Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie's plot.

I like films with guts. Z probably has more courage than any other film ever made. When Oliver Stone was making his political rants, he could be sure that the US government wasn't about to kill him, if only for the reason it would act to prove . I doubt Constantin Costa-Gavras could have had the same confidence in the Greek government. Especially having signed the statement "Any resemblance to actual events, to persons living or dead, is not the result of chance. It is DELIBERATE."

Z tells the story of the state's involvement in the assassination of an anti-government speaker. It unfortunately begins slowly, and it is a little hard to tell what exactly is going on. This is very likely due to the fact that I don't speak French, and am reading words when I'd like to be able to concentrate on the speaker. It also makes remembering who is who a little difficult. But the confusion wears off as the film gets underway.

The actual assassination springs the film into action. The film becomes absolutely riveting, such that you could not tear your eyes away even if you wanted to. The information is delivered to us clearly and we are able to understand what it all means. Oliver Stone learnt a lot from this film when doing JFK .

On Oliver Stone, and JFK , by 1969, many people had decided that the Warren Commission was the easy, and wrong, answer given to the American people. More have decided that since, but this film obviously struck a chord with Americans who saw a peaceful leader murdered by right-wing conspirators. As would be expected, both films portray the assassinated leader as close to divine, but such is the power of film that we believe in the leaders and greatly dislike the conspirators.

Much has been said about the acting in Z . The performers, other than Irene Papas, do not convey different characters as such, because their roles are things like Conspirator, Investigator, Witness, Victim. Although Papas does little other than appear in mourning, she brings a human side to the tragedy. Whilst just about everyone else is sad that a democratic leader died, his wife mourns her husband. Costa-Gavras wisely does not overuse her, which would have made the political thriller a melodrama.

Jean-Louis Trintignant gives a brilliant performance as the Judge investigating the case, a character who is effectively the audience. He never knows more than we do. Importantly, he does not believe everything at first. Whilst the audience (and the director) are certain that the assassination was ordered by the government and carried out by government-affiliated groups, the Judge has to be convinced by facts. Signs of him becoming aware of a conspiracy are obvious - he begins trapping people into giving away pieces of information, rather than just letting them talk. He becomes more willing to listen to people who have seemingly crazy theories.

Trintignant's performance add to the tension as he gathers his information, but it is not the only tool Costa-Gavras uses. The score is one of the best I have heard in a long time. It is loud, fast, and it matches the film perfectly, as well as serving as a clue to the identity of the unnamed country in which the events take place (without naming it, the score has a distinctive Balkan feel to it). The exquisitely timed editing is also terrific. The pacing of the film, once it does pick up, is excellent - it is very fast, but as I said, the viewer is not left behind.

The best part of the entire film is its title. The ending of the film is truly great, and its postscript breathtaking. I will not give away what happens, but the final five minutes are truly awesome as the ending the audience wants suddenly becomes one we don't. Once you learn the title's meaning, you understand how brave the film is, and what a slap in the face it must have been for the powers that were.

Recommended: Yes