If you’re anything like me , you’re a sucker for a good revenge movie. 2 years ago I fell in love with a Finnish film where the star never speaks in the movie, does outrageous things that are not physically possible, and kills Nazis for 90 minutes. In other words it was a movie that was designed for people like me, and I hope for people like you.
When I heard that there was going to be a Sisu 2, I was immediately excited. More ridiculous violence and a stoic hero that we can admire for his fortitude, creativity, and relentlessness. This time he gets to kill Commies for the most part, although there is one Nazi who is directing things. Does that make any sense? Of course not. These movies are not meant to make sense, they are meant to entertain, and the road to Revenge is quite entertaining, although it can never achieve the delightful surprise that its predecessor was.
The setup for the film is simple: Our hero , Having been displaced by Soviet takeover of Finnish territory, returns to the home where his wife and child were murdered. His goal, To tear it down and transport it to the new territory in Finland where he is now exiled to. The Soviet High command has determined that a Finnish Commando who has become a legendary hero is a threat to their status, so they release the Nazi commandant responsible for his family’s death, to deal with him in a manner that reflects their barbaric nature .
The Nazi war criminal , freed by the communists to do their dirty work is played by actor. Stephen Lang. This is familiar territory for Lang, As he has played villains in countless films, including the Avatar movies and Tombstone. Our returning hero is played by the same actor from the first film whose stoic countenance continues to be admirable, and ambiguous. Some of the action requires submersion underwater, acceleration through the air, and reckless speeds on highways that have been deteriorated by War conditions. All of which provides background for our hero to defend himself against the Relentless attacks of a plethora of Russian soldiers being directed by a Nazi war criminal. Like I said it doesn’t make a lot of sense but it is a lot of fun.
Sequels inevitably involve stepping up the special effects and amping up the action. Fortunately “SISU The Road to Revenge” does not skimp on the brutality. The Battalion of men who are eliminated at some point in this movie are dispatched with guns, knives, bombs, flames and we get to see most of it. So be prepared for a brutal good time, one that is satisfying although not quite as joyful as the first film. And rest assured the dog lives.
The fact that it has taken me more than three weeks to post on this film, should not in any way be seen as a fault in the movie. From my perspective, this is one of the best films I have seen this year and it has a strong chance of making my end of the year list. I have simply been busy and lackadaisical in following through on my promise to post on everything I see in a theater. This movie might not be on any screen near you, but it should be available for streaming soon and it will be worthy your money to do so.
“Roofman” is based on the true story of a burglar/robber, who despite being a criminal and threatening people, seems to also have been a person with a good heart and brain. The fact that we can sympathize with the character, in spite of his criminal activity is a combination of the real person the story is based on, and the script/performance supplied by the movie. Everyone likes an underdog, and the character of Jeff, played by Channing Tatum, gives us that underdog in a very appealing package. He is a family man, struggling with the inability to hold a job that would take care of his family. He is smart enough to figure out a low risk criminal career, but of course gets caught. He is also smart enough to figure out a way to escape, but he has not figured out what to do once he has, He is all tactics without strategy.
Tatum has grown into a very appealing actor and this role is probably his career best performance so far. He hits the right notes of desperation in the opening act, as Jeff falls into a life of crime. His victims, who are not the ones financially responsible, all seem to feel he was a decent guy, in spite of being held up. He is polite, apologetic, and considerate of the employees that he encounters. In he second act of the film, he meets and bonds with a woman, who is unaware of his status as a fugitive, and she sees his good qualities and falls in love with that guy. Kirsten Dunst plays the friendly employee of the Toy R Us store that Jeff is hiding out in, and her sincerity and open nature are infectious. I personally think this is a career best performance as well. Dunst and Tatum have great on screen chemistry, which makes the outlandish but true story attractive to us as viewers.
There are a few parts of the movie plot that seem to be manufactured to get the characters into a coherent story. Jeff is hiding out for six months because he has to wait on his fixer buddy to get back from an overseas job. He also has to commit another crime, to be able to pay for the escape plan he is getting from this mysterious compatriot. That one last job brings together the two lives he has been leading, which is of course the climax of the film, so maybe it feels a little inevitable. What I did like is the fidelity of the story to the real events. They don’t manufacture a resolution to make us happy, they just spin the outcome to make it feel less sad.
