ZODIAC Discussion - Page 2

Except for not sucking.

If you miss this movie you're a fool. A few weeks after having seen it, and I still feel its effects.

I know what I'll be doing this weekend. It's March, which means the movie season is about to hit in high gear.

Outstanding film. I saw it last night and was fascinated throughout. As visual storytelling, this is almost certainly Fincher's most effective film. Aside from a few murder scenes (one of which, taking place at a lake, is truly disturbing in it's suddenness and savagery), the film meticulously follows the investigation, eschewing the dark atmospheric (but also artificial) elements of a movie like Seven in favor of the equally disturbing hues of real world crimes. Fincher's film demonstrates a disciplined maturity with the camera, resulting in invigorating storytelling without cheap thrills.

It's to the film's immeasurable credit that it manages to present the many confounding complexities of the case yet still reach a satisfying resolution - one which may or may not "solve" the mystery. The investigation is what matters, the maddening process of continually searching for enough puzzle pieces to form some kind of picture. Maybe the film's driving appeal stems from the audience feeling the main characters' obsession with putting the pieces together. All of the actors are uniformly excellent including (my one point of disagreement with Dev's review) Gyllenhaal. His character's descent into obsession is handled so naturally that it's only when it's made clear what he's lost do we realize how much the pursuit has taken from his life. Yet we want him to continue.

Bottom line, this is just a great film and I couldn't recommend it more.

Great review, Devin. Although I was a little disappointed with the trailer, my enthusiasm to see this has grown greatly due to the positive reviews. It sounds like the intelligent, visual picture I want it to be... I love it when you feel like you are part of the world in which the movie takes place, and this seems like Fincher really immerses the viewer in this world.

Saw it. Love it to death. A really great movie.

I agree, the trailer is slow, pedantic and unappealing and after the debacles of The Illusionist and The Black Dahlia, I'm a bit leery of slow and dark.

As soon as this movie starts, you get pissed that Fincher hasn't directed for so long. Can't recall a big budget flick having a stronger, more assured beginning in quite a while. Well, not since Ice Age: The Meltdown. Performances are expectedly great - especially Ruffalo and Downey. Can't wait to re-watch this shiz.

greysfang probably heard it used on "Family Guy" and repeated it.

"Frankly, Lois, I find these eggs shallow and pedantic."

The joke, though, was Peter was using the word without knowing what it meant.

I was going to mention that amazing opening, as well, since it's such an effective transport into 1960's era Northern CA. The establishing shot of the Golden Gate Bridge, the firework exploding over the bay, the glide through residential streets. Damn, you could almost smell the backyard barbeques. And that's even before "Hurdy-Gurdy Man!"

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

Well, no, I actually read once in awhile. You guys should prbably broaden your vocabularies.

Wow. Just got back, from Best Buy, to get the soundtrack, after seeing the movie. Frakin' amazing. I absolutely loved it.

That's good to hear -- that's the type of stuff I want to see. Especially in San Francisco, probably the most visually beautiful cities in which to shoot a film... Fincher is a damn artist when it comes to setting atmosphere and tone -- through visuals and music. This has become probably my most anticipated movie of the year. I keep going to website after website and I read nothing but raves about Fincher's skill at recreating the 70's era and how all the actors are superb... The fact that this is so rigidly fact-based and no Hollywood BS is thrown in makes it even more appealing.

Yo Devin, the CNN guy stole your line.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movi...iac/index.html

Very good movie, i think this is one of those films you will like more and more after you leave the theatre and start to really think about it. The entire cast is great with character actors all over the place. The only thing is im not sure how most people are going to respond to this film. I hope it does well but it was hard to tell the reaction from my small crowd this afternoon. I was very happy i had the day off so i could see it without any dumb teenagers but i still had one hick in the audience who actually laughed during the lake scene, sometimes i really hate georgia. sorry about the rant. 9/10



spoilers



My only complaint about the entire film was that i wish Fincher would have ended it with Graysmith and lee staring at each other. I liked the final scene but it could have been told in the credits.

Great work from everyone. The only reason the trailer might leave you flat is this is a hard movie to define (or sell to the multiplex) in a two minute trailer. If anyone wants to post the differences Clarence Beaks mentions above, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'm bookstore bound.

Loved the Transamerica time lapse, the GCI was flawless. Also loved the aerial shot where the camera turns in perfect synchronization with the taxi

I heard that DNA evidence has since absolved Lee...anyone know if this is airtight?

