Taking Lives Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
He would kill to be you.
A successful FBI profiler, Illeana Scott (Jolie), is summoned to help out Canadian law enforcement in Montreal, to hunt down a serial killer who assumes the lives and identities (hence the title) of the people he kills as he travels across North America, which forces Illeana to adjust to working in a strange city with a police team with which she doesn't really fit in.
| Angelina Jolie | Illeana |
| Ethan Hawke | Costa |
| Kiefer Sutherland | Hart |
| Gena Rowlands | Mrs. Asher |
| Olivier Martinez | Paquette |
| Tchéky Karyo | Leclair |
| Jean-Hugues Anglade | Duval |
| Paul Dano | Young Asher |
| Justin Chatwin | Matt Soulsby |
| André Lacoste | Cashier |
| Billy Two Rivers | Car Salesman |
| Richard Lemire | Québec City Cop |
| Julien Poulin | Québec City Inspector |
| Marie-Josée Croze | Medical Examiner |
| Christian Tessier | Interrogation Officer |
| D.J. Caruso |
5.80 out of 10 (20957 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Thoroughly Mediocre
posted on 23 Aug 2009What do you get when you combine a handful of charismatic actors and a director who understands mood with an utterly clichéd screenplay apparently written by, and for, a low grade idiot? You get a thoroughly mediocre movie that could have been far better but instead takes the easy way out at every opportunity and falls flat.Angelia Jolie remains fun to watch, but she's given very little to work with in the script. Ethan Hawke fares even worse in the movie's most clichéd and predictable role. Kiefer Sutherland is completely wasted and any actor in Hollywood could have played his role with no dropoff in quality. And a handful of Canadian police all seem like they could have been interesting characters...if anybody had bothered to write them any parts.There have been so many smart thrillers written over the years, and so many ALMOST smart thrillers a step behind them, that all the mood and charisma in the world simply can't overcome this sort of sloppy, mailed in effort by a studio out to make a quick buck. I was having fun watching the actors for a while, appreciated the director's sense of style. But as the plot holes and predictable one-dimensional characters kept on piling up, eventually I was too worn down to care anymore.
This movie isn't even worth 10 paragraphs long reviews! geez...
posted on 15 Aug 2009As much as I am a fan of Angelina Jolie, I have to say this movie gets a big fat YAWN from me. I think all the hype around it only led to the rather large disappointment I suffered after watching this movie. All I kept hearing was how different and violent and shocking it was (sort of like the hype I received about Last House on the Left), yet all I got was a slow paced, not-so-greatly-acted, predictable film...with the occasional tension and suspense. (sort of like the conclusion I came to about Last House on the Left) Even the gore didn't impress me...if I can even remember those particular scenes...see? Not a good film...but better than Darkness or They...or that bloody House by the Cemetery. 5.5/10
A passing grade thriller
posted on 05 Aug 2009Spoilers Warning !!!Playing an investigator in a crime thriller seems an attractive proposition for an actress trying to get out of a genre. Sandra Bullock sought her escape from romance comedy by playing Cass Mayweather in Murder by Numbers. Although by no means a single-genre actress, Angelina Jolie is better known by far in her portrayal of Lara Croft, Tomb Raider. For a change, she plays no-nonsense FBI investigator Illeana Scott in Taking Lives, in which action plays only a very small part.Taking Lives is the sort of thriller that is almost impossible to talk about in any way without giving something away. However, the twist is in any event quite predictable, from about halfway through. Come to think of it, behind the thriller, this is a very familiar melodrama, about a woman shown in the beginning to be professionally tough and no-nonsense, exposed to be vulnerable in the middle, and toughens up again at the end for a killing (literally) revenge. The psychopath is introduced with a promising, ominous touch at the start. At one point, I was thinking that more would be made of the situation of the twins. A bit disappointingly, however, this character's development takes a premature end as it is reduced to more of a supporting role, just for anchoring the performance of the heroine.The vital flaw of this movie is that the most necessary part of the plot is also the most unconvincing, that the know-all, top-notch veteran investigator can turn overnight (again literally) into a lovesick lass.Technically, the movie is competently shot. One might perhaps complain about minor flaws such as the overuse of POV shots to emphasise agent Scott's keen observation. Still, pace and mise en scene are well handled.Ethan Hawke turned in a creditable performance. Watching him, I somehow had a curious thought of how two other actors would do instead: Guy Pearce and Kevin Bacon. Many fans of Keifer Sutherland complain that there's not enough of him. I was going to say that we get even less of him in Phone Booth but even that is not true. In Phone Booth, while hardly seen, he has a masterful performance with his VOICE, as a major character in the movie. Here, his appearance is hardly more than cameo.
