Burning Questions From The 2024 Oscars

 

 

Are we tired of Oscar hosts inserting themselves into clips of the Best Picture nominees?

Were you at least relieved it was just one?

Wasn't Jimmy Kimmel right that the show started already running behind?

Were you counting down the minutes until we got a joke about the length of this year's Best Picture nominees?

Or a De Niro age gap joke?

Or how about Robert Downey Jr.'s drug addiction?

Didn't RDJ less than thrilled?

Can you really blame him?

Was Messi the dog the best part of Kimmel's monologue? 

Or was it his shot at Katie Britt's State of the Union response?

Isn't it a great idea to finally have a Casting Oscar? 

When you saw the previous Supporting Actress winners come out on the stage were you thinking, "Oh no not this again?"

Were each of those introductions as long as an entire acceptance speech?

Did that just ruin any plans of the show not going over time?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to show a clip from each nominee?

Would that have felt like an even bigger waste of time if Da'Vine Joy Randolph somehow didn't win?

 

Was that David Allan Grier? 

 

Didn't you just know Myazaki wouldn't show up?

 

Do voters even care?

 

Wasn't it great that the orchestra played that instrumental version of P.I.M.P. when Anatomy of a Fall won Original Screenplay?

 

Can you imagine if The Holdovers actually won that in light of the recent plagiarism allegations?

 

Wasn't that a solid speech from Cord Jefferson?

 

Did Billie Eilish's "What Was I Made For?" performance make you more certain it would win Best Song?

 

Is Michael Keaton back to collect his stolen Oscar for Birdman?

 

Or stolen nomination for The Founder?

 

After wins for Makeup, Costume and Production Design, wasn't it clear Poor Things would be cleaning up?

 

Was Lily Gladstone starting to get worried? 

 

Is there anything John Cena won't do?

 

Between him, The Rock and Bad Bunny, has WWE fully taken over this show? 

 

Wasn't Blunt and Gosling's "Barbenheimer" bit pretty funny?

 

Shouldn't there be a Stunt Oscar already?

 

Did you remember that Tim Robbins won Best Supporting Actor for Mystic River?

 

Did he jump the gun a bit in calling De Niro's Flower Moon performance Oscar-winning?

 

Didn't it take longer than you expected for Oppenheimer's first two wins?

Is there any audience member better at playing along with these bits than Spielberg? 

 

Weren't you relieved they didn't start playing off 20 Days in Mariupol director Mstyslav Chernov during his acceptance speech?

 

Are we finally getting that Twins sequel? 

 

Wasn't that an awesome Batman bit with Schwarzenegger, DeVito and Keaton? 

 

Were the Godzilla Minus One winners holding more Oscars or Godzilla figures?

 

Wes Anderson wins his first Oscar but isn't there?

 

Were the Best Song performances getting shorter and shorter?

 

Is that really something to complain about? 

 

How about John Mulaney's Field of Dreams dissection?

 

Did that make you want to see the movie again right now?

 

Should he host this show next year?

 

For his sake, do you hope he turns it down?    

 

How wild was Gosling's "I'm Just Ken" performance?

Didn't we all just know it would be? 

 

For just a second there, did you consider John Williams could win his sixth Oscar at age 92?

Is Billie Eilish the only one who didn't see that win coming? 

 

Didn't the earlier start time really, really help this show?  

 

Did you almost forget they still have to get to the In Memorium segment?

 

Were you curious how they'd screw it up this year?

 

Didn't we lose a lot of big names? 

 

How surreal was it to see Paul Reubens and Matthew Perry were two of them? 

What was with that huge, unreadable block of names they just threw up there? 

And the nonsensical camera angles?

Are they ever going to get this thing right?

Lance Reddick?

Treat Williams?

 

Wasn't that a great group of former Best Actor winners they picked as presenters? 

 

Can we please get Nicolas Cage nominated for something again soon? 

 

Wasn't it a pretty safe bet Spielberg would present Best Director?

 

Was it an even safer one that Christopher Nolan would win?

 

Isn't it weird that Jessica Lange won her Best Actress Oscar for the otherwise completely forgettable Blue Sky?

 

How about the look of utter shock and disbelief on Stone's face when her name was read?  

Did everyone's prediction scores take a nosedive after that?

Was all the love for Poor Things in other categories a good indication this could happen for her?

 

Did you think that Trump tweet was just a joke at first?

 

Can anyone really be surprised it was real? 

 

Could Al Pacino have read the Best Picture winner any more casually?  

Shouldn't we just be grateful the correct winner was announced? 

Well, that whole show was relatively painless, wasn't it?

 

For all the criticism Kimmel gets, is there really anyone else that audience would be able to tolerate? 

Wasn't it nice to have this telecast end on the same date it began for a change? 

Oppenheimer

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr., Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett, Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Kenneth Branagh, Benny Safdie, Jason Clarke, Dylan Arnold, Tom Conti, James D'Arcy, Dane DeHaan, Alden Ehrenreich, David Krumholtz, Matthew Modine, Scott Grimes, Alex Wolff, Michael Angarano, Macon Blair, Jack Quaid, Josh Peck, Olivia Thirbly, James Remar, Gary Oldman
Running Time: 181 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)     

With Oppenheimer, writer/director Christopher Nolan takes what many might consider an unusual route in examining the "father of the atomic bomb." Jumping between timelines, framing the narrative around two significant court hearings and shifting from black and white to color, this isn't your standard historical biopic. And yet it is, surreally using its subject's life to explore deeper, further reaching consequences that linger to this day. Adapted from the 2005 biography "American Prometheus" and clocking in at a gargantuan three hours, Nolan doesn't hold back in examining the string of events surrounding disgraced American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer's eventual loss of national security clearance in 1954.

While a fair amount of the story's energy is poured into the actual development of Oppenheimer's weapon of mass destruction, it's primarily gripping prologue, preparing us for the controversy to come. It isn't until his idea becomes a reality that he discovers the moral complications and lack of control he'll have over its use. You can chalk this up to hubris or naivety as his concerns aren't merely dismissed, but savagely ripped apart, leaving the renowned physicist's reputation smeared. History may have partially corrected that, but the most unsettling aspect is how it happened to begin with.

It's 1926 when American-born 22 year-old theoretical physics student J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) studies at Cambridge before completing his PhD in Germany and returns to the states to teach quantum physics in California. While on the West Coast he befriends a group of U.S. Communist Party members, getting entangled in romantic relationships with troubled psychiatrist Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh) and his eventual wife, biologist Kitty Puening (Emily Blunt). But everything changes once he's approached by General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon) in the midst of World War II.

With the Nazis and Russia suspected of working on a nuclear arms program, Oppenheimer is recruited by Groves in 1942 to lead the Manhattan Project dedicated to developing an atomic bomb. Joined by a team of scientists including good friend Isidor Isaac Rabbi (David Krumholtz) and the brilliant but disagreeable Edward Teller (Benny Safdie), Oppenheimer and his crew work around the clock in Los Alamos, New Mexico to prepare for a dangerous test detonation. As Oppenheimer's consumed with guilt over President Truman's (Gary Oldman) decision to bomb Japan into surrender, longtime rival and Energy Commission chairman Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) schemes, pulling political strings to sideline the scientist.  

