Now I know why I’m prone to migraine headaches. Too bad I've wasted so much money on doctor appointments and various tests. For just the price of admission to Suspect Zero, I learned my ailment indicates I’m a sensitive person who, if properly trained, might be able to envision evil events and thereby help stop them. Clearly, I could use such training, for it would have prevented me from seeing this painfully muddled crime thriller.

On second thought, I take that back. Nothing ever keeps me away from a movie with Ben Kingsley or Aaron Eckhart. Although I still have a love-hate relationship with Kingsley (because he stole the Oscar from Paul Newman back in 1982), I admire his acting talent tremendously. However, despite Kingsley’s Gandhi win, I think he’s more effective portraying bad guys, like the despicable gangster in Sexy Beast. For Suspect Zero, he channels a bit of that character to portray a loose cannon who goes overboard fighting evil with evil. Coincidentally, Eckhart can also do a super job as a villain. If you don’t believe me, get the video of In the Company of Men and watch the meanest character ever seen on celluloid. I kid you not -- he frightened me so much I was afraid to interview him. (Fortunately, both actors are very nice in person.)

In Suspect Zero, Eckhart is required to deliver a more nuanced performance, and he rises to the challenge. He plays Thomas Mackelway, a disgraced FBI agent trying to get back in the swing of things at a new location, along with his former partner (Carrie-Anne Moss, wasted here). Before long, Mackelway starts receiving messages from Benjamin O’Ryan (Kingsley) about numerous murders and missing persons throughout the U.S. Why does O’Ryan zero in on Mackelway? I’m not sure, but maybe it’s because he sees something of himself in the younger crime fighter. After all, both want to stop serial killers -- and, of course, each one suffers from migraine headaches.     

I can’t fault these two fine performances, but the movie itself left me with little satisfaction and much confusion. Gimmicky filmmaking with too many fast cut-away shots always annoys me, and I’m tired of newspaper clippings used to fill in important story elements -- especially when they’re presented so quickly it’s impossible read them. The dark look of the film also causes problems. I realize some gloomy atmosphere is necessary in a thriller, but does it have to be so shadowy we can’t tell what’s happening?

Drat -- here comes another migraine.

(Released by Paramount Pictures and rated “R” for violent content, language and some nudity.)