Give credit where it's due.
posted on 30 Jun 2009Did anyone else think the cinematography was great? (Especially during the opening credits.) Movies with the tightest scripts and the most unsolvable mysteries can still leave me cold if the movie is shot badly or is put together with no imagination. This movie deserves a higher score because it gets that part so right.I can live with the inconsistencies (I don't know many movies that don't have them). Ditto for the plot twists that weren't all that twisty. And let's face it: was the sex scene gratuitous, or is it that Jolie is just so damn sexy? Yes, I figured out who the killer was right away. But so what? After all, the book this movie was based on tells you right up front who the killer is; the thrill is in seeing how long he is able to get away with it. The book was more menacing, but the movie is right in your face.Let's put it this way: the book was engrossing, but it didn't have me on the edge of my seat the way the movie did. And it definitely didn't cause me to scream. Don't be afraid to see this; it's good enough for an evening's entertainment. But then again, you could look up the book (if I could remember its title).
I'm surprised it's getting any bad reviews here
posted on 26 Jun 2009I think anyone in their right mind loves Angelina Jolie, and thinking something terrible might be about to happen to her makes you scared too.I liked it because it really sort of analysed in a properly critical way the manner and psychology of at least some types of antisocial individuals (in this case psychopaths). You see common traits between the bad guy and other generally socially dysfunctional individuals you might meet in life, like the sort of low life scum that would beat their wife or stuff like that.I don't know. It helped me understand people like that a little better, and be able to better identify those traits in ways I wouldn't have thought of.In the end, I'd say it's very intellectually stimulating. Even if a lot of the major elements of the plot are really very predictable, some parts really are not.Jolie really makes this movie, and hawk doesn't do that bad either. I recognize the police chief from La Femme Nikkita, but I think he's mostly just a decoration in this film.I *might* actually buy this one, or something, which is rare for me to do, as the copy I have today is rented.
Trash
posted on 18 Jun 2009Like a comedy, a good, smart thriller is hard to make. They both have formulas and expectations. They are better than dramas when well made but that is only true because so few of them are well made. For this reason, I didn't walk out of this movie. Nothing else kept me in the theater except that for most of the movie, in the back of my head I kept saying, it's not like they're trying to make a bad piece that only has box office appeal. This movie has a few jerkers if you're into scary stuff, but even then they are old tricks. So many movies use the shaky camera in the poorly lit empty house trick. If they place the camera behind the character, you get the impression that (s)he is being followed. That makes more than one appearance in this movie.The constant rain got on my nerves. At least the whole thing is not set at night. I live in a desert. We are lucky if we get a 1/2 inch of rain in a month but this movie had me thinking "Enough already". Yet another over-used trick. Of course the protaganist is a beautiful woman with big breasts. Enter Angelina Jolie. I have nothing against her but she has got to stop doing such garbage. Her costars don't sink but none of them rise to the challenge of creating characters.The ending is like the U2 song that plays at the beginning and end: random, 'because it's popular' and unfitting. I was disappointed the first time the movie "ended" and I was very disappointed when the real ending surfaced. Logic does not seem to be something that Taking Lives thought should apply to their storyline. */****
Kept my interest for the most part but was weak in areas
posted on 12 Jun 2009The story was an interesting story but i think it would have been more interesting to show more from the killer's experience. Also, Ethan Hawke was not a very convincing wacko killer. He just did not have that look in his eyes or aura about him that made him a convincing killer. Angelina's acting was actually very good and convincing. It was a a good lil twist at the end but not convincing twist. Who would setup someone, acting as a pregnant person for 7 months !? That's just not believable. To live like that in hopes that he would come back to get her... But anyhow, it was pretty obvious Ethan was the killer from the beginning and that's what made this movie a little boring to me. Although i did really enjoy seeing Angelina nude :D
Yet Another Serial Killer
posted on 29 May 2009I have somehow managed to miss the entire serial killer tracked by empowered female investigator genre begotten by "Silence of the Lambs," but I got suckered into "Taking Lives" by the hunky combo of Olivier Martinez and Ethan Hawke. Clearly my neighbors in the packed theater had seen the multitude of such Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman, etc. movies because they were laughing at my gullible reactions to what seems to be conventions of the gory genre.I was used to director D.J. Caruso's tricks from TV murder mystery series so I saw through his chop-chop editing at crucial climaxes that cover up weak plot points to see the villain too soon. But the final twist should entrap any viewer. Evidently, though, one would have to read Michael Pye's original novel to figure out how the heck Angelina Jolie's character makes the key link by staring at the grisly photographs plastered above her bed as she certainly doesn't tell us. I couldn't help thinking, though, that the "CSI" crowd would have solved the whole thing a lot more easily than Angelina's mystical communing with the dead that was supposed to justify why the Quebecois authorities had to bring in a FBI profiler. It was nice for a change to have a mystery set in gritty French Canada, letting Martinez fit in naturally, though why the heck they kept having shots of Quebec City stand in for Montreal made no sense -- and couldn't they have found a role for Quebecois actor Roy Dupuis of "La Femme Nikita" TV series?
