# Deceiver (1997)

### reviewed by
Mark R. Leeper

                                   DECEIVER
                        A film review by Mark R. Leeper

                   Capsule:  A prostitute has been murdered and a
              self-admitted liar is the chief suspect, in spite
              of little evidence.  This is a complex story about
              the nature of truth in which things are rarely what
              they seem.  The problem is that the clues are not
              conclusive and are left contradictory.  This is a
              USUAL SUSPECTS wannabe but is not nearly so well-
              written.  Rating: 5 (0 to 10), low +1 (-4 to +4)

Jonas and Josh Pate co-wrote and co-directed this enigmatic crime film. Two pieces that together make up one dead prostitute, Elizabeth (played by Renee Zellweger in flashbacks), have been found. The police investigation has turned up a most unusual suspect, Wayland (Tim Roth). Wayland is the misfit heir to a textile fortune. The evidence tying Wayland to the prostitute is very weak: she simply died with his phone number in her pocket. But Wayland acts guilty and a two-man team of policemen administer a series of polygraph lie detector tests to Wayland. In little flashbacks we get to know the policemen. There is Kennesaw (Michael Rooker) and Braxton (Chris Penn). Each has complications in his life at the moment. Kennesaw has a beautiful but wayward wife (Rosanne Arquette) that he does not want to lose, but he has fits of rage about the situation. Braxton is a younger man, a security guard turned cop. We are explicitly his IQ is a lowly 101 and he certainly is not one of the more promising policemen on the force. He also has gotten into trouble with a flamboyant bookie (played by-- are your ready for this?--Ellen Burstyn) and he desperately needs money that he hopes to borrow from Kennesaw. Braxton and Kennesaw work as a team to try to break down Wayland, but it is not clear that even his answers on the polygraph are dependable. Even on the polygraph Wayland may be playing a deadly game of deception.

Tim Roth is, of course, second only to Steve Buscemi as the king of bizarre roles in arthouse films. His smooth strange manner is just about right for this film. He maintains a wall around himself inside which he remains aloof even from the audience. Most of the rest of the casting is prosaic. By far the most interesting choice is to have Ellen Burstyn as the bookie and kingpin Mook, complete with glitter eye-shadow. It is, of course, in stark contrast to the matronly roles we expect of her, and while we see her in only two scenes, her face is the one image of the film that sticks in my memory. Photography by Bill Butler is dark and moody.

DECEIVER is clearly an attempt to make another puzzle crime film in the tradition of THE USUAL SUSPECTS. It is the sort of story that does not really begin until the film is over and the audience has all the clues and then can start trying to piece them together. Generally that is a very good touch, but there has to be at least one real solution and way to get to it. It goes wrong, however, in DECEIVER because the clues do not seem to lead in a coherent way to a solution. It is an art in a puzzle story to leave enough clues about what is going on so that the viewer can piece together one or more possible satisfying explanations but at the same time make the explanation complex enough that piecing together the clues is a challenge. One had the feeling that on a second watching of THE USUAL SUSPECTS the viewer could make all of the clues fit. (And in fact it was not difficult on the second viewing.) A second viewing of DECEIVER on the other hand seems much less promising because there will still be too many holes to piece together the story. At the same time what we have already seen seems contradictory. There seem to be no explanations for what we have seen that are both coherent and interesting.

The Pates are trying a little too hard to surprise the us at the expense of logic in the script. Still while the illusion of the puzzle film lasts this film is intriguing. I rate it a 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.

                                            Mark R. Leeper
                                            mleeper@lucent.com
                                            Copyright 1998 Mark R. Leeper

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews