3rd April, 2012.
Hmm …
Now, I’ve got to confess, usually — if I’m seriously impressed by a film — I’ll usually be itching to start writing about it, straight away.
As you’re no doubt VERY aware, if you’ve read my write-up of Pontypool*.
At any rate, I have to admit to having had a quiet night in, last night.
Along with quite a lot of tea … and a copy of the 2007 David Fincher directed whodunnitº, Zodiac.
Which, despite not getting the
Immediate Post treatment, is definitely worth watching.
Based on Robert Graysmith’s non-fiction book of the same name — and dealing with the Zodiac murders™ of the late 1960s and early 1970s — Zodiac sees Jake Gyllenhaal as Robert Graysmith: a young cartoonist on the
San Francisco Chronicle who slowly becomes involved with the investigation of a series of killings, when his employers receive a letter.
A letter that claims to be from the killer, complete with details known only to the killer and the police AND a threat the killer will do something suitably nasty to a schoolbus.
That’s not all the killer sends
He ALSO includes a message in code, as well, with a challenge to decode it.
AND a piece of one victim’s shirt.
AND a running score … !
As the Robert Downey Jnr character, Paul Avery, puts it: “… he took credit for it anyway, because he's in it for the press.”
~≈†≈~
Now …
Let’s cutting to the chase, shall we … ?
You’re probably going to ask me something along the lines of “Paul, should I see Zodiac … ?”
My personal answer is going to be a very definite “Yes”.
Granted, I don’t think it’s as tense of Pontypool or Silence of the Lambs†.
But Zodiac is a very well paced thriller: and despite being over 157 minutes, a thoroughly engrossing one that kept me pinned to my seat.
Go see.
Zodiac
★★★☆
* If you’ve not seen Pontypool, you’ve missed a very good film. (I’m ALSO still um’ming and ah’ing about the 4 whole stars I gave it, it was that much of a toss up between 3.5 and 4. I went with four, purely on the basis I’ve not shut up about it, since … !)
º OK, it might not strictly be a whodunnit: I’ll leave the actually arguments to both regular movie night maven, Kevin D, and to regular commentor, Debbi Mack, who knows a thing or two about crime novels.
† Very few films have the emotional tension of Silence of the Lambs, in my humble opinion‡ … !
‡ Yes, I know that’s possibly the SILLIEST phrase ever invented: I’m always thinking the only time people use it, is to actually say “This is my opinion on the matter: I’m right, you’re not, and nothing else need be said.” Apart from when I do it, obviously … … … … … …
™ An unsolved series of murders … ? An unfound killer … ? And a series of letters to both press, police and assorted legal wonks, that take credit for the grisly deaths … ?
Ever heard the phrase deja vu?
No comments:
Post a Comment
I love it when someone comments. But, having had anonymous comments I feel may be libellous, actionable or just plain offensive, over the years?
I’d appreciate you* leaving your name — with a link to your website or social-media profile†, for preference — before you post a comment.
Should you choose to use a pseudonym/name, I’d appreciate it if that name were to be polite and inoffensive. I’d rather you kept it clean, and relatively grown up. Comments left with a pseudonym will be posted at my discretion: I really prefer a link.
Contentious, actionable or abusive posts left anonymously will not be posted. Nor will comments using offensive pseudonyms or language, or that are abusive of other commenters.
Thank you.
* I know many value their online privacy. I respect that. But hope you respect my wish to see who’s commenting on my blog: and my wish for you to introduce your self to me, and to your fellow commentors.
† Your Facebook, X/Twitter, Blogger, Instagram, TikTok or LinkedIn profile are acceptable. I also like seeing folks webpages.