Also heard the Ione Skye scene is widely considered to be based upon a fabricated story, anybody know more?

Agree that it's Fincher's most mature work, but I still think Seven is untouchable as his masterpiece...

Ruffalo is quietly becoming one of our best actors...

Anyone else find the shot of the taxi cab on the corner after Stine is shot to be hypnotizing?

Seven is Fincher's masterpiece.I thought Zodiac was a very good,tight (I've heard critics use this word),solid movie,but I wouldn't say it's a masterpiece.

He doesn't have to have just one masterpiece. Honestly, I think this is his third.

Just got back from seeing it. I haven't been this engrossed into a movie in a long time. Loved the visuals. I was greatly impressed that Fincher shot on Digital and it had a very documentary quality. Sometimes I feel when things are shot on Digital it comes off very video camera like.

I myself loved the overhead shot of the cab but also looked the helicopter-esque shots of both SF and the farm country.

*Spoilers*

BTW anyone else catch that Toschi referred to himself as "Murder Police"? That was a great little touch.

Now where in the hell can I get a "I'm not Avery" button?

Thanks for making me want to see this, Devin. I was going to see Black Snake Moan this weekend... 300 next weekend... and would have probably eventually gotten around to Zodiac... but after reading your review and all of the other early comments on this thread, I saw it tonight. Great movie.

Well... it depends on how you look at it. The DNA they could get off of the saliva on the envelopes didn't match his. But, he could have not used his own saliva... or there could be other issues with the chain of evidence being broken in so many instances.

So, I guess it isn't "airtight." Not that I'm an expert.

It said at the end of the movie that they still considered him the prime suspect even after the DNA didn't match.

The even crazier thing about this, was that in the early 90s, there was a Zodiac copycat in New York.


However they caught the guy involved in it:NY Zodiac

Holy shit, who knew Roger Rabbit was so scary?

Great flick. Maybe not a masterpiece--thanks for nothing, Gyllenhall--but damn solid filmmaking all around.

I echo that sentiment. It's no best picture material, but really excellent all around. Fincher found a nice balance of wry humor to offset some the intense grimness of the material, and his juggling of the various characters was admirable. I was impressed. I'm not sure though how I feel about his trademark texturing of every film. It fits here, and the flick looks sharp, I just find it a little dirstracting at times. A Solid 8.5 out of 10.

Zodiac is a much better movie than Se7en or Fight Club.

phew...what a great great movie. very engrossing. Fincher did a great job involving the audience with greysmith's role in the case right from the beginning. His obsession with the case was really well done.

I never liked Gylenhall, but he was pretty damn good here...as were all the other actors and actresses.

I think my only complaint would be that it was a pretty damn long film...almost to the point of exhaustion with the amount of facts they throw at you, but the story is so great I was kept happy as the movie progressed.

Very, very good flick. No masterpiece, but it's a prime example of how technical, sharp, and intelligent filmmaking can elevate the moviegoing experience and viewer's mindset for an unforgettable ride.

It felt noirish and modern at the same time. For almost three hours, I thought I was a part of this world. Isn't that what movies are all about?

I really liked this. Didn't love it. But, man, there were some great sequences. The basement scene, the Ione Skye bit, the beginning... I don't quite understand why Fincher waited so long to make this particular film, but its great that he's back.

One of the four incredibly fat women sitting behind me whispered to another "It's him. He's the killer. That's the twist." halfway through the movie in reference to Graysmith.

I saw it today and while I think that the first half of the movie - the killing half - was excellent in creating the tension-level required of these types of films, I thought the pacing of the second half - the puzzling-it-all-out half - was rather leaden. I don't think it's any coincidence that when Robert Downey Jr's character retreats into the background of the movie and Jake Gyllenhall's leaves-off being set-decoration and moves to the forefront that the movie loses something. I don't know, maybe this is my own prejudiced opinion and one independant from the film, but I just think this shows how much more of an actor RDJ is than JG. I'm pretty sure that if RDJ were playing JG's part, the movie would have still held my interest.

A better film of this same type is "Summer of Sam". While I've never been a big fan of David Berkowitz - or Spike Lee, for that matter - this film did seem to capture the feeling of that horrible New York summer.

I disagree, I think Zodiac is far and away the better film (and I enjoyed Summer of Sam). Saying that Summer of Sam captured the feeling of that NY summer in a way in which Zodiac failed to convey the similar horror felt in SF is missing the point. The terror people felt in Summer of Sam was a major theme in that film, the actual mystery is the theme in Zodiac.