The film is sold as a comedy, and while there are comedic moments, that is not really an accurate description of the movie. This is a romantic drama with a real life criminal background, which is doomed from the start. The fact that it is ultimately a downer is overcome by the bright relationship between the two leads. Peter Dinklage provides an antagonist that diverts us from the fact that Jeff is the criminal. Dinklage can do both the comedic and the a-hole parts well and he does both of those in this film. My friend Howard and I talked about this film for a special episode of the LAMBcast, when that gets posted, I will share the podcast here with you so you can listen if interested.
I should have known from the trailer that I was not going to be a fan of this film. Everything in the movie is the antitheses of what football fans care about in the game. This film takes the fever dream rantings of a person like Colin Kaepernick, and turns them into an incoherent horror film that lacks any narrative and ignores the majority of the aspects of the game. It attempts to send a message about obsessive devotion to the game, through a vaguely supernatural Faustian myth. Although it succeeded at creating a tense atmosphere for the first half of the film, it undercuts those moments repeatedly by the usual trope of it being a dream sequence or hallucination. When the end of the film comes up, I wanted to laugh at the whole thing, and dismiss the elements of the movie that might have made it worth watching to start with.
So in fairness, let me say that the two stars, Marlon Wayans and Tyriq Withers are excellent. Withers is Cameron Cade, a college quarterback, getting ready to transition to the pros. Early on we see his childish hero worship of the game and it’s leading star, nurtured and mirrored by his father, who has passed on. It is never explicitly stated, but there is an implication that his father was killed in action while serving as a Marine. The background stereotypes of a nurturing mother, passed over brother and clinging agent, would be eyerolling if they were any larger part of the film. Everything outside of the scenario that makes up the main part of the story, is simply filler for the main event. Cam has the talent and skills needed to supplant his hero as the new hope of the Saviors, his favorite team, that is until a moment that could be the set up for a much better movie but is wasted on this.
Isaiah White is the reigning G.O.A.T. of the football league in the film. White has won the league championship eight times and has a cult of worshippers. Cam could have been one of those fans if he did not have the enthusiasm of his youth and the drive of his father behind him. Marlon Wayans is the quarterback that seems to have recovered from a devastating injury, but at what price? Isaiah is intense and takes Cam into his home training facility, to help him recover the edge that he seems to have lost from the earlier incident. Wayans plays the intensity with humor at times, and with ferocious antagonism at other points. Is he a mentor, a competitor or a predator? This was a good dramatic performance from an actor who is usually known for his comedic roles. His physique is also a key player in the movie, being pushed in Cam’s face as a standard to measure himself by.
The training field, recovery rooms and therapy locations, all feel real but they are set in a building constructed to look like a vaginal opening to enter, and then a series of fallopian tube hallways to navigate. The house feels like it was hewn from the stone that it sets on rather than being constructed on that isolated location. The lighting in every area except the field is mood lighting with a heavy accent on dark shadows. Earlier in the film, there was a similar sort of lighting on the practice field where Cam encounters the starting point of the strange journey.
That’s it for the things to recommend the film (with the exception of s spinning football). The story that exists in this world is unfocused and relies on ambiguity to such a degree that you will feel as lost as Cam does on occasion. I have seen plenty of horror films that rely an ambiguity as part of the storytelling. From the 1970s, two films fit that mode perfectly, “Phantasm” and “The Brotherhood of Satan”. Ultimately, the lack of clarity in those films is cleared up by the way the stories play out. “Him” feels no need to clarify what is going on, in fact it doubles down on the murkiness of what is happening with a climax that contains things that would fit easily into the first parts of those old movies. There is a lot of mumbo jumbo about gladiators and earning your spot rather than buying it with a sacrifice that gets you there. Cam is supposed to spend a week with Isaiah, and for some reason, the film is structured with a label for each day. Unfortunately, the labels have nothing to do with what unfolds during the day. It feels like an attempt to dress the events in some profundity that is just not there.
