Adventures in Writing for Canadian Television and Film
Yes with a touch of "meh" for me.
really? no, "meh" here. i'm an enthusiastic "yeah, baby". there's so much to love in the film. can't wait to see it again.
I don’t dispute that there’s lots to love about Zodiac. It gives you a great sense of the time and place without being campy or cliché. Most of the central characters were well drawn and appealing, and played by skilled, charismatic actors. I absolutely ‘bought’ each of the performances except Gyllenhaal’s. By the halfway point, I was looking for more growth, more guts...more to convince me that the toll on his life was legitimate and complete. It's not about the script, it's about the details. Physically, he barely changed from beginning to end. Stand Graysmith of 1969 next to Graysmith of 1979 and the only difference is a hint of scruff and a pair of slacks. He's back to square one (divorced with kids, again) personally, his obsession has changed his kids' lives, his wife's life...but his seems almost immovable...and I didn't ever get a real sense of the motivation behind it all. Liking puzzles doesn't seem like enough. Interpretive performance or not, Gyllenhaal's Graysmith felt incomplete to me.Stand Ruffalo's Toschi of 1969 next to his Toschi of 1979 and you see two different men. He's compelled but beaten, almost resigned to this failure but determined to keep his life going. I could go on, but I'll spare you. I stand by my original review -- Yes, but a bit of meh.
Post a Comment