Dull movie. Dull, Dull, Dull.

Rating: 1/10 (17 March 2007)

Is there some kind of David Fincher fan club stuffing the ballot box here at IMDb with 10 ratings? This director can make a great film. This isn't it. Not even close.
All these over-rated reviews can't save the movie from bombing at the box office It must infuriate all of those in the Fincher Fan Club that your crowned prince of darkness can't connect with the current cultural zeitgeist like he did so many years ago with Se7en (now THAT was a truly great film). Is the director being misjudged by the culture or is the director misjudging the culture. I say the latter. In any case, this movie doesn't seem to be resonating with a large audience. Why?
Because it's a dull movie. Dull, Dull, Dull. You never get inside the characters' heads. You don't care about them. The actors performances are standard. If there is an interesting story here, the movie doesn't find it. At two hours and forty minutes it is too long.
I just read one 10 rated IMDb review that described Gyllenhaal's performance as unmemorable and flat. How do you give a movie a perfect 10 review then call the central performance of the film unmemorable and flat. Does that make any sense at all?
You know, it's okay to criticize a favorite director if he makes a dud. If you praise one of his worst movies as a perfect movie, you are only hastening the director's slide into mediocrity.
My advice to the general movie-goer is to disregard any review rating this movie a 9 or 10.
I would have probably rated Zodiac a 5 or 6 but to compensate for all the bogus 10 ratings I'm rating it a 1.