Taking Lives (2004) BOMB
posted on 29 Apr 2009Angelina Jolie is gorgeous to look at, and that's really the whole film. The rest of it is a totally incomprehensible and muddled mess. Despite her looks and one hot sex scene, Jolie doesn't offer anything of substance to her part as a cold fish, and Ethan Hawke is completely unbelievable in his role as well. This starts out quite promising with a knockout opening and looks to be going in an interesting direction, but then the "plot" becomes so convoluted with the now-customary routine of bouncing from scene to scene that any chance for a rewarding experience goes out the window. A real piece of junk.
great
posted on 19 Apr 2009i really liked this movie it was long and kept u thinking about how weird this all was , basically a 16 yr old boy runs away and starts killing people and he lives there life until he finds a new life, the movie had good twist in my opinion and kept me guessing , it also had jumps and when it made you jump it made you JUMP to the point where your heart is speeding out of control,well at least for me ....*note* this works best when your by yourself ... sooo yeah i thought it was a great movie there was some scenes where my mouth just dropped wide open and i couldn't believe what i had just saw but hey thats what makes a good movie.
Has its moment, but not enough to be a good thriller
posted on 15 Apr 2009'Taking Lives' is tricky in its casting. The first suspect of multiple murders is a character played by Ethan Hawke since he was found above a dead body, but the film also stars the obvious suspect Kiefer Sutherland. Two other familiar actors, at least their faces, are played by Olivier Martinez ('Unfaithful') and Tchéky Karyo ('The Patriot'). Since the audience will probably recognize their faces they are potential killers; in a lot of thrillers it simply works like that. So we have at least four possible killers and still the film manages to feel constantly predictable which is too bad since there are some interesting things here, besides the smart casting.The opening sequences belong to the best of the film. The killer is introduced in such an unexpected way I was hoping the film could live up to these great first moments. Unfortunately it did not, but there are other moments in the film that come close. The film is set in Canada and for reasons I do not understand the police there needs help from FBI Agent Illeana Scott (Angelina Jolie), the only character who is definitely not the killer. The Canadian detectives are the Martinez-character, who can not stand her, the Karyo-character and a third played by Jean-Hugues Anglade, who is helpful to Scott. Like I said, Hawke is found above a body but becomes a possible victim soon after that, the moment where Kieferland is introduced.I should say no more, although there is no way you can figure this film out before the film wants you to. The problem is, we expect certain things while the film plays and minutes later we find out we were right. That the film is better than it should be comes from some good moments, from the way the filmmakers make implausibilities plausible through good film-making, and from the actors, especially Hawke who is one of the more natural actors out there. 'Taking Lives' is the kind of film you should watch expecting nothing and it will turn out to be pretty entertaining. In my opinion the ending is the worst thing from this film, but who really cares when you are already at that point?
Enjoy and don't over analyze everything
posted on 07 Apr 2009As much as this movie was very predictable, except for the end, I enjoyed it. In a thriller the suspect is always the one you least expect, and although it did seem a little long, I think it is a movie worth watching and recommending. Just the fact that the end threw me for a loop was all worth it, because the rest was very much what I expected. WATCH IT!! You will not be disappointed. Oh, and for the guys out there, you do get to see Angelina practically naked which I know is a big deal for you guys. Ethan Hawke and Olivier Martinez are not hard on the eyes for us girls too. I don't think they are bad actors either, I'm glad Ethan did the part.
bad
posted on 26 Mar 2009A movie about a serial killer who takes on the identity of each victim would be interesting to watch. Let me know when that movie is made. This movie took the wrong turn almost as soon as it reached...where are we? Montreal? Why? I was more interested in how the killer managed to assume identities than how Angelina Jolie manages to have sex with the killer, but the movie never shares the details. And that ENDING. Oy. I literally slapped my forehead with my hand, it was so bad. Kiefer Sutherland was totally wasted. The "hidden room" was never explained. Why would the serial killer bash in faces, then suddenly decapitate someone? This movie was not worth watching. It was not engaging. It's just two hours of my life I will never get back.
