The movie about the Zodiac killer’s exploits and the ensuing investigations was released recently, and with great fanfare and noise in the greater Bay Area, the murderer’s old stomping grounds. Local radio and press outlets have been much abuzz over it.

I will likely not see this movie. Not so much because of any antipathy for its subject matter; it’s just because I don’t see many movies, period. For some reason I’m always loath to go to the theater, though I generally enjoy myself once I get there. I am, however, an avid reader of movie reviews.

Over the weekend, I read the San Francisco Chronicle’s review of Zodiac. The reviewer didn’t think all that much of the flick, which is neither here nor there for me, personally, but I couldn’t help but be irritated by this flub of the reviewer’s logic (emphasis mine):

… At times, it becomes frustrating—for example, about 30 minutes are spent pursuing a lead that goes nowhere. Why bother putting that in the movie?

Ummm… yeah. Now, pardon my impertinence, but didn’t every lead in that case actually go nowhere?