I have wanted to see The Number 23 ever since the intriguing trailers aired on TV back when it was in theaters. Finally, years later later I got to see it & it was nothing but an utter disappointment - a plot filled with lunacy & a story filled with nonsensical writing. Let me be clear - I love psychological thrillers, even ones w/ a paranormal twist so The Number 23 was right up my ally which really shows just how bad this movie is & believe me, it is awful.
The only real Pro here is Jim Carrey's dramatic acting. He took dreck & ran with it & his performance is pretty good. Too bad the film he was in, is not.
CONS (Plot holes/Sloppy Writing) -
1) The conviction of the Professor for Laura's murder was hard to believe. Is it really conceivable that he would be hailed the murderer, no questions asked when Laura's boyfriend, the man she was cheating on, turned out to be crazy, had just tried to commit suicide & had left a confession of sorts as well as ramblings all over the wall of the hotel room he had jumped from? When the wrong man was convicted, why didn't the Doctor who read Walter's manuscript come forward? What about DNA evidence? The murder happened 13 years prior - the date of death on Laura's tombstone says 1991. It may not be the 21st century but we saw Laura cut Walter's hand before he killed her. His blood was ALL OVER that crime scene especially mixed all over the knife with her blood yet apparently none of that matters.
2) The son's age - too old. The murder happened 13 years prior, Walter than tried to commit suicide and was hospitalized for a period of time, he then first met Agatha when he was being released & a pregnancy takes another 9 months so the child should not be over the age of 11 tops yet he's clearly a teenager. No mention of the son not biologically being his.
3) In order to allow Agatha to move Laura's skeleton unseen, the movie had Walter/his son leave to find a pay phone to call the police. Cell phone anyone? This movie takes place in I am assuming 2004 since it's 13 years after Laura was killed (1991) so it's kind of unbelievable that they wouldn't have a cell phone.
4) When at first Walter thinks that his wife is 'Topsy Kretts' he mentions how her maiden name was 'Pink' & how it was mentioned in the book, etc.. but later we find out Walter is the the actual author of the book, the book he wrote before meeting his wife so is it just coincidence he used her maiden name? Odd.
5) Walter's Memory Loss - We are to believe that Walter blocked out the whole Laura part of his life. Fine.. the problem comes with the #23 being completely erased from his memory as well. As Walter reads the book, he draws on similarities between his childhood & Fingerling's childhood so that aspect of his memory is intact. We then learned that the #23 came into his life as a child after his Father committed suicide, so why couldn't he remember the #23 as an adult? That makes no sense..he can't have his childhood memories intact but conveniently not the ones about the #23. That's just bad writing again.
6) After Agatha gets the ID from the Doctor right before he committed suicide which really, makes no sense since he turned out to be completely innocent of all crimes - she finds the chest with Walter's manuscript/comics, etc.. Her friend, the Professor randomly shows up... Huh? Who called him? What was that?
7) Is it really believable that Agatha wouldn't take the book away from Walter after he started becoming obsessed to the point where he was having dreams about killing her? The obsession even started rubbing off on her son.. yet she just let them continue to read the book, the book that was causing Walter to descend back into madness.
8) Walter's past. Walter is an obsessive person. Is it believable that he wouldn't be curious about the part of his life that he lost? Wouldn't he want to know why he tried to commit suicide? Wouldn't he go back to the hospital and talk to the doctors? Apparently.. no which is just stupid. Even stupider is the fact that when the book was making Walter go crazy, not once did Agatha bring up his crazy past. Surely she knows that he had spent some time in a mental hospital. Heck, she met him as he was being released so she had to have known and if she didn't, that would be an even bigger plot hole. Obviously the movie didn't want to give Walter's crazy past away too early BUT after knowing the truth, it just makes for some unbelievable dialog between the husband and wife.
9) The dog, Ned. Everyone saw him. He existed yet his presence was some paranormal aspect of the story that was never explained. If he was sent to unveil the truth so justice could be served, why wait 13 years? If it's because Walter had just found the book & the #23 again, then why did the book wait 13 years to find him? Never explained.
10) A nit pick - Walter who is obsessed w/ the book & can't put it down seems to take forever to read the whole thing yet the wife, who surely wasn't obsessed seemed to have finished it in a day.
