I’m heading over to Santa Monica and the Spirit Awards tent around 11 ayem or so, Stand-up, stroll-around schmooze time happens between 12 noon and 2 pm, which is when the show goes on the air on IFC channel (5 pm eastern). There’s also some kind of live webcast thing going on via www.ifc.com.

I’m bringing the laptop with a hope that some kind of wi-fi will be available. The Bagger says he’ll be blogging from the press area so maybe he knows something. If the wi-fi”s happening I’ll do my best with the pictures and potshots. I don’t know about blogging from the big, noisy, super-crowded after-party at Shutters — that may be pushing it.

“The first, flat-out great film of 2007, David Fincher‘s spine-tingling Zodiac is a 158-minute, decades-spanning movie about one of America’s most notorious serial killers,” writes Boston Herald critic James Verniere. “This is the GoodFellas of psycho-killer thrillers.

“A remarkably accomplished, measured and mature procedural, Zodiacis to Se7en — Fincher’s 1995 breakthrough effort — what the real-life case is to Dirty Harry, Don Siegel‘s great, lurid 1971 classic, featuring a Zodiac-like killer played by Andy Robinson.

“In many ways, Zodiac is Se7en stripped of its exploitation trappings, creepy credit sequence and twist ending and transformed into a great American crime epic.

“Fans of Se7en and Fight Club may be befuddled by this somber, ambiguous work. Zodiac unfolds in a creepy, real retro-world, where jurisdictional anomalies and bad record-keeping make life miserable for the good guys. The film is a tale set in an Analog Age when crime detection is the stuff of shoe leather, ink, paper and pastel-blue, rotary dial phones.

“The truth is out there, all right, and it will kill you.”

When shooting on Zodiac finally ended, director David Fincher “found himself sifting through the digital equivalent of 1.3 million feet of film, enough footage to fill two features,” writes EW‘s Benjamin Svetkey in the current issue. “After months of slicing and dicing, he emerged from the editing room with a cut of Zodiac that ran a tick over three hours.

“Even he knew it was too long, so the movie’s original fall 2006 release was pushed to January, then to March, to give Fincher time to make more trims.”

Why are we stuck with outmoded, old-hat concepts of releasing movies, concepts that are out of synch with the various-choice options available through DVD? Fincher shouldn’t have been pressured to trim Zodiac down to 160-plus minutes because it wasn’t necessary. If it had so decided, Paramount could have easily put out the shorter version in general release while simultaneously releasing the three-hour version is select big-city theatres. Why not?

A friend who saw a somewhat longer version of Zodiac (maybe 10 or 12 minutes longer than the version hitting theatres on 3.2) told me a while back that he likes it more. Sometimes longer is just longer, but I have a feeling that people like myself may possibly enjoy the 180-minute version even more when it hits DVD.

“‘We had to lose a lot of connective tissue and a lot of little character moments,’ Fincher says with a sigh. Among the victims: Robert Downey Jr., as a boozy San Francisco reporter, lost three scenes, including “a great one of him sleeping in his car,” according to Fincher.”

“Many of Nikki Finke‘s spoilers are accurate, but some are not,” writes Envelope contributor Steve Pond declared last night. “Don’t believe what she says about all acting awards being pushed to the last third of the show.” The Best Supporting Actor and Actress awards, he means.

“Were you ever raped by Eddie Murphy or what? He must have done some kind of personal bad to you. Having said that, boy, do I ever agree with you. That guy is a world-class arrogant prick. If he wins this he’ll be impossible to live with. He also does not deserve it. Its a shallow bullshit performance that is meritorious only for his musical and dancing talents. I said Arkin weeks ago.” — e-mail received this morning from a director friend who’s obviously not to be trusted despite first-hand experience.

“[Oscar voters] tell the pollster, you or whomever, that they are voting for the serious gravitas-filled downer, Babel. But, mark my words, they are secretly voting for the pic that is their guilty pleasure, either Sunshine or Departed.'” — posted by a N.Y. Times reader named Judy in response to a “Bagger” piece. Something about the conciseness and sense of certainty in this remark has given me pause. I’m suddenly thinking I might be wrong in predicting Babel to win. I need to think this over.

“Oh. she’s an inninvala, invala…an invalid…it’s practically like living alone.”

Film Stew‘s Brent Buckalew (is that a nom de plume?) complains about a “horde of internet diarists and fanboys pounding on their keyboards in protest” about this year’s Oscar nominees, and urges “enough already, give it a rest.” Not a bad rant, but it’s been posted about two or three weeks too late.

In Contention‘s Kris Tapley is predicting that Letters From Iwo Jima will take the Best Picture Oscar. A little voice was telling me this might happen about two or three weeks ago, but I told it to be quiet. I was actually a little ruder than that.

I know that as much as I admired Letters when I saw it in Manhattan in December, and as moved as I was by Ken Watanabe‘s lead performance, I haven’t put the Warner Bros. screener into my DVD player since it arrived. On the other hand, I’ve watched The Departed twice. That probably means something.

“If Little Miss Sunshine beats The Departed, I expect Martin Scorsese to pull out a machine-gun and fire randomly into the voting members as they run screaming for the exits. And he’d be within his rights, too.” — from John Patterson‘s 2.23 well-founded Guardian rant, called “Oscar’s Greatest Crimes.”

“Little Miss Sunshine hit so big because it isn’t afraid to mix laughs and darkness. It’s hip enough for the urban elites but not so hip that it’s sailing over the heads of regular paying customers. It’s a very sophisticated, equal-opportunity entertainer.” — observation from Lewis Beale‘s New York Newsday piece about why LMS went over as well as it did.

The 9% Rotten Tomatoes rating that The Number 23 has gotten so far matches Norbit‘s (i.e., also at 9%). I missed the Number 23 screening on 2.15; the 9%, paradoxically, makes me want to rush down and see it at the 4 pm show. A perverse impulse, to be sure.