Zodiac (A-)

BF and I went to see Zodiac tonight (Friday night that is). I liked it.

Wow! I’ve actually liked the last two films we’ve seen. I went into tonight’s film knowing practically nothing about the Zodiac Killer (except what I learned last week from Coast to Coast AM’s “expert panel”), so it was very interesting for me to simply learn more about the murders.

It was also fun to see the Bay Area in Film. I recognized Original Joe's! In the film it looked exactly like when we were there last year. What a great place. They offer ravioli as a side dish with entrees, and serve generous portions. BF and I are a couple who KNOW how to get our money’s worth at an all-you-can-eat buffet, but we took doggie bags home that night.

I digress, back to the film…

Zodiac was artfully filmed especially some of the transitional scenes. I didn’t realize going in that David Fincher is the same director that did Fight Club.

Entertainment Weekly’s, Owen Gleiberman describes Zodiac as "A procedural thriller for the information age..." I agree. It documents the investigation of a serial killer in a world without email, fax machines or Starbuck’s. It’s a convincing period piece that didn’t beat you over the head (too much) with its props. If you’re a film lover or true crime fan, go see it in the theater, if not, it will be worth the rental fee.

Unsuitable for Hypochondriacs

The promotional poster for “Mad Cowgirl” got me thinking…There are films out there that hypochondriacs like me should just NOT see.

So, just like the Catholic Light would list films that were objectionable for all audiences, I am compiling a list of Films Unsuitable for Hypochondriacs. The funny thing is, as a child, I would ALWAYS check out that list of films published in the Catholic Light and wonder about the priests who had the job of going and viewing all those objectionable films…probably Jesuits.

I can only come up with the following six so far, but welcome any additions to the list.

Dark Victory (1939) - Perhaps the best dying-chick-flick ever made. No one can die like Bette Davis! “Oh- It’s all going dark. I must be brave…” Pardon me while I grab a Kleenex. Check out the butts on her hospital tray. The gal is in for brain surgery! Where’s the bottle of vodka? Under her pillow, perhaps? A wonderful (yet depressing and scary) film! – I give it 4 Paxil.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) – Oh no! I’m becoming a pod person. I just know it. Donald Sutherland and Leonard Nimoy give great performances. This is just an awesome film. – I give it 3 ½ Paxil.

Camille (1936) – I say! Greta Garbo is right up there with Bette Davis. – I give it 3 ½ Paxil.


Sweet November (2001) – A dumb, dying-chick-flick. I like Charlize Theron, but she’s no Bette Davis. – I give it 2 Paxil.

Autumn in New York (2000) – Another, even dumber dying-chick-flick. Winona Ryder is no Bette Davis. – I give it ½ Paxil.

300 (A-)

BF and I just got back from seeing 300. He wanted to go on Friday, but I hate going to movies on opening night. You have to wait in line, only to be seated in an over-crowded nasty theatre.

As for 300, I really liked it! In fact, I liked it much more than I thought I would.

It was visually stunning! The film truly had the genuine, honest-to-goodness, look and feel of a graphic novel. Black and white sections of action set amid beautiful, lush, almost hand-colored looking scenes, slowed down and sped up for effect.

It was violent and gory, but hey! It was stylish. “Stylized” would actually be the correct word. It did not cause a visceral, horror response in me, nor did it cause me to curl my lip back at the cheesiness.

When in film, a severed head is shown falling to the ground and the director allows the rubber-hitting-wood sound to remain audible, or worse, permits the rubber-hitting-wood visual to be seen, I groan. Yes, I groan out loud in the theater (even louder at home). Upon first viewing (and I did look somewhat carefully at background action) I can find nothing wrong with the death and dismemberment in 300.

I thought that the monstrous, Persian, creatures were a little over the top (and a little too similar to the creatures I remember seeing in Lord of the Rings)…but it was pointed out to me that they were represented as depicted in Miller’s, pre-Lord of the Rings graphic novel. I think this is an important point to consider when viewing and judging this film as a whole. It is based on a graphic novel, NOT on historic accuracy. When I was able to suspend my disbelief and keep this in mind, I thought the film was pretty damned good.

I think the first film that really registered, as a graphic novel to me was Blade. It hit the nerve in a much subtler way…and then of course there was Sin City. Sin City was visually stunning but ultimately not as uplifting as 300.

300 was an impressive first, big effort for director, Zack Snyder, who previously did a bunch of music videos and advertisements. It is not surprising though. His background makes sense, given that the film is a collection of tightly edited, set pieces.

On Friday, Yahoo! posted a bulletin board for folks to respond to Zack Snyder’s question “What do we learn from Greek history?” The first response I read was from some ninny who went on about how Greek culture sets an example for us to respect and preserve art and architecture. Did that person even SEE the film!?! Come on!!! Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of art and architecture!…BUT… Greek history teaches us what it means to be free men!

[BF now wants to debate the difference between “comic book” (ie:Blade) and “graphic novel” (ie; V for Vendetta?). Aaghh! The only difference I can see is the stock they were printed on!]