Non-linear as the film's structure appears, it actually follows a strict chronology that begins with Oppenheimer's academic years and continues through Los Alamos and beyond. There's a lengthy emphasis on his education, marveling under the learning tree of intellectual idols like Kenneth Branagh's Nobel winning physicist Niels Bohr. These early scenes, along with his personal troubles with wife Kitty and unhinged mistress Jean seem off-putting at first, but it adds up, as does his affiliation with communists. Nolan's pretty even handed with this, neither downplaying Oppenheimer's tangential involvement or how that association will be weaponized to later take him down. 

All roads lead to the 1945 Trinity A-bomb test, building up a huge amount of suspense and intrigue for the blast that clears the path for Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the catastrophic event itself isn't depicted, the script doesn't shy away from questioning whether Japan would have  surrendered without such extreme measures. And no one's more ambivalent than the tortured Oppenheimer, who becomes painfully aware of the door he just opened and its horrifying ramifications. 

The film's most powerful scene comes when Oppenheimer delivers a speech to an audience full of scientists and military wildly cheering their hero for ending the war. But what he sees instead are bright, blinding lights and faces of burning flesh in the crowd that will haunt him long after the celebratory magazine profiles fade. Jennifer Lame's editing and Ludwig Göransson's score provide constant, palpable tension throughout, but never more than during this sequence, which signals the psychological battle he'll now be fighting within himself.

Supposedly, the feud between Mozart and Salieri in Amadeus served as Nolan's inspiration for Lewis Strauss's hate and jealousy fueled vendetta against Oppenheimer, which is mostly one-sided. By orchestrating a predetermined sham of a hearing for his opponent, Strauss ends up revealing more about the integrity of those testifying than the accused. But between Oppenheimer's womanizing and communist links, it's not hard to discredit him, even if a worse humiliation comes while meeting with Truman, who mocks his concerns. When given the choice of falling in line or getting out of the way, he picks neither, losing his country instead. 

Cillian Murphy has played his fair share of villains and creeps, but Oppenheimer, while eccentrically flawed and narcissistic, isn't exactly that, if only because his intense regret is enough to qualify him as having a conscience. But he still did what he did and spends the rest of his days grappling with it, leaving the gravest risk to humanity in the hands of a potentially irresponsible government.

Through that lens, it's easy to view Oppenheimer as a hopelessly reckless, but the pull of Murphy's performance is that he plays him as nearly impenetrable and impossible to read right up until the enormity of what's happened sinks in. And with his sunken, hollowed face and darting eyes, the eeriest aspect to his casting is how an actor with such an unusually unmistakable look manages to be a physical dead ringer for the man himself. 

Strauss' 1959 Senate confirmation hearing for Eisenhower's Secretary of Commerce position proves to be a referendum on the former shoe salesman's shady dealings and Oppenheimer's last shot at any kind of redemption. Downey's brilliance peaks here, revealing he was actually this good at being bad the entire time, only now allowing us to catch on. The rest of this loaded cast is packed with big names filling what would otherwise be considered small, throwaway roles under the guidance of a lesser director. Some are seamlessly interwoven into the plot's fabric while others are briefly written off until reappearing later to make massive contributions. 

Matt Damon steals a portion of the film with his gravitas as the hard-nosed, practical Gen. Groves while brief, strong turns also come from Josh Hartnett and Rami Malek as physicists Ernest Lawrence and David Hill, Jason Clarke as hearing attorney Roger Robb, Casey Affleck as military intelligence officer Boris Pash, and most notably, Alden Eidenreich as Strauss' unnamed fictional aide who becomes increasingly disillusioned with his boss. Blunt isn't given tons to do as Kitty, but she nails the heavily factual interpretation, right down to her pivotal testimony ripped directly from the transcripts. Pugh makes an even larger impression with far less screen time, bringing a desperate instability and magnetic seductiveness to Jean, who's constantly a step away from falling off the deep end.

With a fairly restrained use of CGI and an emphasis on more practical effects, the only small complaint is some questionable old age makeup in the last act that's still less distracting than any digitized approach, especially in a period piece. But the film deserves major credit for what's probably the best use of Albert Einstein (magnificently played by Scottish actor Tom Conti) we've seen in a historical drama. There's this clever mystery surrounding the professional bond he shares with Oppenheimer that requires both more and less unpacking than you'd initially assume. And that's especially true of their unforgettable final scene.  

Cold and detached, this is still surprisingly accessible, with everything locking into place for Nolan in ways it hasn't before. Plagued by anxiety and impending doom, we watch the scientist simmer from the inside, realizing his greatest innovation could very well destroy the world. And that enormous weight is thrust onto viewers, making Oppenheimer a challenge to fully absorb in just a single watch, where you can only begin to unravel its numerous implications.

Iron Man 3

  
Director: Shane Black
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Ben Kingsley, Stephanie Szostak, James Badge Dale, Jon Favreau
Running Time: 130 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

With Iron Man 3, the creative powers behind the franchise acknowledge what audiences have known for years: Tony Stark is more interesting than Iron Man and the movies should be about him. He's also kind of an arrogant jerk who never once gets put in his place or receives any type of comeuppance for his showboating. It's even fair to say that out of all the superheroes, Stark is the only one who lives a charmed existence and has yet to learn there can be consequences for self-serving behavior. This third, and best, installment in the series, explores those consequences. But the bigger story might be that we have a Marvel film that's actually about anything at all.

With a new director and screenwriter at the helm, it's a drastic departure from its misguided 2010 sequel largely because it seems interested in giving the hero some inner turmoil for a change, engulfing him in a plot that's enjoyably crazy by superhero standards and even contains a twist that's justifiably generated some discussion. My biggest problem with the previous films were how goofy and sunny they were, and on more than a few occasions obsessively preoccupied with advertising other Marvel properties. The only thing writer/director Shane Black seems concerned with here is telling a good story, with the results definitely coming through on screen. It's a shame this probably isn't the closing chapter of the Iron Man saga, because it would at least be a fitting one.

The film opens with a flashback to New Year's Eve 1999 when billionaire industrialist Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) and his latest one night stand, scientist Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall), are approached by nerdy, disabled inventor Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), offering them a job with his fledgling company, Advanced Idea Mechanics. Stark not only rejects the offer, but thoroughly embarrasses and humiliates him. Killian isn't heard from again until now, showing up for an impromptu meeting with Stark Industries CEO Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) to pitch Extremis, a regenerative treatment that's been proven to help the physically crippled recover from injuries. At the same time, a rash of domestic bombings are being orchestrated by a terrorist known as the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), who leaves chilling and confounding video messages in the vain of bin Laden. With Tony suffering from PTSD and devoting more time to perfecting the technology of his many Iron Man suits, the government calls on former War Machine Jim Rhodes (Don Cheadle) to don the suit as the re-branded "Iron Patriot." But when it's clear that a vengeful Killian and the Mandarin are linked, Tony is pulled back into the fray, despite hardly being in the state of mind to deal with it.

