On a par with drying paint.
Far be it for me to challenge David Fincher on whether or not his most recently released movie, Zodiac, should indeed be advertised as a thriller, but I can't help but feel cheated, surely a thriller is supposed to be, well thrilling?
Maybe his earlier success is his current downfall. Se7en always makes it into my top ten favourite movies; therefore I suppose I could blame myself for my disappointment, evidently movies, just like boyfriends, should never be compared.
What I'm struggling to understand is the mass of good reviews for Zodiac, do film critics have to spend so much time watching the likes of Glitter, that they eventually lose all concept of what constitutes entertainment?
"Sweet Jesus, some intellectual dialogue! It has Oscar written all over it!"
For instance, one broadsheet synopsis of Zodiac;
This movie sends you into the night contemplating, maybe even a little afraid. Bravo, Mr. Fincher.
Que? Contemplating and a little afraid of exactly how much popcorn got wedged in my bra maybe.
I'll never again complain when a true story or book is manipulated for movie entertainment and incidently Mr Zodiac, if you're out there, I think you should know you were a boring serial killer, really, whatever happened to, if a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well. Huh?
PS, the above criticism should be taken as light hearted banter and not a good reason for you to hunt me down and slay my arse.
