get a soda from the kitchen. If you want fast paced drama, this is not your movie. It tends to be like rush hour-the time of day...50 miles an hour...stop...50 miles and hour...stop. It is excellent and underrated. Go buy it...its real cheap, its worth it.

This movie was a very big surprise to me when I discoverd it. Ben Kingsley, Aaron Eckhart, and Kerry Anne-Moss all have strong roles and characters in this film. Eckhart plays an FBI agent who got busted down in ranks and starts over in a desk job in the southwest US. He is assigned a case that quickley becomes more than just a missing persons/murder investigation. Through-out the film, Ben Kingsley and him develop a very unique bond that pulls us throug the movie and keeps us on the edge of our seats until the end. All thing are connected, pretty tight storyline. This is a psychological thriller that should please anyfan of movies like Identity, The Jacket, The Woodsman, and The Machinist. Also Fans of CSI and Law and Order may like this too. This film does not have the boundaries of TV ratings, so it is more gruesome. A must see.

Fact one: Since 1970, more than 90,000 persons have disappeared without a trace. Fact two: "Remote viewing," the ability to access information using the mind alone appears to be a real skill (and something the government has secretly funded)

Edmund Elias Merhige's SUSPECT ZERO (Paramount) is about a chastised FBI agent who may have innate "remote viewing" skills and a serial killer who definitely does.

Merhige's previous films, "Begotten" and "Shadow of the Vampire," are as different from each other as "Suspect Zero" is from either of them.

The tantalizing plot of this film was widely known before production began. But I won't spoil it for anyone who plans to see the DVD. Here's the set up: Aaron Eckhart is a troubled FBI agent relocated from Dallas to a southwestern desert town. A local killing with cultic elements connects with something from his past. Eckhart's former partner, an alienated Carrie-Anne Moss, gets involved. From the start, but known only to the audience, Ben Kingsley is revealed as a very twisted serial killer.

This visually rich, fascinating film is not about so much "who dunnit" but the more about the "why." It's not really a serial killer story and it's not a procedural crime drama about how the killer is caught. Something else is going on here. Director Merhige gives a clue in his cryptic statement: "You must address the underneath (the darkness), or it will devour your... It's the only way to heal the future from devouring itself."

To fully enjoy this unusual film, pay close attention to all the visual elements and then see it again with Merhige's commentary that explains his personal take on this story.

There's a stunning 4 part featurette: "What We See When We Close Our Eyes" and a startling Remote Viewing demonstration involving Merhige himself.

Suspect Zero (E. Elias Merhige, 2004)

Edmund Elias Merhige (Begotten, Shadow of the Vampire) has the rare, perhaps unique, distinction of being (one of) the only moder filmmaker(s) to have directed three so utterly different films. No one who had seen Begotten quite knew what to make of Shadow of the Vampire. And no one who saw either, and a whole lot of other people besides, know what to make of Suspect Zero. Much of the problem is that people are going in to Suspect Zero looking for your basic serial killer film; that's not the way to approach it, just as Begotten was not your typical avant-garde film, Shadow of the Vampire not your typical costume drama. What Suspect Zero is, at its essence, is an Edmund Elias Merhige creation. A Picasso wouldn't be a Picasso if it were painted by Toulouse-Lautrec. And sometimes people have problems figuring out exactly what's in a Picasso, so they look to the title, see something that vaguely resonates with it, and leave, pleased to have solved the mystery but still unsatisfied in some vague and unformed way. That's exactly what's happening here.

Much of the problem is that the movie's two major twists were both known to the viewing public years before the film was actually released. It's hard to be surprised at the twist when you knew what it was before the movie began filming. (One finds oneself wishing Zak Penn had done another rewrite.) But the cat's been out of the bag for years, and the two major twists that Ben O'Ryan (Ben Kingsley) is a former FBI agent and that he kills only other serial killers are now common knowledge. So seeing Suspect Zero really will be like seeing Psycho or Se7en for the second time, as far as that goes. If the main reason you go to see a movie is plot, don't bother.