In a great movie, things like these can be overlooked but in a movie where nothing seems to work, these plot holes & ridiculous moments are evident & unforgivable.
3/10 is my rating.
The only real Pro here is Jim Carrey's dramatic acting. He took dreck & ran with it & his performance is pretty good. Too bad the film he was in, is not.
CONS (Plot holes/Sloppy Writing) -
1) The conviction of the Professor for Laura's murder was hard to believe. Is it really conceivable that he would be hailed the murderer, no questions asked when Laura's boyfriend, the man she was cheating on, turned out to be crazy, had just tried to commit suicide & had left a confession of sorts as well as ramblings all over the wall of the hotel room he had jumped from? When the wrong man was convicted, why didn't the Doctor who read Walter's manuscript come forward? What about DNA evidence? The murder happened 13 years prior - the date of death on Laura's tombstone says 1991. It may not be the 21st century but we saw Laura cut Walter's hand before he killed her. His blood was ALL OVER that crime scene especially mixed all over the knife with her blood yet apparently none of that matters.
2) The son's age - too old. The murder happened 13 years prior, Walter than tried to commit suicide and was hospitalized for a period of time, he then first met Agatha when he was being released & a pregnancy takes another 9 months so the child should not be over the age of 11 tops yet he's clearly a teenager. No mention of the son not biologically being his.
3) In order to allow Agatha to move Laura's skeleton unseen, the movie had Walter/his son leave to find a pay phone to call the police. Cell phone anyone? This movie takes place in I am assuming 2004 since it's 13 years after Laura was killed (1991) so it's kind of unbelievable that they wouldn't have a cell phone.
4) When at first Walter thinks that his wife is 'Topsy Kretts' he mentions how her maiden name was 'Pink' & how it was mentioned in the book, etc.. but later we find out Walter is the the actual author of the book, the book he wrote before meeting his wife so is it just coincidence he used her maiden name? Odd.
5) Walter's Memory Loss - We are to believe that Walter blocked out the whole Laura part of his life. Fine.. the problem comes with the #23 being completely erased from his memory as well. As Walter reads the book, he draws on similarities between his childhood & Fingerling's childhood so that aspect of his memory is intact. We then learned that the #23 came into his life as a child after his Father committed suicide, so why couldn't he remember the #23 as an adult? That makes no sense..he can't have his childhood memories intact but conveniently not the ones about the #23. That's just bad writing again.
6) After Agatha gets the ID from the Doctor right before he committed suicide which really, makes no sense since he turned out to be completely innocent of all crimes - she finds the chest with Walter's manuscript/comics, etc.. Her friend, the Professor randomly shows up... Huh? Who called him? What was that?
7) Is it really believable that Agatha wouldn't take the book away from Walter after he started becoming obsessed to the point where he was having dreams about killing her? The obsession even started rubbing off on her son.. yet she just let them continue to read the book, the book that was causing Walter to descend back into madness.
8) Walter's past. Walter is an obsessive person. Is it believable that he wouldn't be curious about the part of his life that he lost? Wouldn't he want to know why he tried to commit suicide? Wouldn't he go back to the hospital and talk to the doctors? Apparently.. no which is just stupid. Even stupider is the fact that when the book was making Walter go crazy, not once did Agatha bring up his crazy past. Surely she knows that he had spent some time in a mental hospital. Heck, she met him as he was being released so she had to have known and if she didn't, that would be an even bigger plot hole. Obviously the movie didn't want to give Walter's crazy past away too early BUT after knowing the truth, it just makes for some unbelievable dialog between the husband and wife.
9) The dog, Ned. Everyone saw him. He existed yet his presence was some paranormal aspect of the story that was never explained. If he was sent to unveil the truth so justice could be served, why wait 13 years? If it's because Walter had just found the book & the #23 again, then why did the book wait 13 years to find him? Never explained.
10) A nit pick - Walter who is obsessed w/ the book & can't put it down seems to take forever to read the whole thing yet the wife, who surely wasn't obsessed seemed to have finished it in a day.
In a great movie, things like these can be overlooked but in a movie where nothing seems to work, these plot holes & ridiculous moments are evident & unforgivable.
3/10 is my rating.