One of the many things this movie does better than its predecessors is effectively close the gap between Tony Stark and his alter ego. As entertaining as Downey's been throughout as the billionaire playboy, the weak link in the entire series has always been when he puts on that suit because there's just been no escaping the fact that it becomes just like every other superhero movie. Or more accurately, like every other Marvel entry, which at this point are starting to seem interchangeable. IM3 solves this problem by wisely having him spend most of the film's length as Stark. But a defeated version, whose arrogance has finally caught up with him, as evidenced by the reemergence of two characters from his past he casually, and arguably cruelly, dismissed.

Even Pepper can't seem to stand Tony anymore, as he seems more interested in refining all the Iron Man suits he can remotely activate than paying her any attention at all. This leads to one the film's smartest scenes early on when one of those suits try to attack Pepper, marking the first time in the entire series where the suit actually seems to serve a thematic function in the plot that strengthens the characters motivations. He basically leaves Pepper for his Iron Man persona, despite being too emotionally shaken and mentally fragile from the last film's events to actually step back into the armor. He spends most of the film in limbo, having to seek motivation from an 8-year-old sidekick named Harley (Ty Simpkins). Even that, which should feel like a storytelling crutch, strangely works because Downey and the kid play off each other so well.

Since Downey is Stark for most of the film and can operate the suits remotely there are only about two big action set pieces in the film, and because of that, they actually mean something. While the entire plot revolving around Killian's technology is a little ludicrous in the sense that his motivations waiver and its results look kind of silly when visually rendered on screen,  Pearce brings much needed gravitas and sliminess to the role, taking it just seriously enough while still playing it with a slight wink. Opinions will vary on the big twist involving the Mandarin but count me among those who think it's one of the riskier creative choices made in a movie universe not exactly known for them. Without completely spoiling it, the direction of the character takes a left turn that brings to mind themes out of Wag the Dog or Capricorn One. It's unlikely an actor of Kingley's caliber would have signed on for fluff so it's a relief when the script turns what could have been a stock villain into an actual CONCEPT that represents our own fear and paranoia. Kingsley, of course, rises to the occasion with with a deliriously loopy performance that's amongst the strangest work he's done.

After being underutilized in the last film, no one can complain this film doesn't get as much mileage as possible from Gwyneth Paltrow, who takes the next logical step in the story as Pepper Potts, completing the character's transformation from loyal assistant and girlfriend to Tony into a more active participant in the action this time around. The biggest surprise is that the transition works really well. Cheadle's James Rhodes has always been the odd man out so it's ironic that in the installment they finally acknowledge his limitations as a character, he leaves somewhat of a mark. Rebecca Hall is also solid as Tony's ex-girlfriend and scientist, Maya, who despite having little screen time, is a surprisingly well developed character serving just the right function for the story. Even with few lines, James Badge Dale is memorably menacing and thuggish as henchman Eric Savin, providing the muscle for Extremis.

The only notable absence is behind the camera, as the first two films' director Jon Favreau reprises is on screen role of Tony's bodyguard turned "Head of Security" Happy Hogan, while handing over directorial duties to Shane Black, who's best known for writing Lethal Weapon and helping resurrect Robert Downey Jr's career in 2005 with Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Apparently, this was a good decision since whatever Favereau brought to the franchise isn't missed at all here. Not only are the action scenes the best they've been in the series (climaxing in a pretty spectacular final showdown), but the movie's actually funny and dryly sarcastic in a way it hasn't been before, almost as if it's finally in on the joke. The stuff with the kid and even a Iron Man fan with a Tony Stark tattoo seem like deliberate attempts to send up fanboy culture. It definitely helps when you have a screenwriter who's less interested in making a conventional superhero movie than just doing something fun and crazy, as is demonstrated by that bizarre Mandarin twist.

While I'd like nothing more than this to be the last installment of the series and for RDJ to move on to more creatively fulfilling projects, we're kidding ourselves. As long as there's money to be made, it'll continue and everyone involved will miss the opportunity to exit on a high note. But at least this entry gave the actor something slightly different to do and attempted to explore the character in a way the previous two didn't. That little bit helped, allowing him to turn in his most interesting work yet as Stark. It won't be confused with Zero Dark Thirty anytime soon, but there was at least a concerted, if  mostly successful, attempt to incorporate some timely issues into the script in an inspired way.

The biggest relief comes in knowing that this movie is about Tony Stark rather than plugging whatever Avengers, Thor, Captain America or The Incredible Hulk sequel Marvel is shoveling down our throats next. We're so far past the saturation point for these it isn't even funny, only making it harder for them to mean anything going forward. As usual, there's that obligatory post-credits sequence they can't resist, but at least it involves an actor and character we don't mind seeing. It's a good thing Iron Man 3 works, because amidst recent sub-par efforts, it's nice to be reminded what a superhero movie should look like when everything comes together as it should. 

The Avengers

Director: Joss Whedon
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston, Clark Gregg, Cobie Smulders, Stellan Skarsgard, Samuel L. Jackson
Running Time: 143 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

So, how is it that nearly every Marvel superhero movie leading up to this has been either a mixed bag or flat-out failure, yet when the characters assemble in The Avengers, it somehow clicks? It's good, not great, but that it works at all is kind of a miracle considering how uneven the build-up was in getting here. The only explanation is that they found the right guy for the job in Joss Whedon, who clearly understands how this material should be treated and avoids many of the pitfalls made in the movies leading up to it. While it's kind of unfathomable to me that this ranks as the third highest grossing film of all time, at least it's a lot of fun and delivers for the fans what's asked of it, if not more. Yes, it's an overblown, CGI spectacle with a ridiculously mindless finale, but for once in the Marvel universe at least the filmmaker seems aware of it and in on the joke. Most interestingly, all these characters function much better together in one tightly scripted story than apart in their own separate franchises, making the thought of a sequel (especially under Whedon) actually seem somewhat enticing. Though forgive me for just being glad it's over, since I've about had enough of entire Marvel features functioning as trailers and cheap plugs for this effort, which thankfully turns out to be a lot of fun.

The six superheroes known collectively as The Avengers are brought together when Thor's (Chris Hemsworth) evil, adopted brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) breaks into SHIELD headquarters, gaining possession of a powerful glowing energy cube known as the Tesseract and brainwashing Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Professor Selvig (Stellan Skargard). Given no other options, SHIELD director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and agent Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson)  recruit Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor to try to put a stop to Loki's plan to rule Earth by opening a wormhole that would allow the Chitauri alien race to descend upon this planet and attack. All of these superheroes being able to co-exist and work effectively together is one challenge, but stopping Loki's army from completely decimating New York City and its inhabitants is an even bigger one.

