Most Over-Rated Movie of 2007

Rating: 1/10 (20 March 2007)

I was about to write my own review of Zodiac when I thought I'd check out the last few IMDb reviews. People seem to either love it or hate it. Judging by the near empty theater I saw it in yesterday I'd say the latter seems to be the dominant opinion. If you do want to see it on a big screen you better see it soon -- the movie isn't doing very well at the box office.
After reading a few of the past IMDb reviews which rated Zodiac a "10" I have to wonder, did I see the same movie? (Note: all the quotes are from a previous IMDb review):
"Masterpiece"? --- No way.
"Tense"? --- Nope.
"Mystery Suspense"? --- I wish.
"Mind-bendingly absorbing"? --- Try mind-bendingly dull.
"Creepily Disturbing"? --- Yes, because I was wasting 3 hours of my life on this.
"Riveting drama"? --- About as much as paint drying.
"So dense I had to watch it two times"? --- Try running full force into a brick wall, it'll at least be cheaper and take much less than 160 minutes.
"Top notch production values which obviously cost high sums of money" --- I bet the studio that made it wishes they could get their money back.
"Best movie of 2007" --- try most over-rated movie of 2007.
Okay, so we have a difference of opinion here. However, what I really dislike about some of these "10" rated reviews is the way they defend their positions with lines like "Zodiac is tragically under-appreciated as a commercial flop due to the majority of the audience's disdain out of a short-attention-span impatience, dissatisfaction and ignorance." First of all, I do not under-appreciate it as a commercial flop at all. On the contrary. I very much appreciate it as a commercial flop  because this movie stunk and deserves to be a commercial flop  but I don't think that's what the reviewer was really trying to say. What he was trying to say was that because I was exceedingly bored by the movie that I have a short attention span and that I am ignorant --- and that I shouldn't trust my own dissatisfaction.
I guess when you have such a superiority complex you have to explain away why this "dense" "masterpiece" is playing in a theater that's "nearly empty" save for (and I'm paraphrasing a previous review) a few senior citizens who you somehow were able to ascertain "liked the film." Maybe they were so happy about the experience because they only paid senior citizen bargain prices while you had to pay full freight.
Okay, so I've had my rant because I don't like being told that I'm ignorant just because I thought this movie was atrocious.
Why do I think it was atrocious?
Story: Convoluted. Emotionally uninvolving.
Editing: Terrible. The movie's an hour too long.
Acting: Wooden. Jake Gyllenhaal is particularly flat.
Cinematography: Strangely subdued with a few standout shots that are disconnected to the story. I'm not sure that the look was all that appropriate for the period. It probably would have looked better had it been shot on film rather than digitally.
Production Design: Excellent at recreating the period. But when that's all that's watchable about the movie, something is definitely going wrong.
Will this movie stand "the test of time" as "viewer appreciation grows" for the misunderstood "Zodiac" (as a previous reviewer has predicted). I think not. My prediction: the movie will not even be screening in theaters in a few weeks. Not soon enough if you ask me.