For that matter, if the main reason you go to see a movie is gore, you're also going to be disappointed. (This may surprise Begotten fans.) A New York Daily News reporter referred to the film as "physically hideous;" I wonder what movie he was watching, because it certainly wasn't Suspect Zero. Like City of God a few years before, Suspect Zero has found itself branded with the most outlandish charges of being overly violent I've ever seen. It's ridiculous. Maybe those critics saw Hero the same day, or something. There's less violence in Suspect Zero than there is in a typical episode of The Shield.

That same Daily News review also expressed some confusion at a number of plot points that pointed to the reviewer not being very well-read (e.g., the government's experiments with remote viewing in the seventies) or just not paying attention to the movie (e.g., he seemed to infer that Ben Kingsley's original victims were in some way related to a piece of the plot that thankfully hasn't been revealed in the press yet, so I'm not going to be the first to mention it). In other words, ignore the Daily News review. The guy had no idea what he was talking about.

What's left? Well, there's Neil LaBute prodigy Aaron Eckhart (Your Friends and Neighbors, The Pledge) and Sir Ben Kingsley (Sexy Beast, Sneakers). Eckhart does a relatively good job with his role. Kingsley, on the other hand, sounds as if he's parodying his own attempt at an accent; the only times he sounds sincere are when he's yelling, because the affected accent disappears. There's also Jenny Cleveland, a young woman who gets very little screen time, but if there is a god in the universe, will be a supermodel very soon. And there's spot-the-cameo (did you catch the quick shot of a famous actor from a previous Merhige film?) and spot-the-cousin-of-the-producer (William Mapother seems to land a role in every movie Tom Cruise produces).

But all of this is minor stuff. An Elias Merhige film is not a movie, it's a visual experience that happens to move. That he can keep it up for a whole film is not only imaginable, it's already been done; Begotten is shot in such a way that you have no choice but to concentrate on the visuals, because it'll be a lot of repetitions before you understand what's going on. (As a side note to Begotten fans, Eckhart's remote-viewing scenes are shot exactly as Begotten was.) Merhige's long, lingering shots and gorgeous photographic morality could turn Eckhart and Kingsley reading the phone book into something watchable, and really, in essence, that's what he does. If you're a fan of Merhige's other two films, and you go in expecting the same experience from a cinematographic standpoint, you're going to get everything you expect, and more. If you go looking for a serial killer movie, go rent Se7en again. *** ½

A serial killer killing serial killers? I don't know that that's a bad thing - especially since this guy specializes in serial killers the cops haven't even suspected yet. He's got a great little signature, too - a note featuring a zero with a slash through it, and he makes life imitate art by making his victims' eyes look like the one in the picture. Who do you get to play a madman like this? Gandhi, of course. Yes, Ben Kingsley, the man who played Mr. Nonviolent Protest himself, is the guy targeting serial killers here in Suspect Zero - and he plays the role exceedingly well, I might add.

Suspect Zero is, in my opinion, somewhat underrated. To me, it made perfect sense all along. It's a little confusing at first seeing conspicuously red-tinted images flashing buy out of nowhere, but it becomes clear pretty early on that the man being hunted is a remote viewer. Even if you aren't familiar with the concept of remote viewing, it's hard not to figure it out, so I'm not sure why some people seem to come away from this movie feeling totally lost. In a nutshell, remote viewing, which has absolutely been used by American intelligence and the FBI, allows the sensitive viewer to "see" things happening elsewhere, be they missile silos, enemy forces, or serial killers doing what serial killers do. Since Benjamin O'Ryan (Kingsley) can see the crimes, he can find the criminals. That's what he is doing now, taking out unidentified serial killers with just a little bit of vengeance. The big kahuna, though, is still out there - the killer he calls Suspect Zero. Suspect Zero has made a veritable cottage industry of abducting and killing kids in countless numbers all over the country. There's no discernible link between all of the missing kids, so know one even suspects that the world's foremost killer is out there operating with a free hand, nor would anyone believe that one man could claim literally hundreds of victims without getting caught. O'Ryan knows it, though - he has seen it.

