:Dd

Let me put it this way: To me, Zodiac is the matured version of Seven. Gone is the focus on the gruesomeness, replaced by more of a focus on the characters, with only the necessary amount of screen time devoted to oh how horrible the murders are. After a point I just feel like "yes, I get get it. They're dead and the killer is sick. Move on please". That's what Zodiac does; telling a more interesting story by focusing on the parts that matter. To me, Seven is like some kind of horrific amusement park ride. "Come and see the amazing horrorible murders! Isn't that something?!" I'm being a bit reductionist, but I find that it's putting the weight too much on the wrong foot.

Say what? This requires an explanation.

That's like the exact themes of No Country For Old Men, which is a much better movie in my eyes.

*you are on chula's ignore list*

Never thought of it but yup. Only differences are the time period and setting.

Early 80s vs late 90s and big city vs open country.

While I do think it a more matured style, Zodiac had cryptic murders, not gruesome ones, so they lacked that gruesome element. And yes, you're being reductionist to the point where I think you missed a good deal of the film.

You have pretty clear cut boundaries for what movies should do and be and I think that turns you away from a lot of great art.

And No Country for Old Men is mucho better.

To be fair, it's a million years since I watched Seven. Maybe so long ago that it doesn't make much sense for me to insist on my position too hard. So that's a dilemma: I would have to see it again to see if I still hold the same view of it, but on the other hand I really don't want to watch it again.

I've watched god knows how many movies of every conceivable type over the years and, yes, I've started shying away from some types of movies - instead putting my focus on the one's I expect greater things from.
I'd say most of my beefs with Seven have to do with what's really just my beef with the horror genre.

I do strongly prefer movies that focus on character development above all else. Strong style is a big bonus too, but that depends on what the theme and visual subject matter is.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you that I'm too limited in some ways, but I'm willing to consider it. Take the Steve McQueen (the director, not the actor) movie Hunger, for example. It's essentially a very literal, feature length visual exploration of the physical decay and suffering of a man on hunger strike. It's tough to watch, and I suppose the viewer is intended to somehow connect with the reality of the situation on some deeper level, but I was really missing some more depth in a perhaps more conventional way. The only scene I truly liked was the one where the hunger striking prisoner speaks at length with a visitor in one long, single-shot scene. The bed ridden suffering eventually just felt like it was beating me over the head with how terrible everything about the situation is. I think you'd like the movie, and that's not some snarky put-down. I hated it.

But no, art doesn't have to be pretty and it doesn't have to be easy. I like plenty of movies that are a tough watch, but then they tend to be character oriented. This one for example:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2178941/
East Germany, totalitarianism, etc. Pretty depressing movie, but good.

Gerald's Game is easily Mike Flanagan's best film. Intense as ****.

Have ya'll seen this? Would love to hear your thoughts. The novel was amazing and I didn't think it could be made into a movie but they did a great job of capturing the utter despair.

Shut up! It's Predator, then Predator 2. There IS no Predator 1. That's one of my bugbears. Stop doing it. Gaahhh! :banghead:
You should watch (or actually, maybe not) the series Ripper Street, especially the final episode.

Also, have you watched Dust Devil yet? Interested in your thoughts.