By Barbara Pezet

Staff Writer

I have pet peeves about movies. For example, I hate it when I can predict what will happen on screen ten minutes before it does. I hate it when a movie seems to take itself too seriously. I hate it when I have high hopes that are completely dashed by the end credits. But probably my biggest pet peeve is when a movie has massive amounts of potential, and then throws it away in order to have a ``big star.''

On one level or another, ``Murder By Numbers'' accomplished all of the above. Two very bored, very rich high school boys come up with a plan to commit the perfect murder, and then have to outwit the typical tough chick detective who has a hidden secret in her past and tons of personal issues. Where have we seen this before? Can you predict how it's going to end? Not all that hard, is it?

This film hurt me, deeply. I can imagine over and over again what the director, Barbet Schroeder, could have done differently to make this the interesting character study that it should have been. My first suggestion? Lose Sandra Bullock.

To be perfectly honest, I don't really mind her. And I'm not saying that Bullock was awful for the part; it's the same kind of character she usually plays: focused yet playful, hardened yet with a soft little underbelly severely guarded. In my opinion, the whole character was unnecessary.

``Murder'' begins with an intriguing moment of introduction to the two murderers, but then quickly turns to Bullock's character, Cassie Mayweather, and pretty much stays there for the rest of the film. All potential plot twists disappear and we're left pointlessly digging into Cassie, as if we want to see why she's the way she is and not witness the triumph or failure of the murderers.

Had the focus of the movie been on the two boys rather than the detective and her personal issues, it could have gone in some really fascinating directions. The only times I was really interested in the plot involved the boys' explaining and demonstrating their belief in the ``man-superman'' concept, stating things like, ``crime is not an idea, it's an act; only free men can do it.'' These guys are warped, but nothing really told me why.

We jump in feet first, starting right when the body was found. From the beginning we know who did it, and we are never are really given a chance to wonder how they did it. Cassie and her partner, Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), proceed to tell us everything. There are no clues to figure out; everything is discovered through lab tests and the like. We passively sit and watch without getting emotionally involved with anyone but the murderers.

Schroeder gave us two very opposite, very obvious criminal types, but because of the actors' ability, they were completely believable. Michael Pitt, the more recognizable of the two, had his breakout role on the TV show ``Dawson's Creek,'' playing a loveable loser. However, in this movie, he's a murderous loveable loser named Justin Pendleton. Overly quiet and hyper-intelligent, Justin is the brains of the operation: he knows everything there is to know about forensic science.

One look at him, and you can tell he will forever be typecast. Pitt looks like a loser, talks like a loser, and will have a hard time proving that he could act like he isn't a loser; this role is ideal. The weakness that comes across from Pitt seems so innate, you can't help but feel sympathetic towards him right from the first time you meet him. It gets a bit tiresome and thin towards the end, but you know he's not really a ``bad guy.''

The other half of the murder dream team is Richard Haywood, played almost pitch-perfectly by Ryan Gosling in his first major mainstream role. Gosling has recently recievec praised for his fascinating portrayal of a Jewish neo-Nazi in ``The Believer'' at this year's Sundance Film Festival, Gosling seems destined for great things.

While ``Murder'' is not the best vehicle to show off his talents, he still offers a multi-faceted performance as Richard, the confident, spoiled pretty-boy. Gosling is able to give Richard more depth than any other character in the film, constantly switching between over-powering arrogance and desperate vulnerability, manipulating everybody, particularly Cassie and Justin. I just wish I understood why. I blame the script.

(Fun fact about Gosling: he started his career on the same TV show as Britney Spears and a couple members of N'SYNC: ``The New Mickey Mouse Club.'' It's great to see that there were a few talented people on the show, isn't it?)

So, in a nutshell, there are no surprises, no fun twists that a psychological thriller ought to have, and all this just so we can watch Sandra Bullock. It doesn't play with your mind, and everything is broadly hinted at a long time before you witness it. But I think people should see the flim, if only to spread the buzz about Gosling. Keep your eye on him; he's the most interesting part of this washout of a movie.