The endgame, for whatever reason, involves Special Agent Mackelway (Aaron Eckhart), and O'Ryan is constantly faxing him cryptic clues and missing children's posters in an obvious attempt to draw the agent to him . Mackelway has something of a history, having taken the law into his own hands to some degree and, by so doing, letting a violent killer go free. As he gets deeper and deeper into this case, he begins having cryptic little visions and develops some kind of connection with the man he is searching for (troubling signs for an agent who's already had to go through an extensive psychological evaluation recently). It stands to reason that the whole gang will assemble at the very end -O'Ryan, Mackelway, and, of course, Suspect Zero himself - and that Mackelway will have to get there without much help from his disbelieving colleagues.

By and large, I think Suspect Zero is an excellent film. It's a thriller with a twist, an unusual story that plays out quite well. Unfortunately, it seems to take a shortcut or two on its way to a conclusion, leaving too much in the hands of fate or coincidence. It also has to go and give us two partners with a romantic history teaming up again - apparently, it's illegal to make a crime thriller without some kind of romantic subplot. Eckhart isn't bad, but he isn't completely convincing as he takes his character to the brink between insight and insanity. Besides his partner Fran (Carrie-Anne Moss), the rest of the characters barely emerge from the woodwork, especially Mackelways' supervisor (who doesn't even yell when he's upset with his rogue agent).

Despite a few minor faults, though, the unusual storyline of Suspect Zero and the excellent performance by Ben Kingsley carry the day, making this film stand out quite noticeably from others in the genre. Dark, gritty, and compelling, it's a film well worth watching, especially for those who harbor a fascination with serial killers.

Two particular scenes stayed with me after viewing this movie through to the credits, both featuring Ben Kingsley. In the first scene, in a fundamental Christian church, tears were swimming in the actor's eyes as he endured the presence of exalted voices and happy children. In the second scene he was at his desk, enduring a final remote viewing, his left hand flapping rapidly on the table as his right hand sketched portraits of bulls-eyes to locations of horror.

It's nearly impossible for most of us to accept the reality of a world in which serial killers rob children from their homes, torture, and kill them. It's even more difficult to immerse onself, emotionally into the details of that reality. Most of us would, in good health, want to avoid coming close to experiencing what a child or his killer would. Emotional survival can waver on retaining a distance from heinous situations.

In view of that instinctive need to distance from the severest types of pain, this unique film would have an inherently difficult time capturing viewers. I believe this might be why this film haunts like a wisp of smoke, yet almost seems ineffective as a work of art. After the film clicks down as done, the natural response is to get it out of mind.

Yet, given my background in and curiosity about the art of film, I wanted to understand why I felt this movie was excellently done, yet I had connected into it only superficially as it moved across the screen.

The essence of this film is to get into the mind of the killer, and indirectly, of the victims. To me, the movie seemed to portray that it's almost more overwhelming to get into the mind of the killer than into the mind of the victim.

This movie pushed beyond other psychic "profiler" types of stories. Part of the beyond had to do with the subtly on-target acting performance of the trilogy of main stars. Who could doubt the performance intensity of Kingsley and Eckhart giving variations on themes of the deepest types of manic obsession. Some have disparaged a seeming lack of commitment of emotional investment to the part played by Moss. I do not doubt the validity and subtle brilliance of her presentation, though I can see why astute observers would form that opinion. To me she was true to the character and served as a buffer, a balance to the intensity of the male roles, and I believe she did this in a manner on line with realism as well as artistic finesse. The main word which continues coming to mind, for which I search for a variety of synonyms, is "subtle."

When I began working for the Multnomah County Sheriff's office in the 70's, serving in a swing shift as a crime prevention officer, one of my job tasks was to read every burglary, rape, murder, and kidnaping report which came into the office, usually at a rate of several per day. Needless to say the initiation into the details of that world of crime was shocking, and shifted me into an intensely uncomfortable sense of environment as I drove 40 minutes each night after 11 pm from the county borders into the inner city of Portland, OR, to my home in an old, nice neighborhood bordered closely on all sides by some of the highest crime areas of the city.