The plot is ridiculous and there isn't a surprise to be found other than how quickly the two and a half hours fly by, but that's fine. The real draw is seeing these familiar characters interact with one other in a fresh, humorous story that plays to the strengths of everyone involved. That all the backstories involving these characters have (for better or worse) been taken care of in the previous Marvel installments allows this one to get down to business right away, and Whedon takes full advantage in the exciting opening prologue that effectively gets the ball rolling with little time wasted. At first I cringed at the prospect of Hiddleston's Loki being the film's chief antagonist, if only because the feud involving him and his brother in Thor was such a slog to get through that the thought of revisiting it on a larger scale would seem to be asking for trouble. Luckily, Loki's depicted as much more of a conniving, menacingly slimy presence this time around than the wimpy whiner we saw in that film and Hiddleston's performance really benfits from it, likely making an impact for even those unfamiliar with the character. The same could be said for all the featured players who are about ten times more intriguing here than they were in their own films. Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark/Iron Man was the best developed superhero leading into this, but even his act, which was starting to show fatigue, is given a shot in the arm when he's surrounded by all these characters he can bounce his sarcasm and cockiness off of. Also along for the ride again is Gwyneth Paltrow, who makes a barefooted cameo as Pepper Potts, and Clark Gregg, who successfully builds on his previously undefined role as Agent Coulson. Even Samuel L. Jackson feels like he has agency and purpose as Nick Fury, leading an actual mission instead of just popping up during or after the credits of every summer superhero blockbuster.

Understandably, Downey could very well be considered the lead in terms of screen time, but what's most impressive about the tight script is how it literally gives everyone something to do without the film feeling overstuffed. The biggest benefactor just might be Scarlett Johansson who after being poorly introduced and developed as Black Widow in Iron Man 2 is redeemed completely as kick ass heroine who basically has a co-leading role alongside Downey, really delivering this time around. It feels like she's in every scene of the movie even when she isn't, which is a sure sign Scarlett gets it right. The only character that genuinely seems underutilized is How I Met Your Mother star Cobie Smulders' Agent Maria Hill. The actress's first semi-substantial big screen role has her unfortunately relegated to merely giving info to Nick Fury and taking orders. I guess it's a start, but here's hoping it's built on and her character is fleshed out more in the sequel since she's given nearly nothing to work with here.

Chris Evans' Captain America benefits from having the most interesting built-in backstory and that's exploited to full effect and his arguments with Downey are a hoot. But the true standout is Ruffalo as Bruce Banner, stepping in for Edward Norton who actually did a fine job in 2008's The Incredible Hulk. On paper, Ruffalo wouldn't seem to be the ideal choice to follow him but his take on the conflict within Banner ends up being the most intriguing performance in the role since Bill Bixby set the gold standard in the late 70's-early 80's TV series. All the movie's best scenes involve the character's complicated relationship with his giant green alter ego and what it takes to keep him in check. When The Hulk does come out it's the most efficient CGI rendering of the character thus far. This entire concoction is enjoyable as a live action cartoon but when Ruffalo's the focus, it feels like more because of his concerted effort to make Banner actually seem like a complex person. While "Complex" and "Avengers" probably shouldn't be used in the same sentence the amusing back-and-forth dialogue between the characters comes the closest it ever has in a Marvel film to approaching genuine cleverness. The third act's is a silly mess for sure, but at least it's an entertaining one with impressive looking effects and crisp editing that still managed to hold my interest on the small screen and in 2D.

This getting a pass because it didn't do enough wrong probably isn't the most glowing recommendation, but I've slowly coming to the realization that these Marvel movies just might not be my "thing." So that I really enjoyed it despite feeling let down by just about every other superhero movie they released prior, might be more of a compliment than it seems. They're a lot of people's thing though and those fans couldn't reasonably be disappointed with any decision Whedon made. There's no getting around the fact that this would be compared and pitted against The Dark Knight Rises over the summer and it might be the ultimate compliment to both filmmakers (okay, mainly Nolan) that I don't even count the two wildly different films as belonging to the same genre. But if we are comparing, they're not even in the same league since the impeccably crafted TDKR actually feels like it's about something, whereas this is just plain fun for the sake of it. It's good to have options and The Avengers most definitely falls in the wheelhouse of a more traditional, ripped-from-the-pages comic book movie. It doesn't change the game in any way, but it's enormously successful in what it's trying to do and makes for legitimately great time. Considering the the mixed bag of Marvel movies preceding it, that's just about as big an accomplishment as it gets for a franchise that doesn't seem to be running out of gas anytime soon.      

Iron Man 2

Director: Jon Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell
Running Time: 125 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

While it seems like faint praise, Iron Man 2 really isn't all THAT much worse than its predecessor. What complicates the issue is that the first film was massively overpraised, accumulating truckloads of accolades for just simply being a fun, competent summer diversion. So we all knew, if only for monetary purposes, we'd see a sequel, no matter how unnecessary. As the continuation of the groundwork laid in the original, this film works as a logical progression, except for the fact that it's a discombobulated, annoying next chapter of a story that didn't need to be told to begin with. I'll give it this though: At least it lets go and tries to have fun, and doesn't attempt at any point to try and get us to take the material seriously, which was a sore spot with me in the original. Unfortunately, there are enough other problems to go around. And how couldn't there be with so many plotlines and characters fighting for attention? Packed with non-stop action, celebrity cameos and quick one-liners, the movie never bores. It advertises instead, delivering what amounts to a mildly enjoyable two-hour Marvel Studios trailer.

For at least the first hour, it appears director Jon Favreau had the ingredients for a successful sequel, until losing his way in the second act. It's at it's best early on when focusing exclusively on Stark Industries CEO, Tony Stark (Downey), who's now living the life of a rock star after revealing his identity as Iron Man to the world. The government doesn't quite see things his way as senate hearings are called in an effort to get Stark to turn over the Iron Man technology. Meanwhile, mad Russian physicist Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) aims to settle a long-standing family grudge by constructing a reactor-powered suit to take Stark down and finds a generous supporter in rival defense coordinator, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). With the reactor in his chest slowly releasing toxins that are killing him, Stark appoints his loyal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) new CEO.  He must also deal with the mysterious arrival of S.H.I.E.L.D. organization director, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) who's undercover agent, Natalie Rushman, (Scarlett Johansson) has infiltrated his company.

The set-up for all of this is actually quite good with Favreau doing an admirable job handling an overstuffed Justin Theurox script that tries to find room for every character, without giving enough of them something to do, or us a reason to care. For a little while at least he effectively balances all the sub-plots and it was the right way to go focusing on the hard-partying Stark's struggle to deal with increased with his new found celebrity. Then at about the hour mark Samuel L. Jackson appears as Nick Fury and this becomes a paint-by-the-numbers superhero movie doubling as an infomercial for whatever sequel or franchise Marvel studios is planning to take our dollars with next. In this case, it's The Avengers and while comic fans may be drooling over it (assuming it's ever even released), that's not an excuse to sidetrack the story being told NOW. You know, the one with Iron Man in it. For all I know it could fit perfectly into the Marvel "Universe" but in this film it doesn't and in a deck already stacked too high with sub-plots and characters, it's an unnecessary addition. Not quite as worthless as the throwaway Tony Stark cameo at the end of The Incredible Hulk, but close. The rest of the film suffers along with it as Stark's best friend Lt. Jim Rhodes' (Don Cheadle taking over for Terrence Howard) transformation into War Machine feels too rushed, the Natalie Rushman character loses her mystique the more we learn about her and the promising storyline involving the alliance between Hammer and Vanko turns into a bit of a mess. The remaining run time is a big blur, lost in a sea of noises and explosions before arriving at the final credits.