The last horror film that I laughed at, not for it’s intend humor but for it’s stupidity, was “Us”, a Jordan Peele film. Peele produced this movie, so maybe his sensibilities are occasionally suspect. I loved “Get Out” and “Nope”, but there is a flaw in the reasoning of the producer here. Zack Akers,Skip Bronkie, and Justin Tipping are the credited screenwriters, so they are to blame for most of the boring story line that builds no tension and tries to let the production design do all the heavy lifting. Tipping is the director so he gets credit for the look of the film but also the blame for it’s lack of energy. Mood itself is not enough to create something interesting.
I suppose this film might appeal to critics of football as a sport. The violent nature of the game and the risk of injury are lampooned with a sneer that will put off most people who care about the game. The satanic plantation mentality of the writers will also please those who see a game that is so economically successful, that it must be run by the devil. The owner of the team could play Lucifer in a Faustian story if this film were clearer on what it is saying. The closer we got to the end of the movie, the less I cared about the outcome. That is not the sign of a well written script. You will read about this film again on this site when I put together a list of the worst films of the year. There have been plenty of dogs in theaters in 2025, this one may be the biggest in the kennel.
When it was announced over twenty years ago, that “Kill Bill” would be split into two parts, it was a disappointment to me. I was perfectly fine with a four plus hour epic from Quentin Tarantino. Fortunately, sounder heads were in charge of marketing in the early 2000s and the choice to divide the picture makes perfect sense. There is a clear demarcation point between the two films and audiences were not really as tolerant of long films as I might have been. Tarantino himself suggested that there were various ways that the film could be presented, but he was firm that it was all one big complete story. So to finish off the Paramount Summer Classic Film Series, our local hero Robert Rodriguez, collaborator and friend of Quentin Tarantino, presented the whole bloody saga for us, with a introduction to each film.
The house was packed with 1200 attendees and the crowd was raucous, maybe not “RRR” raucous, but still very lively.
The first volume of “Kill Bill” has the most stylized elements of the story. After the brutal fight in a suburban home, that ends with an invitation to a child to seek vengeance when she gets older, we get more context about why this bloody tale of revenge is being told. There is a significant anime sequence that gives us an origin story of O-Ren, the first on the target list but the second one we see in the movie. First we got the killing of Vernita Green, including a breakfast cereal gunfight. Then we get the Bride’s story of recovery and setting out on the path of revenge. There is a lot of grim humor in the story, which is characteristic of Tarantino, and all the people who insist that he has a foot fetish will find plenty of ammunition for that charge. As usual, Quentin is playing with his time line.
Audiences who had not been regular consumers of Eastern Martial Arts movies were about to get an extended lesson in how to do it. I reject to concept of cultural appropriation, I think everyone is entitled to use artistic styles that they are comfortable with. I am just surprised that there were not more charges of appropriation against Tarantino because he makes himself at home in a crime drama with samurai warriors that feels like it was created in Tokyo or Hong Kong.
The Chapter labeled “Showdown at the House of Blue Leaves” is one of the most spectacular action sequences you will ever encounter. The colors are vivid, the music is a mix of pop and rock songs filtered through a nightclub vibe that is based in Japanese tropes. The overwhelming number of the “Crazy 88” that fall to the Bride’s sword is preposterous but somehow we can accept it because Uma Thurman sells determination and skill with an amazing physical performance. When she finally faces off against Lucy Liu in the snow covered courtyard, it is an amazing visual conception.
This second introduction was full of information that I was not aware of before, and it was presented with the same cheerful demeanor that Rodriguez has always shown at these events.
“Kill Bill Vol. 2” is more grounded than the first film. The stylized sets and musical segments are toned down in favor of a gritty environment. If the first fil was filled with the martial arts fantasies of the 1970s, the second film is set in the grimy styles of 70s grindhouse fare. Michael Madsen is not a glamourous killer looking at his art collection between assignments, he is a guilt ridden alcoholic working as a drone at the sleaziest and most disgusting strip bar imaginable, and living in a trailer in the middle of nowhere. Unlike the first film, there is not a lot of variety in the locations in which Beatrice Kiddo gets her revenge on Bud and Elle Driver. Daryl Hannah shows up in Bud’s dilapidated domicile, and the epic sword fight we might have expected gets truncated to a gruesome joke, a little aqueous humor, a nice visual punch.