Interesting at times, but a bit strange (SPOILERS)
posted on 24 Mar 2009OK, where to start... First of all, I expected a bit more out of this movie than it delivered. When I saw that Kiefer Sutherland was in it, I was happy because I'm a big fan of his work on the series "24." Unfortunately, even though he was billed third, he got maybe a total of ten minutes screentime. The third character billing made you think he was a big character, but he was actually just in there to throw you off. So, that was sort of a disappointment. The nice thing about the movie was (even though my friends said it was predictable) that it departed a bit from the "guy has to save the helpless girl" mentality. I'm not a feminist, but I sort of get sick of the constant, "let's kidnap the girlfriend to put the hero at a disadvantage" thing. Please. The departure came where it was switched around--the guy was in trouble in part of the movie. It turned out that he was actually faking, but it was refreshing to actually hear a guy yell, "Help!" When do you ever hear that in a movie?! Maybe I'm overreacting to something stupid, but anyway... I liked the movie and I'd go to see it again because I thought Angelina Jolie and Ethan Hawke both did a good job, but if I wanted to see Kiefer Sutherland again, I'd watch "Phone Booth."
Aptly Titled (some spoilers)
posted on 08 Mar 2009How appropriate that this predictable snooze-fest is titled Taking Lives, because it does indeed succeed in taking the lives of the audience and wasting nearly two hours, which is the only crime resulting from this movie.In order to make a successful who-dun-it, you need more than two possible suspects, one (Keifer Sutherland) who is so obviously planted as a token red herring that you have to laugh when Ethan Hawke spouts off dialogue that is supposed to sound like ironic foreshadowing ("they always kill the bait" "I have never been a good guy.") Jolie bumbles through the investigation-- sleeping with a suspect she should have known is the killer, allowing him to escape when viewing the elevator scene, and then faking a pregnancy in hopes to lure back the killer? (which conveniently he falls for, I would have been much more amused if after 9 months of faking a pregnancy she rips out the prosthetic and said "damn, I fell for it again!"Oh and btw, I like the intro. and the whole creepy motive / abandoned dwelling scenes better the first time when they called the film "Seven."
I am tired of Angelica's lips shots...
posted on 06 Mar 2009The story is ok. I mean it has a great beginning and very predictable end. I have to say that I am very tired of Jolie's lips and breast shots. Don't get me wrong here, they are beautiful but when you see the same camera close-ups on them in movie after movie, it does get boring. I wish there was an Angelica Jolie magazine with her in it on every page, that's how beautiful she is. But the morons in Hollywood are beating the same old, almost dead horse. I wonder if she gets tired of it at all...Anyway, the movie was ok, but it is far away from "Seven" and other hits. They should make a movie now titled "Eight" and have Halle Berry have sex with Special Agent Affleck, while John Travolta eats the left leg of Mr. Hopkins. Hollywood please, now you have made all the money, how about some movies with brains...
He would kill to be you.
