Zodiac (2007) Revisit (2026)

 

I saw this film a year ago on the big screen at the Paramount summer classic film series,  and then as before, it impressed me with how well it worked. I've said this a number of times on my podcast and probably here on the blog, “Zodiac” is black hole film, one whose gravitational pull I can never escape. We recently had another opportunity to see it on the big screen and I think I can safely now say something that I should have said 19 years ago, this is the best movie of 2007.  I love “No Country for Old Men" like most film fans do and I respect "There Will Be Blood” even though it is not a movie I embrace. Those are the two films that people usually think of when the Year 2007 comes up, but in all honesty I've watched “Zodiac" dozens of times for a reason, it juggles so many stories clearly and in a compelling way, so that every viewing feels like it is fresh.

To begin with, For me it is obviously a bit of a Nostalgia trip. I lived through that era from 1969 till the date at the end of this film. I remember news reports on television about the Zodiac Killer and the fear engendered in the state of California which is where I lived. The opening scenes of the film have a camera moving through a Suburban neighborhood on the 4th of July. This could easily have been one of the neighborhoods that I lived in. People were celebrating on their lawns setting off fireworks going to the drive-in to get a hamburger, and although they were tumultuous times politically, from the perspective of a kid they were great times.

Listening to the Donovan song Hurdy Gurdy Man will never be the same after this movie. It always had a hunting melody and a mysterious vocal performance, but when you add in the context of what happens while the song is playing in the film, it will stay with you in a way that is rather grim.  The depiction of the murder that takes place on the 4th of July is frightening and it draws you immediately to the sense of fear that was about to enfold the entire state. Director David Fincher moves us to the city desk of the San Francisco Chronicle by following a piece of mail that is laden with doom. He also manages to weave in the character of Robert Graysmith as played by Jake Gyllenhaal, so that we understand his curiosity and begin to see the compulsion that drives him for the rest of the film.

This movie came out a year before “Iron Man" and Robert Downey Jr was still in the process of recovering his reputation and career after having had a fallow period as a result of his drug problems. His appearance in this film is completely solid and probably gave a great deal of confidence to the people making the Marvel movies that they had made the right choice in a leading man. Downey Jr is not the star of the film but he often steals scenes and is one of the three most important characters for the majority of the film. Another central performance is from another future MCU fixture Mark Ruffalo, who plays the lead Detective in San Francisco, trying to solve the Zodiac case.

This movie is a thriller, a mystery, a police procedural, a domestic drama, and an illustration of bureaucratic political nightmares. Amazingly, all of those themes get a reasonable workout in the story. I forget that this is a nearly 3-hour movie when I'm watching it, because it never feels like it is too long or that it is wasting time. Each of the characters that we follow has important things to show us about how we confront horror. We get to see the wounds that the main characters inflict on themselves as a result of their contact with the crimes of the Zodiac Killer.

Robert Graysmith wrote the book that the film is based on, so of course the conclusion is the one that his book drew and it is the one that seems most plausible in the film. Gyllenhaal shows us a character who gets lost in a puzzle that he can't seem to find the key piece for. His compulsive nature in following the case despite the fact that he's not a police officer or an investigative journalist, draws in a romantic interest and ultimately drives it away..Chloë Sevigny  plays the woman who eventually becomes his wife and she is terrific as the bystander who gets flattened by the freight train of Graysmith's Investigation.  

Robert Downey Jr's character does ultimately vanish from the film, but his presence is felt throughout the movie. The theme of the film,  that there is more than one way to lose your life to a killer, is exemplified by the journalist Paul Avery, the character Downey Jr plays. His contact and connection with the Killer becomes an excuse for him to travel down the rabbit hole of pain management, which leads to the end of his career. Similarly, Ruffalo's character of Dave Toschi,, succumbs to the frustration that every path has been a dead end, and he loses his way professionally for a period of time. And finally, cartoonist Robert Graysmith, alienates his wife and ruins his personal life, in pursuit of his need to know the truth. 

Fincher keeps the story compelling by giving us visualizations of the crimes that the Zodiac committed or claimed to have committed. The scene of the woman motorist on the road with her baby is particularly frightening. Fincher manages to show all of these events without revealing exactly who the zodiac is, and thus makes the movie continuously compelling. When the key suspect played by John Carroll Lynch,  shows up in the story, we are both fascinated and repelled by his character. They are red flags waving everywhere, but none of them seems to be the Smoking Gun which would lead us to the ultimate conclusion. While we were trying to piece everything together at the end of the film, Fincher gives us one more brilliant scene of suspense as Charles Fleisher gives us a guided tour of that rare California artifact, a basement.