Along the way we did get a montage of training under the tutelage of Pai Mei, a lesson in pimp business practices by Bill’s surrogate father, and a lecture on comic book personas from Bill himself, all of which are entertaining to some degree or other.
If you listen to the second introduction, you will get a nice story about the two credit sequences, including a surprise about the song.
Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan were the epitome of screen couples in the 1990s. They made three romantic comedies together and all of them are worth a look, but my personal favorite is their last one, the Nora Ephron directed and co-written “You’ve Got Mail.” The film is a remake and update of the 1940 Classic, “The Shop Around the Corner”. It is extensively inspired by the then new phenomena of electronic communication. America On-Line (AOL) was the portal that most users of the internet in the mid to late 90s were found on. Instant messaging and e-mail were sparkling new toys that enticed people into communities, chat rooms and ultimately on-line relationships.
Although the movie holds up pretty well when it comes to story, the technology has developed so much in the last thirty years that several things seem incredibly quaint to older viewers and foreign to younger audiences. The dial up tones for connecting to the internet have vanished and they are only a memory for early users of the internet. The notification in the mailbox that there were new messages, was probably useful in 1998. I recently covered “Eurotrip” on the LAMBcast, and the audio notification on e-mail there is quite different, just six years later. Of course today, if I had an audio notification for every new email, my phone would never shut up.
The original film featured Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan. Hanks has frequently been compared to Stewart for his aw shucks personable style and open faced handsomeness. Of course he has a quick wit and can dash off a line with flare, which is different than Stewart’s deliberate and often halting delivery of lines. The two actors have different styles regardless of personality or physical similarities. Meg Ryan is completely different in her character than Sullavan was in the 1940 film. Kathleen is quiet and deferential at the start of the film, it is only after she gets advice from Joe Fox that she is able to actually confront Joe Fox. The realization that her words might be cruel, is a lesson that most people on the internet should learn.
This is a big spoonful of nostalgia for me. Like “Sleepless in Seattle” from a few years earlier, I experienced this movie with my late wife who adored it. The DVD was one of the first DVD purchases after we acquired a player late in 1998. There was a promotional sale at “Comp USA” an long defunct computer store, which had a location about ten miles from our home and I remember driving over there on a Saturday, with the kids in the minivan, to buy the movie for the low price of $14.99. It has some Christmas sequences, but I have never thought of it as a Christmas movie. This is a romanticized view of New York Movie. It’s sort of funny that there is a joke about Rudy Giuliani as mayor because it was largely his policies that allowed the idealized view of New York to flourish in the 1990s. If this film had been made in the seventies, it would have been set in San Francisco rather than NYC.
Empire Records
This was a strange pairing for the double feature. The tone of the two films is very different, and although they came out in the same era, it is very clear that they were seeking very different audiences. “Empire Records” is the antithesis of “You’ve Got Mail” in a number of ways. Both films feature a ton of needle drop musical moments, but “Mail” is all about established and well worn songs and moods, “Empire” is contemporary and focused on clashing subcultures of music. The former is all about polish and smooth story telling, the later is chaotic and frenetic.
A dozen characters are featured with storylines in the film. They are not background but main arcs of the movie. The film bounces around all of those stories and barely lets us know the characters, much less develop any affinity for them. The cliched stereotypes are the short hand way in which we are expected to connect with these young people. The store appears to have more employees than customers and all of the employees have quirks that are off putting to some degree, regardless of whether they have other traits that might endear them to us.
I suppose it is the retail workplace setting that makes this combination of films feel any sort of theme between them. Both the “Shop Around the Corner” and “Empire Records” are businesses on the brink of collapse due to competition from newer business models. It is a little ironic that youth lead internet culture subsequently consumed both industries to a large degree. Books and Music were first, but movies are in the same buffet, and will soon be swallowed up by on-line users who will be soulless and will crush the individuality of all of us.