The performances are mostly solid all-around but let's be honest in admitting that as well as he plays it, the role is clearly beneath an actor as talented as Robert Downey, Jr. who could be spending his time on more meaningful projects that better utilize his skills. There's nothing wrong with taking on fun, escapist entertainment but this is essentially a repeat of his work in the last, with the cockiness amped up. It's to his credit that he makes Stark's struggles interesting at all but praising him for this role is starting to feel like congratulating The Rolling Stones for covering Katy Perry songs. Well done, but a waste. The biggest letdown is how little is done with Gwyneth Paltrow, with Pepper going from being the rarest of well-written female love interests in the first film to merely an afterthought. You know it's bad for her when even a bloated Garry Shandling (who now strangely resembles Jiminy Glick) gets just as much screen time as a crooked senator. Still, even a little Gwyneth goes a long way. Johansson really isn't done any favors either with an underwritten role, which is a shame because her character had potential. Rourke looks to be having almost too much fun as Vanko/Whiplash, letting his inner goofy flag fly with a pet parakeet and a hilarious take on a Russian accent while Cheadle is actually a downgrade from Terrence Howard as Rhodes, possessing a more calming, laid back presence that conflicts with the commanding one we previously associated with the role. That it was recast so haphazardly by the filmmakers demonstrates how little regard they have for a character that could have easily been excised from the film altogether without anyone noticing. Aside from Downey, the best performance comes from Sam Rockwell, who steals every scene he's in as Stark nemesis Justin Hammer. If the series must continue (and you know it will) his return would at least be a suitable consolation prize.  

If I'm making it all seem slightly worse than it is it's only because this franchise wore out its welcome after the first film and there's no reason to keep going other than the almighty dollar, which the filmmakers make abundantly clear with their cross-promotional tie-ins. They should concern themselves with making one really good film first before thinking ahead to other ones. Part of the problem may be that after The Dark Knight the bar has been raised to the point where all these superhero movies can't help but come off as child's play, with this being no exception. But at least it moves at a brisk pace, the action sequences impress (the race track scene is something else) and unlike last year's big summer release, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, it has its fun moments, most of them again provided by Robert Downey, Jr. Calling Iron Man 2 disappointment wouldn't be fair, if only because it assigns the sequel expectations it couldn't have met to begin with.

Tropic Thunder

Director: Ben Stiller
Starring: Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Jay Baruchel, Brandon T. Jackson, Steve Coogan, Nick Nolte, Danny McBride, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Cruise
Running Time: 106 min.
Rating: R

**1/2 (out of ****)

Tropic Thunder is the ultimate inside joke, made by actors for themselves. It’s pointless and directionless but is at times often hilarious. There hardly a performance in it that’s of any sustaining value or a plot that comes together in a way that resembles a story at all, yet I couldn’t look away. It’s like watching a car wreck. Credit star, director and co-writer Ben Stiller, who while a gifted comic actor, has proven over time to be a somewhat unfocused director. This film, which is nothing if not a fascinating experiment, just reinforces that.

Making movies about making movies is tricky business and I’ve read this one being compared to famous Hollywood satires like The Stunt Man and The Player, which isn’t particularly accurate or fair. This movie isn’t satirizing or spoofing anything, because doing that would actually require ideas. All we have here is Stiller throwing material against the wall to see what sticks, which actually yields better results than it should from time to time. Much of that can be attributed to two big stars tackling roles that are completely unlike anything we’ve seen them do before. It goes a long way because there isn’t much else to latch onto in what ultimately amounts to an audacious, risk-taking misfire. Only a filmmaker with a lot talent, and/or a variety of illegal substances in his system, could have made this. Stiller gets an “A” for an ambition but a “C+” for everything else.

The movie within a movie is Tropic Thunder and it’s based on Vietnam War vet John “Four-Leaf” Tayback’s (Nick Nolte invoking his mug shot) best-selling memoir of the same title. Helmed by novice theater director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) and set on location in the Vietnamese jungle the film stars a myriad of self-absorbed, insecure actors wrestling with career and personal issues. We have a faded action star named Tugg Speedman (Stiller) whose only departure from that genre resulted in the I Am Sam-like catastrophe, Simple Jack, in which he played a mentally retarded farm hand. His headlining co-star is Oscar winning Australian method actor Kirk Lazarus, who prior to shooting underwent drastic skin pigmentation surgery for his role as African American soldier Lincoln Osiris.
Joining them is the drug-addicted star of a series of flatulence comedy films, Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), rapper Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson) and up and coming unknown Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel), the only actor who seems to have actually researched his role. Cockburn, overwhelmed and in over his head, must also deal with the threats of short-tempered, foul-mouthed Hollywood studio executive Les Grossman (Tom Cruise) who won’t hesitate pulling the plug on this production unless he gets his act together. This leads the rookie director to take desperate measures in adding realism to the film and motivating his prima donna actors, the consequences of which result in disaster.

Tropic Thunder starts off on the wrong foot right away by just dumping these guys in the jungle with little to no explanation of who they are except for a couple of fake movie trailers preceding the film (two of which are funny). It also employs one of the most annoying devices that all movies about making movies seem to feel the need to include. It’s that action scene that goes on for 10 minutes until the camera pulls back to shockingly reveal a director yelling, “CUT!” I wonder how many action movies would actually contain a continuous 10-minute take? That’s beside the point though, since we’re watching this for laughs, not a lesson in filmmaking. The laughs are scattershot but when they come they arrive fast and hard.

I’d say at about the half-hour to forty-minute mark if someone asked me what the film was about or what was happening I couldn’t tell them. It completely flies off the rails and that’s not necessarily a criticism. Something big happens with the director and the entire shoot becomes a lot more realistic than any of the actors anticipated, specifically for Stiller’s Tug Speedman, who suffers a very unusual form of torture while being held for ransom by the enemy.

It’s difficult to really care what happens to any of these characters or about the making of the film in general since everything is really just an excuse for Stiller and the other actors to goof off. The idea of them starring in a movie that turns real never seems like it’s exploited to its full potential because the narrative is jumping all over the place trying to do a million things at once. It’s a jumbled mess with no real plot to speak of but I’ll admit at least 50 percent of what’s thrown out there is funny, which isn’t as bad a figure as it sounds considering the ambition of this project. Tropic Thunder is supposed to be an Apocalypse Now sized war epic and Stiller shoots it like it really is one. Of everything he tries, he has the most success invoking the look and feel of a big budget Hollywood action film, perhaps even better than a real one would.

The two performances in the film that have been most talked about and make the biggest impact, at least in terms of shock value, are those of Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Cruise. A lot of Oscar buzz has started to build around Downey’s portrayal of a self-absorbed method actor completely oblivious to how offensive his black-faced take on an African-American soldier is. It’s ironic that awards talk would circulate for Downey since his character’s primary goal in life is to collect Oscars. Lazarus even gives a hilariously accurate speech to Stiller’s character explaining the kinds of roles that usually net Oscars.