The film looks fantastic, and the locations are great, as is every secondary character who shows up in the movie. We get police chiefs from different jurisdictions, who were played by very solid actors. There are two major roles filled by Philip Baker Hall and Brian Cox, who both add gravitas to the film. Anthony Edwards is probably an overlooked MVP as Ruffalo's partner for most of the investigation. Let me just say I thought everybody in this movie was terrific. There are no weak performances to be found in the 2 hours and 40 minutes of this movie on screen.

Even if you're not confident in the conclusions that the film makes about who the Zodiac was, you will be able to understand why the characters end up with the beliefs that they hold. Fincher’s selection of locales, filming techniques and lighting are all masterful. I've already said it, this film holds up over repeated viewings, and the only reason I can think that Fincher and the film were not in contention for the big awards from the Academy was because the movie open too early in the year for people to remember it, I'm not making that mistake, I'm going to remember this film for a long time, believe me, if there's another screening in a theater somewhere within 50 miles I'll probably be there.

Zodiac (2007) Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

Most of the entries coming up will be brief, I am still trying to catch up on posts for all the theatrical screenings in the last couple of weeks. I cannot however, skimp on my opinions about this particular film. "Zodiac" has been one of our family favorites since we saw it in it's original theatrical release. Over the years, it has become a default movie for us. Whenever we have trouble deciding what we should watch , someone inevitably suggests "Zodiac" as an alternative and nine times out of ten, we are watching it again. This screening at the Paramount Theater was the first time I have seen it in a theater since 2007, and it is the first time since I started blogging, that it gets included on this project.

I was eleven years old when the Zodiac killings started drawing press attention across the state of California. So I was old enough to be aware of the story, but still young enough that it did not obsess me the way that it did the characters portrayed in the story. Robert Graysmith , as portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal, is a cartoonist for a San Francisco newspaper, one that received messages from the killer. His tangential connection lead to an intense desire to know who the killer was, and he wrote the book this movie is based on. Director David Fincher, portrays the writer as an innocent bystander, watching the horror play out around him. Gyllenhaal looks like a baby-faced kid among the police and newspaper professionals that surround the case. His sincerity is achingly displayed on his face as he asks questions of his colleague Paul Avery, who is covering the Zodiac for the paper. Avery is played by a pre-Iron Man Robert Downey Jr. Avery is also presented as an obsessive, but his pursuit is more professional and it consumes him in a different way than Graysmith.

The third leg of the tripod that the story of the investigation rests on is Dave Toschi, a police inspector in charge of the S.F. part of the investigation. Mark Ruffalo plays Toschi as an overwhelmed professional, frustrated by jurisdictional impediments and inconsistent evidence. The two newspaper guys supplement and interfere with his task, but ultimately, it is Toschi who gets to chillingly interrogate a suspect that seems to fit the information that they have. All three of these men get moments of horror as they confront individuals or places that may be a key to solving the crimes. Downey Jr. is playing a character who descends into alcohol and drug use as his paranoia and professional life collide. There is an honesty about those destructive forces that may be a reflection of his real life struggles in the years that preceded this film. Ruffalo seems to be calmly frustrated reacting to both the killer and his amateur pair of Zodiac hunters. 

Everyone in the movie is top notch in their performances, but I will single out two of the supporting players to show how well the movie is put together. Toschi has a partner, Bill Armstrong, played by Antony Edwards. Armstrong is a dedicated professional but he remains more impartial than Toschi. He is analytical but not obsessive.  Edwards exudes competence with an aura of detachment. He wants to solve the case as much as his partner, but he doesn't let the frustrations of the case overwhelm him. Edwards is the cool straight man to Ruffalo's, only slightly warmer counterpart. They make a great team. 

The second outstanding secondary performance is by John Carrol Lynch, who plays the eventual main suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen. We only see Allen in the context of the investigations. There are no scenes where he is depicted as the killer engaged in the crimes. We learn about his character in interviews with his former friends and family. When Toschi, Armstrong and two other law enforcement  personnel question him at work in the break room of the facility he works at, all sorts of alarms are going off in our heads as the cops listen with gapped mouths to the explanations and information that Allen shares. Lynch is calmly aloof as he spills suspicious conduct and details to the investigators. His face never reveals a fear that he is trapped, or that he is on alert in the face of the questions he is getting. His quiet comment "I am not the Zodiac. And if I was, I certainly wouldn't tell you." is as chilling as some of the murders that we see depicted in the film.

