Has anyone noticed the surge of interest paid by movie critics to David Fincher's spring-release film Zodiac? First there was Manohla Dargis's subtle reading of the film in the New York Times, which headlines their Oscar Preview section. Now comes Elbert Ventura's analysis in Slate.
Zodiac really is a remarkable movie, one I've frequently recommended to friends as smart, stylish, and (at least until now) totally underrated. But now it almost seems as though the movie critics, sick and tired of hearing the TV critics extol the return of the also-great, also-underwatched police drama The Wire, wanted to write their own take on the subversive nature of a genuinely realistic, genuinely obsessive police procedural.
I remember critics (and a few friends) championing Zodiac when it first came out. It got a 78 on MetaCritic. I think it suffered from a mismatch between the trailer and the film's true merits. By most accounts, Zodiac's claim to fame is not being a particularly effective thriller, and if that's what you were seeking, you were likely to be disappointed. It was good because it was a fascinating and incredibly atmospheric dissection of a labyrinthine process, yes?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm guessing it'll have a healthy second life on DVD.