This movie was not a success when it was released but it has become something of a cult film as a result of cable exposure over the years. I can see why. Watching this in a theater reveals all of the films flaws, and makes it a chore to get through. This is one of the few films I think works better on a small screen and at home viewing. You can tune in and out of the dialogue without losing anything because most of the dialogue is not very good. The sequences don’t really build on one another, so if you miss something while answering the door, going to the bathroom or getting a snack, it won’t matter. This is not a film that was mad for my generation, but it tries to take the attitude of a touchstone film from my era like “Caddyshack” or “Animal House” and apply it to the millennial audience. Unfortunately, from my point of view, that is a fail.
I wrote about this film just a couple of years ago on the 1975 Throwback Thursday Project that I did. You can read those comments here. I don’t know that my opinion has changed much on the film, it is still a mildly humorous look at mores of the era (set in 1968 but easily applicable to the 70s). Warren Beatty Produced, Co-Wrote and stars in this film from Director Hal Ashby. The events all take place on election day in 1968, but not a single character is shown to participate in the election process. There are a few news clips in the background, some of which are meant to carry irony, given the passage of time from when the film is set, to the time that the film was released.
George is a hairdresser in Beverly Hills, who styles himself as an artist, and not just a barber. From the very beginning, we know that he is straight, and it is clear from the number of women he beds, that he also wants to be Warren Beatty in real life. Near the end of the picture we learn that the main thing that drew him to the field was the target rich environment that the hairdressing industry would be. Whereas he might have been admired as a “player” fifty years ago, today he would be seen as a predator. He is not malicious but he is selfishly using his partners instead of developing a relationship with them. Julie Christie and Lee Grant are able to defend themselves to some degree, but they are hurt by George in spite of their insights about him. The character we are going to feel the most empathy for is Goldie Hawn’s Jill.
Jack Warden plays a powerful businessman, Lester, married to Grant, while carrying on an affair with Christie. George is a former lover of Christie’s Jackie, but Lester does not know that and thinks George is gay. George is sleeping with Felicia, Lee Grant’s character. So George is involved with two of the women that Lester is involved with, and the confusion over how they all play out the dance is the stem of the story. All of the events take place over a 48 hour period, so there are lots of awkward moments surrounding chance meetings, hair appointments, business deals and political events.
Both George and Lester are manipulators, and although he is sometimes harsh in assessing women, Lester may be the more honest and respectable of the two. George is a nicer guy to know, but he is callous in a way that is unexpected and wounds the women more deeply than the shallow hurts that Lester inflicts.
Everyone ends up at two different parties on the same night. The uptight election watching party forces everyone to deny their feelings for each other, while the second party that is hosted at a Playboy style mansion, seems freer but is just as deadly to true love as anything else in the film. Both parties give us glimpses of the cultural divide that was rising in the period. Race and the War are barely mentioned, this is a clash over ethics and how we manage our romantic feelings. The film does not have a clear answer, but it is clear that George ends up with the short end of the stick, and he has no one to blame but himself.
I could have sworn I’d written about this film before, but as I looked for any version of a review on the site I came up empty. It must simply be that I’ve talked about it with other people on a regular basis and so I thought I had actually written something about the movie. There are a couple reasons why this feels somewhat personal, but it has nothing to do with my drug use or participation in the adult film industry. Many of the reasons that I identify with this film have to do with the time and setting of the movie, which in some ways do parallel my own life.
The house that Eddie, our main character, lives in with his parents, before he becomes Dirk Diggler, is in Torrance California and it looks exactly like the home of my college debate partner who lived in Torrance. The interior layout and the exterior Frontage might very well have been filmed in his neighborhood. In 1981, which would be in the middle of the time that this film is set, I had a summer job making deliveries of photographic supplies to a variety of businesses, and one of my routes consisted of the San Fernando Valley. Famously, this was the home of the pornography industry at the time, much like it’s depicted in the film. Some of the locations that I made deliveries to were in fact producing magazines that were largely pornographic. So I have a tangential connection to what was going on. The one element of the film however that most closely connects me to the story, is maybe the most compelling scene in the film, the drug deal that goes wrong. One of my closest friends in college took a wrong turn and ended up working as a low-level drug dealer, in the valley. By the time he was doing this I only saw him occasionally for lunch or to talk to on the phone just to check in. I was not immersed in his lifestyle, except that there was one experience when we met for lunch and I drove him to a location where he was making drop off of his supplies. It was one of the most uncomfortable experiences I ever had with him. A year later he was murdered by his partners in the drug business. So although the experience is not exactly the same I can certainly share the perspective of how crazy and dangerous the times were.