The verisimilitude of the film is found in a thousand places in the movie. The location shots are all consistent with the era. There is a sequence with Melvin Belli, a famous attorney who was a celebrity because of the lawsuits and clients he was involved with His depiction reflects the commercial television practices of the time. Toschi is shown attending a special screening of "Dirty Harry" which is a film that has a character inspired by the real life criminal he is pursuing. One of the most haunting and realistic uses of music of the time occurs in the attack on the couple in a car at the start of the film. Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy" man plays out over the scene, and you can almost smell the aura of the 1960 descending on the moment.

I would not classify this as a horror film, just as I would not say "The Silence of the Lambs" is a horror film. There are certainly frightening moments but the key is realistic suspense. These are thrillers with horror elements. The creepiest scene takes place in a basement, and there is no blood, weapon or violence shown, but the hair on the back of your neck will certainly stand up at the moment. Charles Fleisher, who is best known as the voice of "Roger Rabbit", provides an additional supporting character to make this movie the masterpiece that it is.  

"Zodiac" was not a huge success when it was first released, but there has been a lot of reassessment in the last two decades and I think you will find that this movie will hold your attention, frighten you and haunt you for a long time. I  am happy to have had a chance to see it again in it's natural habitat and I encourage everyone to spend some time with this excellent film. 

 

The Social Network (2010) Revisit

 

This movie was released the year I started blogging. I did not cover it then, because for most of my posts in 2010, I was devoted to the Summers of the 70s project I was working on. At the end of the year however, I did post a top ten list for 2010 releases and this movie was listed there. The quality of the picture could hardly be in doubt when it is written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by David Fincher. Fifteen years later, and twenty years after it became the ubiquitous presence in our lives, the story of the creation of Facebook remains compelling. The technical skills of the engineers is really just a side part of the story, the real driving force is the willful personalities of the founders and the motivations they had for their project.

The complex relationships and implied legal commitments are a fascinating history in how start ups come into being and people get rich or go broke in the process. The one factor that I want to focus on for a moment is not really related to the Facebook story per se. The setting of the foundations of Facebook is the Harvard University Campus. Obviously a prestigious institution with a well deserved reputation for producing excellence. It also has another reputation that is less flattering, that of a privileged class of entitled snobs who view others as beneath their consideration. Mark Zuckerberg as portrayed in the film by Jesse Eisenberg, is a great example of this in the opening scene. He snarkly  condescends to his girlfriend who is only enrolled at Boston University. You might think that this is just a personal failing of a brilliant student with social limitations that might put him on the Asperger's spectrum, that is until you encounter all the other elitist behaviors depicted at the University. Elite clubs that engage in juvenile fraternity hazing rituals, parties filled with attractive girls from local schools who are interested in trading sexual favors for contact with the special elites at Harvard, and the entitled whining of  the children of privilege  when they don't get their way. Maybe one of the reasons that some many people in this country have developed a distaste for the elites is that they have seen this movie.

Zuckerberg is a much more well known figure these days, and his time in the spotlight has probably tamed some of the quirks that are depicted in the film (real or imagined). The lawyers shown in the film are mostly despised by the character, who unwisely shows that distain in answering questions and conveying the kind of attitude that a jury in a civil case would punish like crazy. Trump got whacked by juries without ever having testified, imagine what would have happened had Zuckerberg out did the impervious Donald in front of a jury. As was made clear at the end of the film, his case was mostly damage control, and it was self inflicted. 

The film structure is primarily chronological with occasional inserts of later legal proceedings to add context and weight to the things that Sorkin and Fincher chose to emphasize. Eisenberg is terrific as the pig headed genius without the social skills needed to survive outside of the virtual world he lives in. Andrew Garfield as the best friend that Zuckerberg betrays was extremely convincing. Armie hammer plays the twin Winklevoss rival is believable as two distinct individuals. Justin Timberlake steals most of the scenes he is in as the repulsive Sean Parker. who created Napster and became a parasite member of the Facebook team. 