Aside from Brody's performance... technically, acting-wise, screenplay - that film is not even close IMHO.

Except the part when the dog put on a three piece suit & eyeglasses and directed berkowitz to kill people... that was great cinema

To be fair to fat women everywhere, Gyllenhall acts like a potential serial killer for at least the first 2/3rds of the movie.

I agree completely, Zodiac is far better than Summer of Sam for all the reasons conveyed. But one has to remember that each movie has their own take. Summer of Sam is about one neighborhood reacting during the Summer of '77 and Zodiac is very much about the investigation of the actual killings.

But speaking of Summer of Sam, let's not forget the great reaction of the Italian guidos walking into the punk club. That was hilarious. And also Michael Imperioli's turn as the gay porno theater owner with cowboy hat.

But let's face it folks, I'll never think of "Hurdy Gurdy Man" the same way again. Donovan, you sir are a sick twisted bastard.

Mira Sorvino was hot in Summer of Sam, which is pretty much the only reason to watch that flick when it comes on cable. Gyllenhall doesn't sink the film, but it would have been interesting to see a stronger actor in the lead role.

You know whats a problem with movies based on unsolved mysteries. Idiots don't get that unsolved means they ain't gonna catch the killer at the end. People have a very difficult time not having closure at the end of a film. I really liked Zodiac, but wanted to punch many of the people walking out after hearing some of things they said.

Man, that murder scene at the lake was more disturbing than a hundred Hostels. Jesus.

Excellent movie. Great work from everyone. I even didn't mind Chloe Sevigny's "Stop Being So Obsessed!" wife too much.

The moral of the story for all you potential serial killers out there: spread your victims around several different police jurisdictions!

No one went to jail, but that movie was balls deep in closure.

Speaking of that scene - the lower third says it's December 1983, but then very prominently in Leigh Allen's closeup is a calendar that reads February 1980. Anyone?

[QUOTE=Gyllenhall doesn't sink the film, but it would have been interesting to see a stronger actor in the lead role.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I would have liked to see Fincher work with Norton again. Gosling would be a good choice too...

JG didn't bother me too much though, I suppose it could have been worse, Jared Leto could have conned his way into another Fincher film...

Have they said if DVD will be an extended cut? I remember supposedly a 4 min blackout during the 4 years later title card with songs used to convey the passage of time...also there were scenes in the trailer that looked interesting that apparently got cut "I have a gun!" "God help us all" etc...

I think the "4 years later" time lapse was shown in the finished film through a (fake) time lapse shot of the Transamerica building being built. I really enjoyed the movie, but it does NOT need an extended cut.

The SF Chronicle calls the film "flat". Hm.

No, that was an earlier one-year transition. Fincher's audio montage was gonna be the four-year transition, which is just a straight cut and a title card now.

Oh! Sorry. I thought a rough cut was being mentioned.

I actually liked the hard cut with the title card. The "___Days/Months Later" cards became more absurd and nicely conveyed the exasperation of the investigators, and that "4 years later" card was a gutpunch.

Love the first half, but the second half did drag a bit,and Gyllenhall was leaden in the lead role.Downey and Ruffio were great,though.
A solid 8.5,with a point and half deducted because of the at times slow second half and Gyllenhall's performance.

Is there anyone who can explain what was up with Toschi and his desire for animal crackers? Is this some metaphor for the search for answers or what he thinks will make him happy or a parallel to the zodiac and his insatiable need to kill or is it just a lame/"endearing" quirk given to the character?


Otherwise a pretty good movie. I can't say I love it, but that might have just been the information overload that I experienced due to the late night I had last night. I'll definitely check it out again on DVD (which should be great. It's been a while since I've gotten a nice Fincher DVD.)

It wasn't "given" to his character.

Q: You’ve played a couple of police officers. How do you make this one different?

Ruffalo: 90% of it was being with Dave Toschi. Another 5%, maybe more, was the investigative work I was doing to be a cop, to know about the case. The character I think you would define by the choices he makes in a moment of stress. Dave Toschi, his character, I think is pretty strong. But the character is Dave Toschi, that [gets into his Toschi voice from the film] quiet way of talking, that sincere, measured way of talking… that’s Dave Toschi. The idiosyncratic things, the animal crackers, the way he dressed, all of that is original Dave Toschi.

Interview