Se7en (1995) is directed by David Fincher and stars Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Spacey, and R. Lee Ermey. The film follows Somerset (Freeman), an aging detective who is on the verge of retirement (“Damn, two days from retirement”-Lethal Weapon). In his last days on the force, he teams up with Detective Mills (Pitt) – his younger replacement – in order to solve a string of grisly murders that mirror Christianity’s seven deadly sins. As the two detectives tiptoe closer to identifying the killer, it becomes clear that the case is beginning to take a unique toll on each of them.

One of the film’s stronger elements is the lead performances from Freeman and Pitt. I often find Freeman overrated, but this performance reminds me why he is so beloved. There’s a world-weariness to his character that is admittedly a bit cliche for the genre, but Freeman plays it better than just about anyone who’s attempted it. Pitt gives a decent performance, but Mills is a surprisingly one-note character. Thankfully, Pitt’s natural charisma is able to save the character from complete soullessness. What really works, above all else, is the subtle chemistry between the two leads. There’s immediate tension when Mills arrives as Somerset’s replacement. The only reason the two eventually come together, other than the efforts of Mills’ wife (Paltrow), is their shared obsession of catching the killer. This works because it feels genuine. These men don’t want to connect with anyone, it just happens that way. There’s no effort from either of them and that makes it feel real.

The film has a dark, rainy, and noir-like visual style. The detectives wear trench coats and every part of the city is covered in graffiti and fog. The film even avoids featuring modern technology whenever possible. You can tell that Fincher was heavily inspired by classic noir detective stories, even going as far as emulating the era in which they were at the height of their popularity. The cinematography also supports this dark, off-kilter tone with its use of shadows and skewed angles. 

Although the film presents a strong directorial vision, its plot is surprisingly basic and repetitive. That statement excludes the film’s iconic twist, of course. The plot is essentially just the two detectives stumbling across one grisly crime scene after another. I hate to say it, but very little happens within these scenes. It’s almost as if they’re just there to shock the audience. I’m sure this was more effective at the time of its release, but it hasn’t aged well in the almost 30 years since. 

What sets this film apart is its unconventional serial killer-mystery climax. The twist is one of the most surprising of all time and is achieved through subtle setup during acts 1 & 2. Yes, I suppose the twist could’ve been even more surprising without all the subtle foreshadowing, but then it would just feel random. Yes, a twist without set-up could hypothetically be far more surprising but half of the fun of twists is backtracking and uncovering the breadcrumbs that led to it. This twist works well on a plot level, but not so much on a thematic one. The ending is surprising, there’s no question about it, but I struggle to figure out what it all means. Thematically, this feels more like an episode of Criminal Minds than something like Fincher’s eventual return to the genre: Zodiac (2007).

Overall this is a pretty formulaic crime thriller elevated by its iconic twist ending, strong lead performances, and impressive direction by David Fincher. The film moves along at a brisk pace and displays a consistently balanced tone, but it’s also genuinely chilling. What disappoints me about the film upon a rewatch is how surface-level it all feels. It’s intense, but not very deep — a solid B-movie with flashes of greatness. B