Each evening around 7 pm I read those reports, one-by-one, with each in turn settled in front of my eyes, flat on a grey metal desk, the pages composed of the slick copy paper used in the 70's. The duty police officers' hand-written details of the accounts varied in style, but were set into identical fill-in-the-blank formats. The narrative. The details. The narrative detail was the heart of the report, and it was clear that each detail had been hand written with clarity, a rigid focus taught at the police academy; and the subtle emotional attachment bled through the ink with a control which rendered crisp the line-edges of each letter.

It took a few months for me to begin functioning without a tight jitter to my emotions and constant observations of my environment, especially driving home at night.

I mention the above personal experience so that you will know that my observations of SUSPECT ZERO do not arrive from the eyes and soul of a person without a certain amount of awareness of the reality of the world of crime, the criminal mind, and valid, intensified attempts to achieve criminal justice.

Though married to a deputy sheriff for 8 years, my short career in police work, spanning only a few years through my late 20's, went well beyond what I've described above, but that is enough for the purposes of this review backing up my awareness of the nearly silent scream of the essence of this exquisite film, a silent plea brought to pitch in the tears growing to an ocean of pain in Kingsley's eyes in the church scene, and the nervous flapping of his hand on the desk, which grew steadily more rapid and intense as he sweat "blood" through his final viewing.

As a reviewer has clearly indicated, the director's (E. Elias Merhige) commentary at the conclusion of the movie exposes the not quite obvious, underlying perfection of the quiet, sheer, subtle skill which went into the production and finishing of this film. As stated above, I believe that the skill and perfection of this product is less obvious than many of its caliber, due partly at least to the natural and automatic emotional distancing necessary for viewers with remote's in hand.

Of course, beyond the artistic excellence, the plotting is brilliant, with its adherence to the title, SUSPECT ZERO; as is the play on seeing through a mirror darkly of a serial killer hunting and executing other serial killers, coming closer and closer to the most heinous of the genre.

Other parts of my background came into play in enhancing my ability to see the skeletal foundation of this film's essential effectiveness. In a 5 week, intense training course at Chicago's O'Hare airport as a flight attendant for United Airlines in 1968, trainees were privy to airline studies which gave amazing insight into the psychological gestalt of passengers at the culmination of a no-landing-gear, belly-landing, screeching metal on concrete, or other type of plane crash situation. Reportedly, most passengers go into a type of shock which removes them from their immediate situation. Reported comments reveal the extent of psychological removal, as many of them explore compassion felt for, "...those poor people on that crashed airplane." Passengers in the downed and damaged plane become unequivocally unaware that they are those "poor people."

The attendants are taught the necessity of screaming at and hitting some of the passengers to remove the shock barrier and initiate the duty of getting the passengers out of the plane to safety.

However, safety is relative if the crash has occurred in an ocean of shark infested waters, due to the fact that sharks are drawn to the concussion of the crash, as rapidly and voraciously as they are to blood seeping into the circular streams of rippling water.

Relating this information to the reality of serial killers repeatedly targeting children, the fact blessedly remains that the closer a person gets to the core of physically unavoidable insanity and torture, the more intensely implemented is the rescue of the psyche defense system, the graduated sense of "removal." This seemed to happen to my viewing of in this film, and as stated, I believe this is due to the film's hitting way closer to "home" than most movies exploring the remote viewing theme, rather than any lack in the plotting, directive, or acting technique.

Which brings me to another piece of my background which I believe may have elevated my analysis of the excellence of this movie. As a high school English teacher in Portland (prior to my short career in criminal justice), I taught a class called the Language of Film, or Filmic Statement. In this 5 week course, students wrote, designed, and implemented 3 minute films (Super 8 mm with separate but synchronized cassette tapes for sound track) and were allowed a class conclusion of a whole school assembly of an Academy Awards ceremony.