Seeing an older film in a theater reminds me of the original experience when I saw the movie the first time. It's good to be impressed by a cinematic accomplishment in the cinema, rather than on TV. 

The Killer

 

As always, If I see a film in a theater, you will read about it here. I noticed several comments on-line that castigate this film as boring or even dreadful. I was very surprised at that evaluation because my experience was far from that. I enjoyed the heck out of the film, it has a slight throwback style that may not be satisfying to adrenaline junkies, but hits the spot with those of us who are interested in plot and character. Which may seem a bit strange because we know very little about the main character of this film, not even his real name, but in the long run, that is the point.

There are plenty of films about paid assassins out there. Most of them are focused on the job at hand or the intrigue behind the murder in the first place. This film essentially does not give a damn about those well worn paths, instead, it focuses on logistics and the kind of character that is needed to be a success in this business. Michael Fassbinder is playing a guy doing his level best to remain faceless and anonymous. We get to see the level of detail that he puts into his work. The meticulous set up and clean up of his job takes the first twenty minutes of the film, and when the job goes wrong, we see what discipline it takes to get away clean.  The movie reminded me early on of the Charles Bronson 70s classic "The Mechanic". In that film, we have a dialogue free opening ten minutes, and it is an excellent primer on how to tell a story visually. "The Killer" does not remain silent in the opening section, the main character is providing a voiceover to his actions. Most of the time he is explaining the principle behind his craft, not the details of it's execution, we see those being played out. 

There are action sequences but they usually come after a slow build up to the scene. For instance, there is a truly brutal fight scene that entails significant jeopardy to the main character, but first we see the stalking of the target. That process involves a lot of sitting in the car, waiting for other characters to act, and then a tentative approach to the subject. When the fireworks start, they are pretty elaborate with frequent changes in who is dominating the combat, and consequences for most of the physical actions. While lacking the perspective that we might have for John McClane, we can still feel the brutality and notice some of the aftereffects. That makes this movie feel a lot more authentic than some of the action cartoons that pass themselves off as drama in cinema's these days. 

I wonder if the reason that some of the people who are not reacting positively to the film comes from the fact that they watched this on Netflix rather than seeing it in a theater. As always, the theatrical experience forces you into a relationship with the film that is substantially different than the one you will have in your own home. The passage of time feels different and more immediate. The absence of ambient noise or side conversations press us into focusing on what is on the screen in a different way. The score from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is propulsive without being in your face. The story transitions are smooth and fun to watch as the character makes his way from Europe, to the Dominican Republic, to the U.S. , and there is a running joke about the aliases he uses that some parts of the audience might miss but they got a chuckle out of me each time. 

Up front, the Killer himself talks about how dull his profession can be, because it involves so much waiting and watching. He goes to great lengths to avoid having to improvise. Sure it's fun when some character can Macguyver up a bomb with kitchen chemicals and a microwave, but that would be an anathema to our protagonist, who sticks to the plan, fights only the designated fights, and sees empathy as a weakness. The character has no story arc it is true, the fascination comes from watching how sticking to his foundational process works. It forces him to make choices that other screenwriters would have found a conventional way out of.  While we are spared having to watch him disassemble a body for disposal, we know he is doing it because that is what is called for. 

There are at least two times in the film when we could expect a screenwriter to try and inch the character away from his own manifesto, but the authors of the graphic novel that the film is based on, and the screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker, stay true to their character. The detachment the lead feels from his job, is aty odds with the relationship that powers the majority of the film. As a wounded subject, we might expect there to be emotional justification for his actions. The story never makes a point of his emotions in the murders he commits after the failed original mission. He simply puts his professional face on for a personal retribution that maybe lacks the satisfying punch that most revenge films seek, but nevertheless gets the job done. His confrontation with the Tilda Swinton character is a perfect example of how his professionalism can be seen as dull, but we also get to see it is the reason he is efficient. Director David Fincher allows stories to unfold in their own time. "Zodiac" and "Gone Girl" show us dramatic moments as they might play out, without the theatrics if an edited, rock score propelled sequence. If you are looking for a "Goodfellas" moment, there isn't one. There is just the cool, mannered and meticulous pathology of the Killer and his director.  

