People have been obsessed with numbers since the beginning of time. The number three for example is engrained in everything from a joke, to a story, to life. Dramatists say that the number is just part of how the human brain functions. It’s how we structure our thoughts, in three acts – a beginning, middle, and end. Even the Bible has a number obsession.
Starring: Jim Carrey, Virginia Madsen, Danny Huston, Rhona Mitra, Logan LermanDirected by: Joel Schumacher
Release Date: February 23rd, 2007
Genres: Thriller
Running Time: 95 minutes
MPAA Rating: R for violence, disturbing images, sexuality and language.
Distributors: New Line Cinema
But the number 23 is an obsession of conspiracy theory nuts around the world. Does it really appear everywhere, or is it just merely a coincidence? If we were to explore the occurrences of another number, would we find the same thing? Does the mere hunt become a self fulfilling prophecy? Without googling the phenomenon, I assume that 23 occurs more often because of some mathematical reasoning.
Chip Denman once said, “Luck is probability taken personally.” (A quotation I discovered was incorrectly attributed to Penn Jillette.) One could probably say the same thing about fate, and the reoccurrence of the number 23. It’s not much more than a expected coincidence.
But having said all of that, I was born on November 12th. Eleven plus Twelve equals 23. You can even add it by divsor (1+1=2 / 1+2=3, so 2/3). I screened The Number 23 on February 12th. Add it up and you get the number 23. Even September 11th 2001 adds up to the number 23.
The movie follows Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey), a guy who becomes obsessed with The Number 23, a mysterious novel which perpetrates his number 23 obsession and somehow closely resembles his childhood years. But what does it all mean?
It means: don’t see this movie. It’s a bunch of interesting ideas, which are thrown together to create a less than compelling film. With a little more development, and the right creative minds, a great movie could have been produced. I can only imagine what Charlie Kaufman’s take would have been, or how Michel Gondry would have directed a better climax. But instead we are left with a bad Joel Schumacher film. And as you know, his bad films are really bad (Batman and Robin).
Schumacher takes some cues from Michael Mann and David Fincher, instilling style for almost no reason into every frame of the movie. In this movie he’s going for the dark and dirty look, but it seems forced and unneeded. The Number 23 feels too polished, unsure of what it is or wants to be. And there is nothing worse than something that is trying to be both edgy and accessible at the same time. It’s a contradiction that results in some of the worst artistic creations of al time. I imagine it’s something like Christian Gangsta Rap, if that even exists.
When you peel back the wallpaper, the only thing you’ll find is a truncated story about obsession and conspiracy, which is badly executed on almost every level. The film ends in a finale of ridiculous shocking twists that would even have M. Night Shaymalan embarrassed.
/Film Rating: 3 out of 10
February 24th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I feel after reading this, that it was written by someone who feels they have a
license to be malicious. I don’t see how it is necessary to tell me which directors
would have directed this film better. Or why it is necessary or even informative in
any way to make a personal jab at the director by ridiculing another of his works.
Or to elaborate on just how bad this film is by comparing it to the notion of
christian gangster rap. Or yet again, how it helps me to know about this movie
to slam M. Night Shymalan. Not only is all of this malicious- but detrimental to
your cause as a critic. It is hard for me to take the advice of someone who
comes off so arrogant and low-blowing.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Don’t take my advice, don’t read my reviews, I’ll live just fine. But my job is three fold: To give you a good impression of the film’s quality (why it’s bad), to be constructive (how it could have been better), and to be entertaining (making a joke an M Night’s expense was one of my attempts at humor, which you didn’t find funny). And please, go see the movie, because my 3 out of 10 stars is above the 25% metacritic average. I might be giving the movie too much credit.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
He didn’t like the movie, so what do you expect, compliments? How is it not informative to reference one of Schumacher’s other works? That’s what it means to be informative: to inform. He was informing us of how bad one of Schumacher’s worst films is so we’ll have an idea to know how bad this movie is. Every judgment of quality is a comparison. If he gives us something to compare this movie to, it’ll give us an idea of how bad it is. (Is it so bad it’s funny, or is it so bad I want to hurt myself?) Peter, I read your blog about movies that should have been nominated for/won an Oscar, and, to be honest, it was terrible. I was surprised to find this review to not be so bad. Your style of writing is somewhat like mine. I’ve actually been called arrogant twice in the last two weeks. Arrogance is not a good quality, so I guess I should work on that.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Personally i liked the film, it had a beginning, middle and end and kept me interested through out. Thats all i want from a good film. There are hundreds upon hundreds of more appauling films out there, personally i think you’ve been too harsh with your marking. id give the film at least a 7 out of 10.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
i think this movie was mind blowing one of the best movies i’ve seen in awhile. Especially the ending. It was very well thought up.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I was contemplating seeing this movie, me and my bf were going to go to it tomorrow, but according to reviews I have read, not only here but other places too, i don’t think i will.