Technically, Downey’s performance is a work of immersive comic genius but I couldn’t help but wonder what the point of it all was or what we’re accomplishing. Sure, he’s in black face but do we applaud him because the performance manages to not be offensive? Aside from him being in black face there’s nothing particularly controversial about the character and it’s far from a tightrope walk given the nature of the script.

If another actor (say, Tom Cruise) had played the role I think everyone would have been in an uproar regardless of whether he excelled at it. Downey probably will get a nomination for this but I think it’s more because he’s Downey and with a couple of obvious exceptions this wasn’t the strongest of years for supporting performances. He’ll also probably win Time "Man of the Year" and the Nobel Peace Prize at the rate he’s going. Still, I'll admit there aren’t many (if any) actors that could have pulled this off as well as he did.

It almost goes without saying that the unrecognizable Cruise’s role as fat, balding Hollywood power player Les Grossman couldn’t have come at a better time in his career. It’s a thrilling, hilarious, out of context departure and also the closest the movie comes to really skewering Hollywood. Cruise may be known for a lot of things that have nothing to do with his acting craft but when he shows up and delivers like this it reminds us why he was famous to begin with. I’m not sure how much of my massive enjoyment of his work here had to do with the actual performance or the jarring fact it was Cruise giving it but it doesn’t matter. Either way, it’s hysterical and his final scene is a real keeper. The performances of both Downey and Cruise deliver in much the same way clever Saturday Night Live impersonations would but I guess that’s fine. It’s entertaining.

Stiller and Jack Black pretty much just play variations on themselves with Black having nearly nothing to do most of the time. I actually forgot he was in the movie until the last 15 minutes. Only Baruchel seems to be given a real, relatable character to play and how he manages to slide in somewhat of a fully realized, sympathetic performance amidst such chaos is admirable. Danny McBride has a small, throwaway part as the special effects expert while Matthew McConaughey steps into the role of Tug’s agent, Rick Peck, which was originally supposed to be filled by Owen Wilson. Of course, as everyone knows by now, he dropped out due to highly publicized personal issues. Watching, I couldn’t help but think Wilson would have been a better fit as McConaughey again just coasts along on his charisma even though not much of it is even present this time.

A lot of people loved this movie and I have no difficulty seeing why. There’s a lot to admire but for me all the pieces just didn’t come together like they should have. I wish it were more focused, although part of me wonders if it would have been as interesting to watch if it was. Maybe not, but I know the result would have been a better film. This is the kind of big event action comedy that plays better on the big screen and it’s reasonable to argue if I had seen it in a packed theater on opening night it could have made the half-star difference. Even then though, once the high wore off a couple of hours later it would probably hit me that what I saw was essentially empty and pointless. That’s not something you'd expect with this kind of talent involved. Tropic Thunder may be a bad movie but at least it’s more entertaining than many of the good movies I’ve seen this year.

Iron Man

Director: Jon Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow, Leslie Bibb, Shaun Toub
Running Time: 125 min.
Rating: PG-13

*** (out of ****)

We’ve come a long way. The days when superhero films were perceived as nothing more than a goofy joke have come to an end. It took a while, but studio executives have finally seen the light, realizing comic book stories can still be fun even if they're intelligent. There’s nothing wrong with taking the material seriously. Better yet, they realized if the material is up to a certain standard it will attract accomplished actors whose work will make the film even better. Especially if that actor happens to be Robert Downey Jr., who previously wouldn’t have topped anyone’s list as a top candidate to play the title role in Jon Favreau’s Iron Man. Not because we didn’t think he could do it, but because we didn’t have faith that the powers that be would be smart enough to consider him for the role.

The story is that Favreau pushed hard for Downey to get this and it’s a good thing he did because Iron Man would be a far inferior film without him, perhaps even barely recommendable. Sometimes it hurts your viewing experience to come to a movie late after everyone has already seen it and other times it doesn’t make a difference. This is one of those cases where it really has an impact. This is a big spectacle movie that’s meant to be seen and experienced on the big screen. That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy the film a great deal, but rather that I got exactly what I expected from it. Nothing more, nothing less.

As far as mainstream recognizabilty and acceptance, Iron Man would probably fall somewhere toward the middle of the superhero food chain, well below Batman and Superman and closer to Daredevil, The Flash and Captain America. But Favreau and Downey do the character a great service by getting us to really get to know and care about the man behind the suit before puling the trigger on all the action. In a huge risk, nearly three quarters of this film is build-up, weaving a story that not only digs slightly deeper than your average superhero film but is also very timely. It’s almost disappointing that by the end you realize it is just a superhero story because there were so many other interesting issues going on. Still, as far as superhero movies go, Iron Man is one of the better ones. More importantly, it’s smart AND fun.
Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark, head of billion-dollar weapons manufacturer, Stark Industries, of which he shares controlling interest with his ruthless business partner, Obidiah Stane (a bearded, chrome-domed Jeff Bridges). But Tony is also a freewheeling, arrogant playboy who likes his cars fast and his women even faster. Struggling to keep his ego in check is his loyal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and best friend, military man Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard). The film opens as Tony is seriously injured and taken captive by terrorists in Afghanistan while he’s on his way to show off his latest weapons of mass destruction.

With irremovable shrapnel lodged in his chest he’s fitted with an electromagnetic device by a doctor (Shaun Toub) to keep him alive and together they build an armor-plated bulletproof suit that enables his escape. After returning to the States following his ordeal, Tony’s priorities shift dramatically when faced with realization that his work has been aiding terrorists and taking innocent lives. Much to the displeasure of shareholders and the company’s board of directors, he controversially terminates the company’s weapons division, instead donating all his time to perfecting the design of the armor-plated suit. Tony's decision ends up causing much more than just a public relations problem.

I found a lot of the stuff involving the suit to be a little silly. I was just confused as to why this guy who has enough money and power to do whatever he wants to help the world would indulge his new found social awareness by building an indestructible, flying costume. I know I’m supposed to just go with the flow because this is a superhero movie, but because the film introduces such serious story elements like nuclear proliferation and terrorism the other elements can’t help but feel slightly off. Luckily, it’s a minor problem because Favreau, his screenwriters and Downey get us to care so much about the guy inside the costume.

Unlike the Spider-Man films, which only talk about the idea of personal responsibility, this movie's actually about it. He given maybe just a couple of notes to play, but Downey plays them better than anyone else could have. It may not be the actor’s most challenging role but he realistically pulls off Tony’s transformation from ignorant playboy tycoon into peaceful crusader with subtle ease. He’s so talented he probably still could have pulled this off just fine had he just phoned it in, but I’m glad he chose not to. If I wasn’t blown away it’s just because I’ve come to expect work like this from him. Without Downey there would be no film, or at least not one this good.

