Ambiguous, shocking, brilliant.

Rating: 9/10 (7 February 2009)

At one point in "Seven", Detective Somerset points out that if the serial killer turns out to be the devil, that might live up to their expectations. But who precisely is the man named John Doe? He might as well be called 'the man in black'. He's a dark angel on a shoulder, mine and yours, whispering truths we never care to learn. He's that little voice inside ourselves we smother by apathy. He's the anti-conscience unable to relativize the evil forces in this world. Or maybe relativizing is just a term often used to mask the fear of facing horrors we're unable to understand and overcome. So we don't even try at all. Se7en is as much a thrilling puzzle as an ambiguous morality piece. It present us with a vile world of unpunished sinners where even the biggest heroes lose the fighting courage (Somerset), and even the most driven good do-er minds are corrupted (Mills). Sound familiar? While Noir cinema clearly influences Fincher's work, "Seven" plays in present America, and by doing so becomes even more original and relevant.
"Seven" at no point absolves the attrition ("When you regret your sins, but not because you love God.") philosophy preached, but the movie nevertheless sparks intrigue through it by making Kevin Spacey's John Doe incredibly smart and - sidestepping the cliché- not ego-maniacal. He massacres not for fame or as an ill-aimed attempt to avenge his childhood traumas; he ends lives to prove a point. A point he's so determined to make he's willing to give up his own life in doing so. The point in question: sinners deserve to die. Do they? We all carry the guilt of at least one mortal sin. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. I feel a little soiled quoting the bible, being an agnostic. Fincher is an artist. He doesn't just state his point of view or tries to indoctrinate viewers. In most movies, everything the killer says is the opposite of the movie's message. Here, this rule does not apply. Why? Well, because the center of all that is good and pure in this movie, the young idealistic detective, succumbs to the temptations of vengeance killing. So we basically have two horses pulling in opposite direction. Ambiguous! I am firmly against capital punishment personally, but the movie does very well in studying it's characters thoroughly so their motivations ring true, twisted as they may be, they're authentic. Besides the brilliant script, "Seven" has many other virtues.
A fault of many good movies, the fault that lowers their status from great to good, is the lack of visual attraction. Many serious drama's flaunt production values that barely rise above documentary level. If you're using an audiovisual medium, actually use it. "Seven" includes some terrific camera shots, Fincher follows the Noir school in making optimal use of shadows, among others in a scene where the killer's shadow looms in the rain puddle and subsequently threatens Detective Mills at gunpoint . Fincher gives a creative spin even to fairly standard thriller elements. The chase-sequence in the hallway for instance, where the camera finds itself very far from the action so we see the detective chasing a tiny silhouette. Instead of using up my thousand words listing awe-inducing audiovisual elements(which I could easily accomplish), I'll spend some attention on a curious element, namely Brad Pitt's performance.
A character actor like Morgan Freeman can be compared to a singer like Frank Sinatra, he can't hit a false note if his life depended on trying to do so. Even if the end result sometimes is less than impressive, which occurs considering the multitude of roles he takes, he always saves some of the grace. Brad Pitt on the other hand received more spotlight on his looks than on his acting chops in the early days of his career. The growth process of his acting ability curves bizarrely. He performed remarkably in some early work ("Kalifornia", "12 Monkeys"), yet intersperses those bright bursts of talent with hammy, flat turns in "Seven Years in Tibet", "Legends of the Fall", and (certainly in comparison with Tom Cruise's phenomenal turn) "Interview With The Vampire". My best guess? He needs a lot of direction. Why else would Fincher get such a great performance out of him in "Seven" and, let's not forget, "Fight Club"? Freeman and Pitt are star-crossed by Spacey though, who - in a surprise, uncredited, appearance - steals the movie. He plays the villain with a familiar patient smart aleckyness, it's scary to think of how much of them could be living right next door. Who hasn't got a theory that they're dying to get proved right? How many of them will get the little push that they need? As Spacey himself remarked once, people don't recognize him in foreign countries because without his glasses he looks like an ordinary accountant. He's the ideal choice for John Doe, bar none.
Some critics have done injustice to "Seven" by naming it "a by the book thriller". A by the book thriller doesn't deserve to get this much recognition. A scintillating character study embedded into a thriller plot however, that's a whole different story. Speaking of stories, the greatest script writers have always understood the ending to be the single most important part of any story. From "Psycho" over "The Silence of The Lambs" to "The Usual Suspects", masterful conclusions have blown audiences away, flooding them with emotions albeit surprise or shock, anger or overwhelming sadness. This one is all of the above. And it ranks among the very best of the nineties, as does the whole film. It's not a stretch to call it the second most influential and second best thriller of the '90s0