The Number 23

By Jason Tozer           

The Number 23 sees Jim Carey delve into another dramatic role and his first foray into the thriller genre.

Dogcatcher Walter Sparrow (Jim Carey) is a typical everyday guy who is drawn in by a murder mystery novel called ‘The Number 23' whose protagonist becomes obsessed with the number. When the events of the novel start to mirror his own life, Walter's paranoia and own obsession with 23 grows out of control.

Reading on, Walter discovers there is more to the mysterious novel than he assumed and when he tracks the author down for answers, he is given more information than he expected.

Jim Carrey plays the film's obsessive lead

Director Joel Schumacher has shot the film perfectly for a thriller genre, so much so there is a sense of déjà vu and cliché to most of the cinematography. Its dark, gloomy feel relates accordingly to the Discordian and gothic subculture themes.

Ultimately, though the film fails to capture the imagination because of its meagre and overly complicated premise around the number 23. Much like 2000's Memento the film's climaxes are lost in this complexity.

The premise of The Number 23 is to ignore all logic and reason and apply whatever maths you want to numbers, dates and words until you get 23, or 32 (which is 23 backwards) or 5 (which is 2 + 3). All too convenient and complex in my opinion and not as beautiful as the more simplistic ideas of films like Hitchcock's Vertigo or Rear Window .

The cast fail to ignite what little spark there is and seem to run through the motions. Despite playing characters obsessed or intrigued by the mystery of 23, the actors almost seem confused or bored by it.

From the very outset you expect there to be a plot twist and there is – actually there is more than one. While it is possible The Sixth Sense ruined twists for me forever, the execution of the ones in this film are too clumsy and complicated.

Carey's latest venture into the dramatic side of acting, while interesting in parts is a sub-par thriller that makes basic mathematics confusing. The complex nature of it all makes it too far-fetched to build suspense of enjoyment.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5.

This review first appeared in the Queanbeyan Age

•  
• If you've been to a great gig or read a bad book, we want to hear from you. Monitor's reviews section gives you the chance to have your say. Just email a short review and we'll run it – nothing offensive or libellous, please.