My personal connections with the story aside, this is an incredibly watchable movie that is propulsive and uses needle drops and inserts to create a sense of verisimilitude. There are some truly great performances in the film, Mark Wahlberg gives us a desperate, insecure character in the last act, for whom you can feel surprising sympathy. Philip Seymour Hoffman is a minor character in the film, but he develops a sense of pity from us that feels quite realistic. Burt Reynolds notoriously disowned the film, but his performance in it, as the father figure / pornographic film director, is one of his career best. Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Robert Ridgely, John C Reilly, and a dozen other players all create characters with big faults that we still find ourselves empathizing with, to our surprise.
I was flying solo at this performance at the Paramount, and I got there a little bit later than I usually do. I had to sit near the back on the orchestra level because the theater was packed for this Thursday night screening. The audience was incredibly receptive, and Paul Thomas Anderson, who is not making his debut with this film but for whom this was my first exposure, impressed me and everybody else with how this movie was put together.
It only happens occasionally but this is one of those times, a film will enter my regular blog posts, but also be included in the Strathmore film project. Strother has a minor part in his great 1968 Western directed by Sam Peckinpaugh, a man that Strother had worked with before and would work with again. Any film fan is familiar with the Wild Bunch and it’s significance as part of the new Hollywood.
An elegantin Western sit near the end of the frontier days, the Wild Bunch is about the passing of old ways, and the violence that ensues. The film stars William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, Ben Johnson, and Warren Oats as a band of Outlaws whose competence is in question, and who is being pursued by a posse of prairie scum led by their former compatriot played by Robert Ryan. As surprising as it might seem there are themes of loyalty in the film, and when considering the nature of these men, loyalty is not one of the characteristics you would expect. In fact there is a clear example of such hypocrisy at the very beginning of the film. In escaping from the town and the trap that had been set for them, they abandoned their youngest member, to be set upon by the citizens after the others have escaped.
There is virtually no one in the film that could be described as an honorable person. Everyone is guilty of some form of murder or theft. However, there are moments when the bandits act with dignity, and a sense of a moral code, that seems so foreign to the way they act to the rest of the time. In addition to the issue of loyalty, the biggest theme seems to be autonomy. No one in the film, from the bandits to the Posse to the Mexican soldiers, wants to be told what to do or how to act. The desire to have command over your own decisions seems to be a strong motivator, especially for Holden and Borgnine.
Robert Ryan as an aging Bandit himself, now trapped into leading a posse against his former partners, is the poster child for the theme of autonomy. His inability to act in the manner that he wants, and the fact that he is forced to work with characters for whom he has disdain, is another driving force in the film. Two of the scum that ride with the Posse are TC and Coffer, played by Buddies lq Jones and Strother Martin. If there is anything close to comic relief in the film by these two losers, who bicker with each other like an old married couple over issues like whose bullet killed a victim in the streets, or which one of them gets to keep the boots of the latest dead man they have found. While Pike Bishop and Dutch Engstrom are hardly models of social nicety, they certainly Tower over the likes of Deke Thornton’s mob of Misfits.
Sam Peckinpaugh became famous for the stylized violence in his films, often featuring slow motion deaths. This is the film that probably initiated that reputation. The movie is bookended by two over the top shootouts, which feature Mass deaths in slow motion bullet holes and falls. If there is a third theme running through the film, it may be that violence is inevitable and inevitably futile. There is a coda to the film which also includes violence, but after the massacre of the Mexican troops and the Wild Bunch itself, Peck and Paul wisely allows the massacre of the Posse to occur off screen. So anyone who says that Peck and paw shows no restraint must have missed this last scene.
