“Abandon” is a moody, effective thriller for about 80 percent of the way, and then our hands close on air. If you walk out before the ending, you’ll think it’s better than it is. Or maybe I’m being unfair: Maybe a rational ending with a reasonable explanation would have seemed boring. Maybe this is the ending the movie needed, but it seems so arbitrary as it materializes out of thin air.

Or maybe I’m still being unfair. Maybe it doesn’t come from thin air. Students of Ebert’s Bigger Little Movie Glossary will be familiar with the Law of Economy of Characters, which states that no movie introduces a character unnecessarily, so that the apparently superfluous character is the one to keep an eye on. That rule doesn’t precisely apply here, but it’s relevant in a reverse sort of way. Think of the Purloined Letter.

Enough of this. The motion picture at long last did not fulfill me, thus I can’t suggest it, yet there is a considerable measure to commend, starting with Katie Holmes’ execution as Catherine Burke, a keen and well-spoken understudy who is on the road to success to a corporate meeting room. She’s an understudy at an anonymous college (McGill in Montreal gave the areas), has recently aced a meeting with a major firm, examines hard, doesn’t date. Her ex Embry Langan (Charlie Hunnam) vanished bafflingly two years back, yet then he was the sort of weirdo virtuoso who was continually pulling stunts that way.

The key inquiry: Did Embry vanish himself, or would he say he was vanished? Det. Swim Handler (Benjamin Bratt) is looking into it, and in spite of the fact that Catherine at first cuts him off, she begins to like the person. In the interim, in what is not as quite a bit of a spoiler as it may show up, Embry returns on grounds, and begins stalking Catherine. That is the majority of the plot you’ll get from me. I need to discuss throwing, discourse and the film’s general knowledge. This is a film that convincingly depicts the way understudies talk, think, get squandered, philosophize and stay nearby on a school grounds. I accentuate that since when “The Rules of Attraction” opened seven days back, I doubted its scenes in which topless lesbians were disregarded by male understudies at grounds parties. I have here a letter from Joseph Gallo of Auburn, Ala., who says such a sight is normal on his grounds. Uh, huh.

The understudies in “Forsake” talk keen. Particularly Catherine. Watch the way Katie Holmes handles that meeting with the powerful corporate selection representatives. It could be utilized as a preparation film. Watch her non-verbal communication and word decisions when she rejects a progress from her guide. Notice the scene where a companion welcomes her to go to an “against globalization rally.” In a standard motion picture, a line like that would be standard, intended to move the plot to its next occasion. In this film, Catherine reacts. She has a sentiment about hostile to globalization. Amazing.

The motion picture was composed and coordinated by Stephen Gaghan, who won an Oscar for the “Movement” screenplay and is making his directorial make a big appearance. Gaghan has composed such persuading characters, including the nasty know-everything played by Melanie Lynskey and the closest companions played by Zooey Deschanel and Gabrielle Union, that it’s sort of a disgrace this is a thriller. A genuine grounds motion picture, about feelings of trepidation and desire, could have been produced using this material. Deschanel’s smashed scene with the cop is a case of material that is right on target.

Be that as it may, the motion picture is a thriller, thus we should look as the human components and the insight, which have retained and engaged us, are ground up in the prerequisites of the Shocking Climax. Too awful. Here is a motion picture that never steps wrong until the last scenes, and afterward, having addressed the greater part of our inquiries up until at that point, closes with questions even it, I think, can’t reply.