Gone Girl

Thrillers are a genre that need quality people in them to excel. Once in a while a film that has been tossed together will leave a mark, but true works of suspense need the kind of professional touch that comes from confidence in the field and the contributions of skilled actors and technicians. In the mid part of the last century we had Alfred Hitchcock. In the early part of the new millennium, David Fincher has stepped forward to supply the kind of bubbling, slow burning , suspense piece that audiences will crave. In the last twenty years he has made a half dozen films that rely on tension more than action, plot more than flash and performances that reflect reality more than theatricality. "Gone Girl" is another success in this line of suspense films with clever plot twists and a creeping sense of isolation as the story moves toward it's resolution. This movie is backed by several strong performances and a visual style that makes the audience feel haunted like it was a cloudy day, even when there is bright sunshine around.

The screenplay was written by the author of the novel that the movie is based on, Gillian Flynn. Adapting a novel to screen is always more complicated than people think. I'm not sure what her attitude was toward making a film out of her story but she has done an admirable job in forging an effective film. With the exception of the last five minutes , I could easily follow and appreciate the plot twists and story line. The tone of the ending seems right to me, especially given several foreshadowing scenes in the film. It was just the final motivation that fuels that exit tone that was not entirely clear to me. After having spent almost two and a half hours setting it up, the exit felt rushed and much less comprehensible than all of the main parts of this story filled with reversals. The director has the shots right and the mood is appropriately foreboding, but the script leaves it unclear why our main character makes the final decision that completes the film.

I have always enjoyed Ben Affleck as an actor. I know he is often criticized as a callow personality, overwhelmed by the material he is in, but he also has charm and a winning face and that has rescued him many times. His most serious role in his own "Argo" is a demonstration that he has chops and not just good looks. He uses both of those gifts in this film and helps make a convoluted and potentially unbelievable story much more grounded. Nick Dunne is a fairly likable guy who gets the Scott Peterson treatment from the media when his wife Amy vanishes. The film starts off without giving us any clues as to whether he really is involved or not in the disappearance. As events play out we discover that he is not as affable or admirable as he first seems. We learn that he has secrets, but also that his secrets probably have little to do with the event, but that will never be the way it is seen by the media. A large part of the tension in the film is driven by the tabloid like coverage of his wife's vanishing. A Nancy Grace doppelganger pursues the story and leads the social media lynch mob that is ready to convict Nick in the killing of his wife. As the film unfolds we do get some rival views of the marriage itself. It seems to have gone sour in the economic turndown and  Amy has her own demons that fuel those problems. Since I made the decision not to read the book before seeing the film, I think it is safe to say that knowing the story would undermine some of the pleasures of the film. There are five or six smart twists that all work without undermining the things that come in front of them. Those who read the book can admire the adaption, those who went in blind like me can thrill at the surprises.

The technical choices that help make the movie work as a suspense film will be recognizable as Fincher specialties. The camera movements are slow and steady and fluid. There is stillness in a great many sequences in the movie. The background score by previous collaborators Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor is moody and dissonant. The color and lighting are crisp but subdued to just this side of muted. When there is violence, the camera does not look away any more than it did in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo".  There are two or three great scenes where a character tells us everything we need to know without it being shown, It would have been easy to let the camera fill in as a character narrates, but Fincher chooses to let the voice and face of the character tell the story and it works really well. A long interlude at a decrepit motel reminded me of the basement scene in "Zodiac". The characters we encounter are sometime more than they first appear to be. I won't give away anything but I think audiences who responded to those earlier films will not be disappointed here.

Special mention must be made of the performance by Rosamund Pike. She has been given one of the great female characters of the last few years to play. Her work as a chilly upper east-side elite, drawn into a warm romance with a misplaced mid-westerner is very believable.  Even more believable is her emerging brittleness and renewed frost as the marriage seems to fall out of the narrative that she has in her own head. Her character's mother took her weaknesses as a child and turned them into a fictional alter ego that became world famous. That makes what follows seem almost inevitable and Pike sells the sense of entitlement and superiority perfectly. There are a number of male leading roles that have been touted already for awards season, this is the first woman's role that breaks out of the pack and will demand a salute from her fellow actors at the end of the year, well done. Others in the cast are also excellent; Carrie Coon who plays Nick's loyal twin sister, Neil Patrick Harris is flinty and disturbed as a former beau ill used by Amy in high school, Kim Dickens portrays the detective pursuing the evidence rather than the man and she seems very authentic.