All the fancy cars and homes are nice but if I were Tony Stark all I'd want is Pepper Potts as my assistant. And as for that actress playing her, I had to stop and wonder who she was, and what she did with Gwyneth Paltrow. Besides looking unrecognizably amazing, Paltrow shows off a sexy, spunky side we never suspected she had. Who would have thought that she actually knows how to have fun? Her chemistry and interplay with Downey is priceless and the script wisely doesn’t push things too far between them. It doesn’t have to. Supposedly, Downey convinced her to take this by asking her if she ever gets tired of starring in great movies that no one sees. There's a lot of truth in that. Potts should be just the typical throwaway love interest but Paltrow makes it more. Here may be the first time she’s come off as both an actress and a movie star. The latter has always seemed to be missing. It took this role to bring it out.

In addition to Downey, the always-reliable Jeff Bridges has to sell a tough, multi-layered transformation as well when his intentions are revealed to be a bit different than we thought at the beginning. And as usual, Terrence Howard is wasted with a throwaway role but gives his all. Through no fault of his own, audiences may have a tough time remembering he was even in the film

It’s somewhat disappointing that the last half hour of the film plays like a standard issue comic book movie with a final battle scene reminiscent of Transformers. But I can’t say the movie in any way deteriorates or Favreau doesn’t have a strong grip on the visual effects, which are impressive without being overwhelming. I’m in the unique position of being one of the few to view this film after The Dark Knight and it says a lot that this still doesn’t suffer greatly in comparison. That film was an epic crime drama, but this is very much a popcorn summer action movie and a completely different animal altogether. The Dark Knight wasn’t without its flaws also but the big difference is that they were so interesting you could analyze them for years. The flaws here are more of what you’d typically expect to see in a movie like this.

I think the reason the movie has been slightly overpraised is because we’ve gotten so used to junk in this genre for years and are thrilled that an actor of Downey's abilities is there to elevate the material. For what its worth, I'd rank Downey’s work in this ahead of both Toby Maguire’s in Spider-Man and Christian Bale’s in The Dark Knight. I’ll be interesting for me to see how Ed Norton’s performance in The Incredible Hulk holds up against those.
As much as I enjoyed this I’m not interested in a sequel, or if there is a sequel, there should be a limit of one. The last thing we need is for Downey to be tied up in a series of Iron Man films and turn into another Tobey Maguire, who’s once promising career has now been obliterate because no one can ever think of him as anyone other than Peter Parker. Doing this once or twice is fine but we can’t afford to lose an actor like Downey to big-budget action movies. Having said that, it’s great to see him enjoying the success and acclaim he is right now. It’s been a long time coming. Critics and film buffs always knew how good an actor Robert Downey Jr. is, and now thanks to Ironman, everyone else finally does too.

Zodiac

Director: David Fincher
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards, Robert Downey Jr., Brian Cox, Chloe Sevigny, John Carroll Lynch, Elias Koteas, Running Time: 158 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)

I've been waiting ten years for this day to come. The day when I no longer have to constantly justify and defend David Fincher's place among America's greatest living directors. That place, in case you haven't guessed, is at the top and now it is rightfully secure. In 1997 Fincher directed a film called The Game that completely changed how I viewed motion pictures and challenged my perceptions of what they can do. Then in 1999 he did it again with Fight Club. Now, with Zodiac he's made what stands thus far as the best film of 2007. Hands down. It may not break the creative boundaries those other two films did, but it is a technical masterwork deserving of a Best Picture nomination come January.

Fincher, a director who has previously existed only on the fringe, can now sit at the table with the big boys. He's earned it. This is certainly his most mature, mainstream endeavor to date and the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences have run out of excuses this time. He deserves a nomination if not a statue for this. An expert at directing films with high concepts, this time he takes a simple, minimally complex police procedural and turns it into a gripping, terrifying film that doubles as a deep character study. And we're not just talking about one character either, but many. Major ones and minor ones. There wasn't a single person in the film I didn't care about and not a minute of this film's admittedly lengthy two and a half hour running time that I felt should have been cut. I sat on the edge of my seat the entire time, glued to the screen by what I watching. I like to think I can go into any movie without any preconceived notions, but when you enter David Fincher's universe there comes a certain set of expectations. This film exceeds them.

The film, based on Robert Graysmith's two non-fiction books (Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked) is epic in scope and covers a thirty-year period starting in the 1960's when a serial killer known as "The Zodiac" terrorized the San Francisco Bay Area. He left a trail of victims and taunted the police with numeric codes (known as ciphers) and letters to the San Francisco Chronicle stating his intentions. He was never caught and to this day the case remains unsolved. The film begins with the shooting of Darlene Ferrin and Mike Mageau at lover's lane in Vallejo on July 4, 1969. Mike survives. Darlene doesn't. One of the many fascinating details about this killer and the case is that he gets so caught up in killing the women he often forgets to finish off the guys.

Police Detectives Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Bill Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) and are almost out of necessity forced to work with the staff of the San Francisco Chronicle, who have been receiving cryptic letters from the fame seeking Zodiac that he wants printed on the front page. The top beat crime reporter for the paper at the time is the booze and drug addicted loose cannon Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), but soon the case attracts the attention of the Chronicle's political cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal). The first half half of the film focuses primarily on the initial investigation into the case during the late 60's and early 70's and how it consumes and nearly destroys the lives of the police and journalists investigating it.

What's most interesting is that Zodiac is far from a criminal genius (an old married couple even solves one of his ciphers), but the police cannot catch him mainly because of poor communication, stupid decision-making, politics and red tape. As a result, more and more people die and his rampage continues. By the time the film's over we realize that if just one eyewitness had been questioned all of this could have stopped. This is a movie we shouldn't even be watching. Sensing this weakness in the system, Zodiac wisely spreads his murders across different counties correctly assuming each police precinct has their agenda and can't possibly work together to solve any crime.

The saddest part of this is that if these murders were to occur today he probably would have been caught in a week, yet because of limitations in communication and technology the terror rages on. The Zodiac killings, more than anything else, are a reflection of the time. Fincher understands this and milks it for everything he can. The police departments become so tangled up in their incompetence that they begin to panic and suspect Zodiac may even be taking credit for murders he didn't commit sending the whole case into a tailspin. He craves celebrity and notoriety even going so far as to contact well-known television broadcaster Melvin Belli (the great Brian Cox) to get his point across. In a funny touch Belli seems genuinely excited and intrigued to be talking to a serial killer and Cox brings the same eccentric panache to this role as he did to his loony psychiatrist in last year's Running With Scissors.

After this, it becomes clear to the police the only predictable pattern of Zodiac is that he has no predictable pattern. Toschi and Armstrong are two smart, dedicated detectives who do everything right but fail because the system around them doesn't work. In one memorable scene Armstrong tries to send information to another police precincts but discovers they don't have a fax machine. The look on his face says it all. Against all odds, and largely due to that dedication, they finally zero in on a main suspect. He's a convicted child molester named Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch) and all the signs point to him being the guy. Unfortunately, while the circumstantial evidence may add up, the physical evidence doesn't. They also must deal with the self-destructive Avery, whose desire to put his name on the journalistic map jeopardizes their case and his life. All these characters are in a free fall and watching fascinated from the sidelines is cartoonist Robert Graysmith.

