Here's my thing. I have very mixed feelings about this film. (Uh-oh.) When it gets right down to it, I liked everything about it except two things, which are directly related.
1.) It has no moral center.
2.) It has (what I perceive to be) a major plot hole at the end.
Otherwise, it's a really good film -- entertaining and accomplished -- with sharp direction and strong performances across the board. Solid.
But, those two things really troubled me. A lot. And if they don't necessarily prevent me from recommending the film (I'm thinking about it), they do prevent me from endorsing it.
Basically, the film is about two college roommates who conspire to kill their third roommate so they'll receive a 4.0 for the semester and get into Harvard law school. Now, as a premise, that's rather inspired. And I was really looking forward to a sort of "Heathers Go To College." (Noni, when are you and Waters going to make that sequel happen? Write me!)
And, you know what? It was thisclose to pulling that off. But then it decided to add what I think was just one plot twist too many. This last twist (which I can't describe, because it's a pivotal spoiler and generates the film's ending) and the decisions leading up to it do two things that really damage the film in my eyes. It eliminates what could/would have been the moral center of the film (I can't really elaborate, or I'll ruin it), and renders most of what transpires in the film after the first act (if not the whole kit-and-kaboodle) completely moot. That is to say, once this twist occurs, it points a big arrow to the fact that there really was no reason for the last hour-plus to have happened. At all! For me, that makes the ending empty and hollow, no matter how clever, surprising and inventive it may appear to be on the surface.
Now, my perception was that most of the audience wasn't bothered by this. In fact, I think they were so distracted by the unexpected shock of the final twist that they didn't see the gaping plot hole it so blatantly exposed. And maybe director/screenwriter Dan ("The Last Supper") Rosen counted on that, and this was a conscious calculation on his part. Maybe. At any rate, the audience loved the film, and left the screening charged. (But I have to wonder if that charge wore off once the two factors I mentioned sunk in -- assuming they ever did.)
Well, I can't read minds, I can only share my thoughts. This is a slick film. With the right marketing campaign, it should perform well. The cast is so great I'm going to run down the list -- Matthew Lillard, Michael Vartan, Randall Batinkoff, Keri Russell, Tamara Craig Thomas, Anthony Griffin, Bo Deitle and... Dana Delany (who I always love to see). They are the real strength of the film. At the same time, Rosen manages to make a movie that looks like it cost a lot more than it probably did. Great camera work and editing. Really tight, well-crafted filmmaking. And, up to the final plot twist and subsequent ending, I think Rosen's got a really good script, and spins a fascinating, involving yarn.
So, if you don't mind the utter lack of a moral center and the presence of a major plot hole in its place, I recommend this film to you. If not, steer clear. This could've been a great movie, but I feel it shoots itself in the foot at the end. (That's a metaphor, not a spoiler, by the way).
