Zodiac
I really admire David Fincher. I think Panic Room is an underrated masterpiece of taut construction. Zodiac, likewise is tensely calculated, but Fincher has equalized his portions of style and substance to produce a more mature, less slick, but thoroughly compelling movie.

It's by no means satisfying. We're used to who-dun-its having seventh-reel denouements, but true to the Zodiac killer case, there is no textbook closure. It's a movie about obsession, and what that means to the people - Robert Graysmith, David Toschi, and Paul Avery - trying to solve the case. And even knowing the ending - or lack of one - you can't help watch the progress - or lack of it - because you're so invested in the hunt. And it helps that the actors - Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr. - bring their A-game.

I don't know if I'd be as engrossed if I didn't live here, in San Francisco. Not that I really researched the subject matter, but it did give me this foundation of reference. I knew hoe scattered the killings were (say, the distances from Vallejo to Napa, and where exactly the intersection of Washington and Cherry is), and seeing the rise of the Transamerica Pyramid was a marvel. And, I actually know someone who worked with the grownup girl who had escaped the Zodiac Killer as a 10-month old. There's a lot of resonance here that I admit may have colored my experience.

But I don't think living here is a prerequisite for appreciating a great movie. It's on the long side, over two-and-a-half-hours, but I truly didn't feel it, because it really does take a hold of you. A

300
On the other hand is the 117 minutes of 300 that plods on and overstays its welcome. It's no Sin City, which is a masterwork compared to this. 300 definitely has its moments, and it has a great vision to it, but in faithfully translating Frank Miller's artwork into a movie, what it achieves in visual marvel is done at the expense of editorial pace. There's a lot of retread ground in this movie. In static art, it works, because the imagery varies enough from page to page. In moving pictures, though, there's just not enough variation. The battles blend into each other and it ends up feeling repetitive and endless. Those 117 minutes stretch on far too long.

Even the gore isn't entirely that satisfying. In trying to capture the look of ink-spatters from the original Miller source material, the unconvincing digital bloodsprays make it look as if the Spartan's enemies have arteries filled with bees or cranberries.

Also not helping were the performances. In Sin City, there was a higher caliber of performance despite the over-the-top nature of the subject matter. In 300, the performances simply slide from one note (quiet and brooding) to another (loud and bombastic).

Visually, the shots are uneven. The black and white imagery of Sin City allowed the seams to be massaged or hidden. Not so in 300 - there's some surprisingly bad compositing effects and the foam rubber work on Ephialtes looks really bad. Also, just to be nitpicky, 300 makes the same anachronistic visual flub that Troy does - no attempt is made to hide some rather visible vaccination scars.

But, it ain't all bad. There are some truly stunning visuals in this film that are worth watching - the young Leonidas stalking a wolf, the throne of Xerxes held aloft by slaves, a tree of corpses, and the spastic dancing of the Oracle. It's just unfortunate that what come between those visuals fails to keep pace with the quality of those beautiful images. C