User Reviews

I was enjoying it. The actors were doing well. The story seemed to be going along ok. There was mystery and a did he/didn't he vibe going on. I was a bit confused about where it was set. It seemed to rain a lot, then suddenly be sunny and no trace of rain, but hey, I live in the land of drizzle. Anyway, then the ending happened and I can honestly say I have no idea what was supposed to have happened. I have a degree in Linguistics, Wittgenstein is one of my favourite philosophers, so it's not like I'm incapable of following that bit of the narrative. The ending just didn't make sense. So he's a pervert, but not a murderer, but he could easily be? Or, he's been programmed to react badly when he hears the words, 'I love you'? Or he only remembers what he wants to? Or makes up stuff that didn't happen? I'm worried about the mouse though. I didn't like the way he looked at it and I fear those kids are going to end up with another dead pet. I mean, did he deliberately do for the rabbit?!

"Spinning Man" is a neo-noir film that evolves into a suspenseful cat-and-mouse game between a philosopher professor, Evan Birch (Guy Pearce), and a seasoned detective, Robert Malloy (Pierce Brosnan). The professor is a specialist in the philosophy of language, and one of the intriguing parts of the film is the philosophical banter between the professor and the detective, who has a law degree and is clearly a skilled debater, as well as a savvy investigator.

According to the behind-the-scenes segment of the DVD, the film was based on a real event that inspired George Harrar 's book that was subsequently adapted into a screenplay. Brosnan identified "an eliptical sensibility" to the script. That is an apt way of describing the sense of how the film starts with a mundane incident by a lake and a missing person, then builds a story in a non-linear fashion as the philosophical issues start to supersede the crime drama.

A point made in the bonus track by the screenwriter was how the character of the professor was "self-destructive." That observation is revealing about the interpretation of the professor by actor Guy Pierce, who played the role with great confidence and no apparent intimidation felt from the aggressive the police detective. It was as if the actor was playing the opposite of what the character is really like, almost like a psychological defense mechanism.

Indeed, there were effective details in the film that offered psychological insights into the characters. The professor and his life were forced to leave Evanston following his inappropriate conduct with a young woman. Yet the professor has still kept a memento of a book a matches with the young woman's handwriting on the booklet, setting up a rendezvous. In the same vein, the detective relates to the professor how members of Alcoholics Anonymous carry a coin with them as a reminder not to take a drink. In two crucial moments of the film, the detective is scene handling such a coin.

Pearce described the film as "an explanation of human behavior and the fragility of one's identity." The film was successful in integrating philosophical discourse with a standard film thriller. One of the provocative ideas explored in the interaction between the professor and the detective was the thin line between "truth" and the individual's subjective "interpretation of truth."

By the end of the film, the detective has taken the professor to school with special insights into his own flawed character. The main narrative posits the question of what happened to the young woman in the incident at Hillside Lake. But the deeper focus is on a provocative human reality of memory, self-identity, and, the word that does not seem to be in the professor's vocabulary: denial.

Pierce Brosnan is investigating the disappearance of a local cheerleader. His prime suspect is philosophy Professor Evan Birch (Guy Pearce). Birch has two issues. One is his infidelity with his students and the second is his faulty memory that remembers things that may or may not have happened. His wife,kids, and university are not excited about what is going on either.

Birch is an overly flawed character...maybe. He was not that interesting of a character and as our protagonist, we never knew what to feel because like Evan, we didn't know what was happening, which was the point of the film. This is a different type of mystery where there is only one suspect and he doesn't know if he committed a crime or not. I would think this would be a better book than movie.

Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.

The story here hinges on the difference between the truth and one's interpretation of the truth. As a linguistics professor in the philosophy of language, Evan Birch (Guy Pearce) gets tangled up in a web of deceit that overcomes his rational thought to such a degree that by the end of the picture, he's confessing to a homicide he didn't commit. I think that's what ends up being the most frustrating part of the picture, because up until then, the screenplay revealed various deficits in the character of the professor that his wife (Minnie Driver) took great pains to overlook. Having moved on from a teacher/student affair from five years earlier, the couple agreed to set aside his indiscretion until more recent events signaled that Birch might have been directly responsible in the death of a female college student from his campus. Investigating the death, Detective Malloy (Pierce Brosnan) discovers circumstantial evidence that to the viewer would seem to implicate Birch as being guilty, while also leaving a lingering suspicion that the case wouldn't be so cut and dry. What wasn't explained and left dangling was why Birch's daughter (Eliza Pryor) denied knowing him to a policeman as she walked away from a leisurely outing. Thrown into the middle of the story like that, it just didn't make much sense at all, and still doesn't after the fact. The only conclusion one can make after Malloy explains the accident that led to the death of Joyce Bonner (Odeya Rush) is that Birch was a predator who didn't get caught, and that he would probably seek out student victims again given the opportunity. I don't think he had as much difficulty discerning the truth about a situation as the story line would lead you to believe. Either that, or you'd have to take the word of the secretary at the university office who stated - "Everybody here is nuts".

... and fairly unknown thriller in the best possible sense. A Highschool Professor and his family get in the center of the local police dpt. once a HS student disappears. What looks and sounds on the 1st sight like the usual recipe becomes more and more twisted as the story unfolds. Slow paced, psychologically refined and very well told. The overarching question might be: did he do it? But way more interesting in my opinion was Did he do something in the other city (too?) and will he do something potentially again? You see, spinning man asks more questions than it provides answers ... I don't get the low reviews, but so what. It worked for me and made my head spin.

Most reviewers here like the lead acting, and the story itself. I do, too. However, the ending is ambiguous, despite the fact that Brosnan, playing the police investigator seems to explain it clearly enough.

Spoiler Alert... Below (Stop now if you haven't seen movie yet)

The ending... Huh?

Can I suggest: watch the main character, played cleverly by Guy Pierce. This guy is disconnected. He has a wonderful family & a great job, but he has a wandering eye. He lies real pretty to his wife and himself. Maybe he has only a loose grasp on reality. If he has wiggled out of this one, the closing sequence indicates he aint done yet. Another pretty young lady is going to be found dead, sooner or later, and he will be in the loop again. This guy, for all his good looks, and charming style, has crossed a line descending to a dark place. Pierce Brosnan, the cop, will be starting all over.

That's my read.

They could have done so much more with this movie. Really great idea, but extremely poore execution. No plot twist, really hard to understand the ending - did he do it, did he not? The ending killed it all for me.

Can someone explain how this ending came together? Did he kill the original death, was he involved in the second disappearance or did the other girl kill them and frame him for it !? I'm nonethe wiser so if anyone can help please do!