In that class the language of film was analyzed, basing from the choice and design of timing, distance, angle, and focus of each short shot (those new to the art are usually surprised that most camera shots are under 10 seconds long). Series of very short shots of varying angles, distances, and framing of subjects are used to direct and produce drama via various intricate techniques initiated from the eye of the camera. Quite a lot goes into the making of a film before and beyond directing actors to "face-the-good-side" to the camera and emote, in accordance to the scene and theme of the plot.

If you want to "see" these techniques in play, replay the two scenes I've mentioned and take time to observe how often short (few-seconds-in-length) shots cut, and change angle, direction, and frame-of-focus in a "simple" scene featuring the tearing eyes of Kingsley, or his hand flapping on the desk table. Then, you might replay again, to note the sequence of brevity or length of a series of shots, with longer shots beginning to build tension by becoming shorter and shorter, etc., with variations of that use of timing creating a filmic rhythm rarely noticed under or beyond the emotion created by its dramatic effect.

A third scene has been etched into my mind from SUSPECT ZERO. It was the wrestling struggle between Suspect Zero and Eckhart. The fight was subtly effective in being the opposite of what might have been expected. It was not an intensely drawn out battle of kicks, slugs, and slams, but a quiet wrestling, with the muscle-and-bone-bodies of good and evil prone on the ground, entwined like worms or snakes, with the killer subdued rapidly, almost easily, like he had nothing of substance, not even a force of evil.

For me, the key of a movie's success is how a drama feels during viewing, and if/how it lingers after the credits have rolled down screen, after the DVD player is abandoned, and reality again becomes the focus as it re-opens its ongoing scenes to the next Walkabout of unknown design.

According to the very well done reviews here, the wide screen version of the DVD includes a commentary by the director, .... The used VHS version I saw did not have that commentary.

With Respect for Healing Value of Art,
Linda G. Shelnutt

The screenplay is well written. And the acting is well done. Especially Ben Kingsley who does his normal fantastic job of acting. The cinematography needs some work, or perhaps I just did not understand what the director was going for.

This dark thriller has Kingsley character as a serial killer, and we see what he goes through before he kills. And he starts sending clues of murders and missing children to a FBI agent who has broken the law apprehending a serial killer; and therefore the killer was set free. And the agent seems to have the same types of headaches as Kingsley character.

I found it best to watch this movie without knowing anything about it. Some of these reviews and the cover of the DVD gives too much information away. If you have not read any other reviews on this movie, stop! And go watch it. It will give you a richer viewing experience.

Others have reviewed the plot. My comment regarding this movie is that too much time was spent on inconsequential scenes, while more could have been devoted to explaining the 'remote viewing'. This feels like one of those movies that was chopped down, leaving one to "catch up" or "make up" to the directors's intent.

With that said, I still enjoyed Kingsley's performance immensely. Unfortunately, Moss was just meant as eye-candy, she does not do much in this film... sigh.

I would describe this as a "housework" movie... good for watching while you are folding t-shirts!

A stalwart actor like Ben Kingsley is truly wasted in this movie.

Sir Ben Kingsley plays the role of a Benjamin O'Ryan, a clairvoyant undercover out-of-service FBI agent who is following a serial killer across the country. En route, Benjamin uncovers other serial killers using clairvoyance and murders them. Sursprisingly, Benjamin leaves a signature (a zero with a stroke) after every murder. This trait confuses the in-service FBI agents Mackelway (Aaron Eckhart) & his partner (Carrie-Anne Moss) to believe that Benjamin is the actual killer on the prowl. The story meanders along slowly and Mackelway eventually (after getting lots of confusing hints from Benjamin) figures out Benjamin is actually leading them to the killer. Visuals of Benjamin getting clairvoyance are dark and disturbing. The graphic images just add to the darkness.

All in all a boring fare that will give you a bad taste.

I think actors like Ben Kingsley and Carrie-Anne Moss have been wasted in this movie.