posted on 28 Feb 2009Angelina Jolie dives headfirst into the role of FBI Agent Scott called upon by the Canadian police to help them investigate a series of murders. What begins as a normal homicide, eventually turns dark as a witness by the name of Costa (Ethan Hawke) is found at the scene of the latest murder. Claiming to have seen the murderer, Costa becomes the only witness the in this bizarre story. Everything turns upside down as Jolie investigates the possibility of a 'chameleon' killer, one that takes the body of another and lives the life they have built. As her hunt develops, she draws an attraction to Costa that will blur her image of reality. This seemingly innocent relationship will cause Scott to realize that emotions and crime fighting do not mesh. Keifer Sutherland, Gena Rowlands, and Olivier Martinez finish out the rest of the case of this superbly filmed, poorly acted, and choppy story known as Taking Lives.This is one of those classic cases of amazing cinematography, but sterile story. It is obvious from the opening scene that DJ Caruso has the ability to capture the obscure and translate it to the screen, but unfortunately the same cannot be said for his ability to lead the actors. This could have been a very stylish thriller, but instead if falls very short because the actors do not have a leader to guide them. Jolie's character is never fully developed or explained as we watch her do everything from sleep in graves to eat her Cheerios with pictures of corpses. Why does she do this? It is never detailed or explained anywhere in this film. She is the best in her class with cases like this, yet she continually slips up and causes errors that push the police further and further away. It is inconsistencies like this that made me question the plausible nature of her character.Hawke wears his character's shoes well, but he gives too much away. Sutherland is lost and Rowlands seemed to be reading her lines from cue cards off-screen. Combine this amateurish acting with a sloppy script that never quite peaks at any moment and you have Taking Lives. I wanted so much more from this film due to the caliber of the actors, but they seemed to just walk through their parts. I needed stronger direction from a leader that seemed to just sit back and relax instead of create art. Nothing seemed to fit, and eventually it all fell apart. Grade: * ½ out of **** (due to the cinematography)
Too confusing, not to mention dumb
posted on 26 Feb 2009***MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD***I figured out who the killer was as soon as he was on the screenfor the first time. He keeps on talking about how much blood therewas as he tried to give the victim CPR; yet, he is wearing a cleanwhite shirt that has no stains on it except on the edges of thesleeve cuffs. WHY DIDN'T THE COPS NOTICE THIS? (Betterquestion: why didn't the director notice this?)And at the end, it turns out that the killer has been lured to Jolie'shome through an elaborate scheme by her and the FBI. So whywas she given no backup? She was left to fight the killer all by herlonesome. Turns out she was lucky to defeat him the way she did. (Of course, if she had been given back-up, then we wouldn't havebeen treated to the easy-to-telegraph "twist" at the very end. Reminds me of her other dumb police movie, The Bone Collector.She was sent into spooky crime scenes with no back-up for fearthat the other officers would destroy clues. Give me a break.)Then we have her quirkiness of lying in the grave of a victim.Supposedly this means she has a hidden talent where she canfeel vibes. But outside of this scene, and one where she lies inthe bed of a potential suspect, this "quirk" is never explored.Speaking of quirks, the director from time to time--gives usextreme close-ups of lips and eyes. It seems like an attempt to bestylish, but because it is so inconsistent, it calls attention to itselfand is just annoying.Then there is the sub-plot about the twin boys and their mother--letme see, which one was Martin? And let's see--she beat him up asa child? And whose body did they actually dig up? Reese? Butwhat does this have to do with anything?Then we have the thrilling car chase that felt so out-of-place. Bothcars--heroine and villain--looked so similar, it was impossible totell which was which. But in the end the car chase made no senseso it didn't matter.At this point I just stopped caring because things just were tooconfusing. I bet if I went to see it a second time, things might getcleared up. But I wanted to enjoy it the first time.
UMM- BUMMER!!
posted on 16 Feb 2009This film was not what I expected at all. In my personal view it was a bad, bad, bad movie. While the good part was the cast. Angelina Jolie is excellent and so is Kiefer Sutherland, he is among my favorite actors in Hollywood, so I wished he had more screen time. Ethan Hawke on the other hand was just OK. The plot had a pretty good twist, but it was predictable!! Another thing that bothered me was it was supposed to be based on the novel by Micheal Pye, even though in the novel there is no mention of an Illeana Scott. Or any character remotely similar to her. The plot is about a FBI profiler, Illeana Scott(Angelina Jolie), who is sent to Canada on a homicide case. When she arrives she develops a key theory to the case that suggests that the killer is "taking the lives" of the people whom he kills. Ethan Hawke plays a man by the name of James Costa who claims to have witnessed most of one of the murders. But in the process Illeana becomes attracted to him and things get hot. Soon after this we experience many plot twists. This movie really wasn't all that great and plus a lot of the French actors who play Canadian police officers have very strong accents and you can't even understand them half of the time!! It isn't worth it. And what ever critic said that Taking Lives was the best thriller he had seen in years should be thrown in jail for mere stupidity!!!
Take Your Lives Elsewhere
posted on 25 Aug 2009Taking Lives (2004) - Starring Angelina Jolie, Ethan Hawke, Kiefer Sutherland, and Gena Rowlands - Written By Jon Bokenkamp - Based on the Novel By Michael Pye - Directed By D.J. Caruso - MPAA Rating: R - 3/10Taking Clichés is more like it. This "thriller" relies more on cheap jumps than real thrills. The film is very predictable, mostly because we've seen it all before. It brings nothing new to the table. The performances would have saved the film, but Hawke's Hayden Christensen caliber mediocrity hinders that from happening. Jolie, Rowlands, and Sutherland were very good, but that's about it. Really, the only good thing I can say about this film was that it was better than Twisted.Smitty's evaluation: 3/10 - It would probably be better to read a book. (Maybe the novel the film is based on?)