It seems like a good concept, but I don’t particularly like this director’s style either.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:31 am
This has got to be the stupidest movie i ever seen in my life next to music and lyrics i mean seriously the best part was when the girl fell out the widow and everyone laughed. what a joke long and drawn out stupid and omg im gonna puke. forget it dont even rent it, jim carrey is washed up
August 19th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Spam protection: Sum of 5 + 8 =13 that was my challenge question (anti spam)
“bullshit” has 8 letters , “spam” has 4, “Anti” as 4 letters but “Uncle” the “opposite of Aunti - the phonetic equivalent of Anti has 5 letters!
Speaking of letters, the ALPHABET has 23 letters with three LEFT OVER
Speaking of “LEFTOVERS” THANKSGIVING often has a lot of leftovers, and Thursday, November 23, 2006 was the day we had thanksgiving!
THE NUMBER OF WORdS IN THIS COMMENT are exactly divisible by 23…
OMFG!!
September 17th, 2007 at 9:54 am
You know i dont think any of you people are very intelligent. Personally the movie was not an award winner to me but you fail to see that none of you are directors. So here is a simple way to see things: First If you think you can do a better job making a movie then do it and STFU. 2 Lower quality movies usually have a bad budget so again STFU unless you want to donate. THird This movie was ment for entertainment so again please feel free to STFU if you don’t like it. We dont need to learn your life story about how this movie affected you. In my personal opinion the movie was at least interesting. Can you say that for Hot Fuzz? HAH HAH HAH!!!
September 24th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
My boyfriend and I rented this movie this past weekend. We watched a good 45 minutes of it and were bored out of our minds. It was really difficult for us to stay awake. I am going to try again to watch the movie all the way through to the end. Hopefully it will be worth my time.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I liked the movie. Thanks
December 6th, 2007 at 12:53 am
I thought it was interesting, first thing I did when it was over was look up that passage from the bible…. kinda creepy, but nonetheless enjoyed the movie.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Scrietta was pretty right about this one, malicious or not.
The movie only reminded me how good “Pi” was. (Well, mostly).
I wonder what Peter thought of that one.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
You can’t be “right” about your opinion of a movie.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:42 am
See, I really enjoyed watching this movie, no matter what anybody else has written above me.
It had a good concept, great actors,
and everything just fit together like a movie should.
If you think Jim Carrey is washed up, than he is to you.
I dont see you winning awards, being rich and dating an ex-pornstar.
By the way, i LOOOVEEEE Logan Lerman
March 29th, 2008 at 7:19 am
I’ve had an obsession with the number 23 for a while…Every time I feel the urge to look at the clock, it says __:23. It’s kind of creepy, actually. My friends think I’m going insane. Although I notice it on the time clock all of the time, I DO NOT ADD UP A BUNCH OF DATES TO EQUAL THE NUMBER 23. My friend told me about the movie because I always see the number 23, so I decided to check out the reviews.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
The movie had an interesting concept. Jim Carrey is a great actor. Just not sure if this role fit him all that well…
April 25th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I loved this movie and jim was better than I had ever seen in any of his other movies.
that was the best 90 minutes I have spent watching alone in awhile.
it went so fast that I have to see it three or four more times to catch what I missed. I was on the edge of my seat thru the whole movie!!!!
Thank-you for spending time with me and jim
loved it!!
gingerlee allen