This is an audience pleasing suspense thriller assembled by the modern authority on that genre. If Hitchcock, DePalma, Lynch and the Cohen Brothers are on your regular watchlists, than you will be glad to spend two and a half hours puzzling out the plot, admiring the performances and feeling satisfied with the logic of the twists in this terrific film. If you have not read the book, stay away from any stories that might contain spoilers. The most satisfying parts of the experience are the the clever turns that all drive the story rather than merely shifting it's narrative.

A Walk Among the Tombstones

There are some things that you just can't unwatch, so you better be sure that you can handle what you choose to spend your time on in a movie theater. There are plenty of horror films, and graphic experimental sick point of view art pieces that I hope never to encounter. I know my limitations. "Irreversible", "Salo" and "The Human Centipede" give off enough warning signs to tell me to stay away. I knew this thriller was going to be tough, and it was. It does not rise to the level that I regret having seen it, but it will leave me with some nightmares about the brutality of human beings. "The Silence of the Lambs" defined the serial killer genre almost twenty-five years ago, and film makers have been chasing it's path ever since. Once in a while they get close, usually when a movie is directed by David Fincher. "A Walk Among the Tombstones" succeeds, much in the way "Zodiac" did, by creating suspense with a horror element and putting it into a procedural.

Director Scott Frank has made only one other film as the director, "The Lookout" which used an interesting premise to build a story around. He is not however a novice at films, having written and contributed to several excellent efforts in the past, things like "Minority Report", "Dead Again", and "Out of Sight". He has created a very tense thriller here based on Lawrence Block's well know series of novels concerning ex-cop Matthew Scudder. I've not read any of these novels but I certainly intend to now, this is a great character with real background and gravitas. The choice of Liam Neeson to portray Scudder is terrific because Neeson can play guys like this in his sleep (and has) but he knows that this character needs more depth. It seems strange to see Neeson killing people at the start of Fall instead of the dead of Winter, but this movie is different. It's not just another action flick where he picks off the bad guys, he has to solve the puzzle and manage his own failings along the way. This feels like a real movie and not just a popcorn filler for the afternoon.

The opening credits of the movie should be enough to give anyone with empathy some nightmares. This is another comparison to Fincher, who in Se7en, created a horrifying world through nightmare entries in a journal that is displayed in a gruesome, flashing manner. This set of titles is disturbing for a very different reason but it is equally horrifying. There are two shots in an otherwise artfully photographed set of images of a beautiful woman. When those two images are revealed, your breath will suck in and you will let out a moan of anguish. All of this happens without a spot of blood or gore. For the rest of the movie, there are additional sequences that will raise the hackles on the back of your neck. The sight of a van is going to make me look twice over my shoulder for weeks. This movie builds suspense, and does so with a limited amount of visual gore. It is exactly the kind of film I love. There are a number of moments that will remind you of gritty urban films from the seventies, and the paranoia that comes from a well developed monster.

Another homage, or ripoff, to Fincher is the use of a Donovan song. In "Zodiac" we hear Hurdy Gurdy Man as the first murders occur. While stalking a victim in this story, the killers have Atlantis playing on the stereo in their van. There must be something about the ethereal sound of Donovan's voice that perfectly matches the creepy vibe the directors are going for. For the first part of the movie we don't really see the killers but they are revealed to us in mundane ways that will also provoke a shudder. At the climax of the movie, the most frightening moment for me was not the face coming out of the shadows, it was a peek through a window, revealing a man simply sitting at a kitchen table, eating a bowl of cereal. If it doesn't freak you out, you must have the same kind of cold blood running through your veins.

I did not recognize a single actor in the movie beyond Liam Neeson. Sometimes that type of anonymity is good because we are not carrying the baggage of other roles and different movies as we watch. The Two actors playing brothers in the story are both excellent and their story arc is another bonus to the depth of the movie. The two guys playing the psychos are so banal in appearance that everybody looks like they could be a killer by comparison. There is a young actor, playing a kids role that feels perfectly natural in the circumstances in which he meets Scudder. The only problem I had with the movie was the frequency with which that character has to act in a manner that belies his well established intelligence. Still, a storytelling short cut or two is inevitable in a complicated movie. Except for the fact that this is a thriller, it should be competing for awards at the end of the year. Since these types of movies rarely get the critical accolades they deserve, it is better for you not to wait. If you are not faint of heart, "A Walk Among the Tombstones" is just what is called for by movie lovers.