There’s a lot more to the movie than the two big shootouts, but I’ll leave that for another time. I have no doubt that I will return to the Wild Bunch for a separate entry on the Strother Martin film project. For now it’s just a pleasure to have seen the film once again on the big screen, and bathe in the Macho themes and images that dominate this movie.
Most of the entries coming up will be brief, I am still trying to catch up on posts for all the theatrical screenings in the last couple of weeks. I cannot however, skimp on my opinions about this particular film. “Zodiac” has been one of our family favorites since we saw it in it’s original theatrical release. Over the years, it has become a default movie for us. Whenever we have trouble deciding what we should watch , someone inevitably suggests “Zodiac” as an alternative and nine times out of ten, we are watching it again. This screening at the Paramount Theater was the first time I have seen it in a theater since 2007, and it is the first time since I started blogging, that it gets included on this project.
I was eleven years old when the Zodiac killings started drawing press attention across the state of California. So I was old enough to be aware of the story, but still young enough that it did not obsess me the way that it did the characters portrayed in the story. Robert Graysmith , as portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal, is a cartoonist for a San Francisco newspaper, one that received messages from the killer. His tangential connection lead to an intense desire to know who the killer was, and he wrote the book this movie is based on. Director David Fincher, portrays the writer as an innocent bystander, watching the horror play out around him. Gyllenhaal looks like a baby-faced kid among the police and newspaper professionals that surround the case. His sincerity is achingly displayed on his face as he asks questions of his colleague Paul Avery, who is covering the Zodiac for the paper. Avery is played by a pre-Iron Man Robert Downey Jr. Avery is also presented as an obsessive, but his pursuit is more professional and it consumes him in a different way than Graysmith.
The third leg of the tripod that the story of the investigation rests on is Dave Toschi, a police inspector in charge of the S.F. part of the investigation. Mark Ruffalo plays Toschi as an overwhelmed professional, frustrated by jurisdictional impediments and inconsistent evidence. The two newspaper guys supplement and interfere with his task, but ultimately, it is Toschi who gets to chillingly interrogate a suspect that seems to fit the information that they have. All three of these men get moments of horror as they confront individuals or places that may be a key to solving the crimes. Downey Jr. is playing a character who descends into alcohol and drug use as his paranoia and professional life collide. There is an honesty about those destructive forces that may be a reflection of his real life struggles in the years that preceded this film. Ruffalo seems to be calmly frustrated reacting to both the killer and his amateur pair of Zodiac hunters.
Everyone in the movie is top notch in their performances, but I will single out two of the supporting players to show how well the movie is put together. Toschi has a partner, Bill Armstrong, played by Antony Edwards. Armstrong is a dedicated professional but he remains more impartial than Toschi. He is analytical but not obsessive. Edwards exudes competence with an aura of detachment. He wants to solve the case as much as his partner, but he doesn’t let the frustrations of the case overwhelm him. Edwards is the cool straight man to Ruffalo’s, only slightly warmer counterpart. They make a great team.
The second outstanding secondary performance is by John Carrol Lynch, who plays the eventual main suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen. We only see Allen in the context of the investigations. There are no scenes where he is depicted as the killer engaged in the crimes. We learn about his character in interviews with his former friends and family. When Toschi, Armstrong and two other law enforcement personnel question him at work in the break room of the facility he works at, all sorts of alarms are going off in our heads as the cops listen with gapped mouths to the explanations and information that Allen shares. Lynch is calmly aloof as he spills suspicious conduct and details to the investigators. His face never reveals a fear that he is trapped, or that he is on alert in the face of the questions he is getting. His quiet comment “I am not the Zodiac. And if I was, I certainly wouldn’t tell you.” is as chilling as some of the murders that we see depicted in the film.
The verisimilitude of the film is found in a thousand places in the movie. The location shots are all consistent with the era. There is a sequence with Melvin Belli, a famous attorney who was a celebrity because of the lawsuits and clients he was involved with His depiction reflects the commercial television practices of the time. Toschi is shown attending a special screening of “Dirty Harry” which is a film that has a character inspired by the real life criminal he is pursuing. One of the most haunting and realistic uses of music of the time occurs in the attack on the couple in a car at the start of the film. Donovan’s “Hurdy Gurdy” man plays out over the scene, and you can almost smell the aura of the 1960 descending on the moment.
