Zodiac (2007)

 "I think he's watching us."

"Well, we're very good looking."

This is an interesting film, to say the least. I suppose I was expecting something more sensational, more focused on the gory details, but instead far more of the run time is dedicated to the puzzle of who the Zodiac was, with all the many little clues, details and complicating factors, not least of which is which crimes, other than the main ones, were genuinely committed by the Zodiac himself.

The whole thing looks beautiful and the directorial style from David Fincher is exquisite. The California of the late '60s up to the early '80s is recreated in convincing and fascinating detail. Indeed, the actual social mores of this time- in which hippes and the like did not loom anything like as large as popular culture may make us imagine- are as fascinating as anything else, not least the detail that Arthur Leigh Allen seems to be let off appallingly lightly for his disgusting child molestation. And the cast is pretty much perfect, although Robert Downey Jr and Mark Ruffalo stand out in particular.

I'm not convinced that Allen was the Zodiac- indeed, I'm not sure any of the usually touted suspects were. But I don't think we can say, despite appearances, that the film does either. It leans into the ambiguity at times, especially with the extraordinary tense scenes where Robert begins to suspect that Bob Vaughn may be the Zodiac, and the two of them are alone in Vaughn's basement.

But the film, I think, is not about solving the mystery: it's about the dangers of obsession with endless if fascinatingrabbit holes such as this, which ruins Robert Graysmith's marriage, Paul Avery's health and career and David Toschi's reputation. Mysteries are fascinating, but they are not more important than our relationships, our children, our lives. And that's a very compelling point from a seriously impressive film.

Pet Semetary II (1992)

"You bury your own."

This film is supposed to be awful. It is, or so I e found, perfectly adequate as a serviceable sequel to a quite good film which deals well with the fact that no actors recur from the first film by simply depicting further shenanigans with that Native American cemetery. It’s a perfectly ok film, and an interesting early starring role for an immediately post-Terminator 2: Judgement Day Edward Furlong.

If that sounds like faint praise then it sort of is, but the film is genuinely adequate rather than bad. I liked the bait and switch film-within-a-film opening, and the plot works well at least until the point where people start being resurrected, where things go a bit mad and we end up with a full three resurrected people. Still, it’s an entertaining watch, with Gus the sheriff being an entertaining cartoon baddie in a solid performance by character actor Clancy Brown, a familiar face from so many character roles.

It’s solid, but not really scary. There’s a nice little electrocution scene at the start (“Oh yummy, beef jerky” said Mrs Llamastrangler. She’s a somewhat twisted individual, but that’s why I married her.) but not much else in the way of set pieces, and perhaps a lot of that is down to the solid, competent but unexceptional directorial style. It’s a film that neither sparkles nor stinks, the epitome of averageness.