It isn't until 1974, four years after Zodiac's last attack that Graysmith launches a personal investigation of his own and falls into the trap of obsession that befell the detectives and his own colleague Avery. Except, unlike the police investigation years earlier Graysmith's is actually effective and what he uncovers puts himself, his wife Melanie (Chloe Sevigny) and his children in danger and even raises the ire of Zodiac himself. One the best moments of the film comes when he states that he won't stop this until he's standing in the same room with the killer, looks him straight in the eye and knows it's him. Whether that line has a payoff I cannot reveal, but how ironic that a mild-mannered cartoonist could unlock the mysteries of one of the greatest unsolved mass murders in our country's history, but the police couldn't. A tricky situation develops here because audiences know going in that Zodiac was never caught and the case was never closed, so the film is practically forced into an ambiguous ending. James Vanderbilt's brilliant screenplay gives us that ambiguous ending, but at the same time leaves us completely satisfied. The case may not have an ending, but this movie does have a clear and emotionally powerful one that will haunt you for a long time.

Movies that span over decades or hinge on recreating certain time periods are among the most difficult to film and once again Fincher employs his trusted cinematographer Harris Savides, whom he's worked with previously on Seven and The Game (which was also set in San Francisco). According to Savides the goal this time out, unlike those films, was to shoot it in a way that wouldn't sensationalize anything. The result is that the movie almost has a washed-out documentary style to it, very much reflecting the time period it's set in. The newsroom scenes are very clearly inspired and influenced by All The President's Men. So many directors go too far when a movie is set in the 60's and 70's bombarding us with visual gimmickry and littering the soundtrack with every top 40 hit from the decade. Fincher knows that just one song placed at just the right time during a film can make a huge impact. In The Game it was Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit." In Fight Club it was The Pixies' "Where is my Mind?" This time it's Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man," and when the film's over, you'll be hearing it in your nightmares. I know I am.

That's the thing with Fincher films. You're just there. No games. He doesn't need to rely on any tricks or crutches. All the details are right but they're never distracting or call attention to themselves because the story and the characters are always front and center. Ironically, while it may seem like Fincher is doing his least, in doing it he's actually achieving the most. Watch the scene with Graysmith and Melanie on the their first date at the restaurant and pay attention to the subtle clues Fincher drops that this date is really their future. The roles they play at that table are the ones they'll play when they're married. It'll be a mess, but one they'll have to share in together. Under Fincher's skillful eye, Gyllenhaal and Sevigny put on an actor's clinic in a scene that would just be a throwaway in another film.

Then there are the killings themselves. The first two murders in the film (especially the second) are among the most horrifying I've ever seen in a major motion picture. Not because they're gory or bloody, but because Fincher makes the moments leading up to them pure emotional torture. You feel like screaming and crying for the victims because you know what's coming, even if they don't. He plays with that idea for a while and let's us think about it. Hard. This is the first time I can remember wanting the killings to get going because the waiting was scarier than anything we could possibly be shown. Then when they came I wanted to take that wish back.

A lot of important characters come and go through the course of this nearly three hour film, so unexpectedly, there are a lot of memorable performances, one of which I think is Oscar worthy. You may be surprised which one that is. Mark Ruffalo continues his streak of strong leading man work as nearly entire first half of the film belongs to him and Anthony Edwards, and they actually have a somewhat thankless task if you think about it. They must deliver copious amounts of police exposition, while at the same time give affecting portrayals of two honest, loyal men being dragged to the depths of Hell by this case. They're the moral conscience of this story. Their scenes could have played like a re-run of CSI but they don't beacuse they keep us engaged. It's also great to see Edwards, long underrated, find the right big screen role in his post-E.R. career.

Robert Downey Jr. again excels at the role he's always been best at: playing damaged goods. If anything, I wish he had a little more screen time, but it's a miracle Fincher even fit all these people in and gave them an adequate showcase at just under three hours. Gyllenhaal's Graysmith is not your typical Fincher protagonist. The first half of the film he could almost be described as a self-reflective wallflower just standing in the corner and observing. It isn't until the third act of the film where he shows us what he's got. A lot of people have complained that Gylenhaal really doesn't appear to age throughout the film not even looking old enough to have a wife and three kids. I agree to an extent, but I don't think it has a huge bearing on the effectiveness of the story or his performance. He's solid here.

In 2005 the Academy nominated William Hurt for Best Supporting Actor for A History of Violence even though he appeared in basically one scene and for no longer than 10 minutes. It was well deserved. Here's hoping History repeats itself and John Carroll Lynch is rewarded with one for his role as Arthur Leigh Allen, the man who may or may not be Zodiac. He makes that same kind of impact here, with just as little screen time. Lynch, a character actor, probably best known for playing Marge Gunderson's loyal husband in Fargo, really does have just one big scene. That scene, however, is the most important one in the movie.

We may never know who Zodiac is, but when he's questioned, Lynch's Allen somehow in just a few minutes and with only a couple of lines of dialogue meets our most frightening expectations of who the man behind that mask could be. This is clearly an actor who did his homework on Allen as little details about the real man subtly manifest itself in his performance, including everything from speech inflection to physical mannerisms. Even if he's not Zodiac, he's the creepiest, scariest person you could imagine encountering and you'd see why he'd be considered a prime suspect for any crime, not just this one.

This film has been criticized as being "overlong." "Overlong" means scenes have been added to pad the film's running time. This movie is not overlong. I could have watched ten hours more. I'm not going to lie though. It certainly would play better for someone like myself who's incredibly interested in the subject matter. I could easily relate to Graysmith's obsession with the case, as the details surrounding it are endlessly fascinating on many different levels. It's not too often I urge people not to purchase the DVD of what may end up being the best film of the year but that's exactly what I'm doing here. DO NOT BUY THIS DVD. Apparently Fincher was forced by the studio to commit to the scheduled DVD release date even though he was preparing a special edition director's cut he told them couldn't possibly be ready on time.

So what we have now is a bare bones single disc release of the theatrical version with a trailer in front of it for his director's cut to be released in 2008. This director's cut will include commentaries, deleted scenes, and an in-depth look at the actual Zodiac killings with witness accounts. I'll have to lock myself in the house, take the phone off the hook and plant myself in front of the tv for days when that comes out. Fincher was put in a tough position here and apparently was none too happy about it as he's stated the last thing he wants to be accused of is taking advantage of consumers by double dipping on a DVD release. I don't blame him. Everyone should just rent this version to tie them over for now, then wait until early next year to buy the director's cut. Here's hoping it comes out earlier to coincide with a strong Oscar campaign for the film.

Of the many cryptic notes sent from the Zodiac, one leaves the most lasting impression. It reads: "I am waiting for a good movie about me." He gets a great one. But you can't fight the uneasy feeling that maybe he's still out there and knows it. If that's not enough to send chills down anyone's spine, I don't know what is. Unfortunately, by making such a brilliant film about one of our country's greatest unsolved cases, Fincher may have also given this deranged killer exactly what he wished for all along.