I would not classify this as a horror film, just as I would not say “The Silence of the Lambs” is a horror film. There are certainly frightening moments but the key is realistic suspense. These are thrillers with horror elements. The creepiest scene takes place in a basement, and there is no blood, weapon or violence shown, but the hair on the back of your neck will certainly stand up at the moment. Charles Fleisher, who is best known as the voice of “Roger Rabbit”, provides an additional supporting character to make this movie the masterpiece that it is.
“Zodiac” was not a huge success when it was first released, but there has been a lot of reassessment in the last two decades and I think you will find that this movie will hold your attention, frighten you and haunt you for a long time. I am happy to have had a chance to see it again in it’s natural habitat and I encourage everyone to spend some time with this excellent film.
I saw this film with my wife when it first came out and we enjoyed it but frankly, I did not think it was a great film. It is a popcorn picture that looks a little cheaper than it should. They must have spent most of the budget on Sean Connery for his brief time in the story. I enjoyed Christopher Lambert in “Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan” two years before. He was okay in this film, but it was clear that he was going to get by on physical charisma in his career and not acting chops. Clancy Brown on the other hand, understood the assignment and went full on nuts. He mugs and hams it up, just the way his character should.
Sean Connery, shows up for the second act and plays the part of a mentor to Lambert’s Conner MacLeod. Much ridicule has been made over the years of his being cast as an Arab, from Spain, with a Scottish Accent. However, it may not be inconceivable that in the 1200 years he was alive, he picked up some traits from all the places that he’s lived. Also, if that is the credibility stretcher for you, you have not been paying attention.
The best element of the movie is the notion that immortality takes it’s greatest toll on those that we love and must leave as they die. MacLeod suffers from his loss obviously, but the strain on his Scottish wife was pretty well drawn in the film. Another character from the 20th Century illustrates it as well. I don’t want to give the movie too much credit, it is still a cheesy piece of pop fantasy, but it is completely watchable and I enjoyed the revisit.
Local Director and friend of the Paramount, Robert Rodriguez, hosted and scheduled this program. He does a nice job talking about the films and the film makers that he had connections with. He shared his story about this movie in the conversation you can listen to below.
The Untouchables (1987)
The second film in our double feature is the terrific Brian DePalma movie, “The Untouchables”. It is impossible to imagine a better Sean Connery part (with the exception of the film I will be writing about next). Connery plays a put upon beat cop, who has resisted temptation and played straight with the law instead of getting into bed with mobsters. He becomes a mentor to the enthusiastic but as yet untested Elliot Ness, a Treasury agent, in pursuit of Al Capone.
The relationship between Ness and Jimmy Malone (Connery) is funny, fatherly and frustrating at times. Jimmy needs to trust Ness and Ness takes some getting used to because of some tentative characteristics. The team gets substantially enhanced by Andy Garcia as a rookie cop, with deadly shooting skills, who gets drafted into their unit. Garcia is fine in the action scenes but doesn’t have as much to say in the rest of the plot. Charles Martin Smith however, as Treasury Accountant and agent Oscar Wallace, is a delight in bringing a spark to the team because of his distinctive background. He is the square peg that they find a way to fit in.
The bad guys are pretty vivid with Robert DeNiro hamming it up as Capone. Billy Drago is a chilling Frank Nitti and his comeuppance is one of the great satisfactions of the film. DeNiro’s scene with a baseball bat in his hand is his big moment on screen. The scene is directed with the usual style of Brian DePalma, it is elegant, and suddenly violent in an ugly way. The two big set pieces of the film are the border raid and the train station shootout. Both of these are strongly enhanced by my favorite Ennio Morricone score.
I have seen this movie dozens of times, and probably a half dozen times on the big screen. My first viewing was at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood when the movie opened in 1987, it remains another hallmark moment in my Dome history. I am glad I can now pair it with a screening at the beautiful Paramount Theater in Austin.
Kirkham A Movie A Day 