Come anticipate David Fincher's "Zodiac"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (972 of them)

the narrative pacing is pretty amazing, nesting plot lines etc. and excellent acting.

― pinkmoose, Friday, 16 March 2007 10:33 (nineteen years ago)

i liked this pretty well. this has probably already been said in a zillion reviews, but it's basically fincher's own version of the most dangerous game, right? with zodiac as the prey, the audience (and its sequential stand-ins in avery/toschi/graysmith) as the hunters. leading up to the big payoff when graysmith bags him there at the hardware store. i liked the look on allen's face there, like he knew he'd been got. (the actual facts of whether or not allen did it don't really matter. for the purpose of the movie, he did.)

― tipsy mothra, Saturday, 17 March 2007 06:57 (nineteen years ago)

in real life, who else is on the list?

― pinkmoose, Saturday, 17 March 2007 10:02 (nineteen years ago)

There aren't many credible candidates. There are a couple of websites that list the prime suspects, but obv. no one has matched the physical evidence to this point.

― Alex in SF, Saturday, 17 March 2007 12:54 (nineteen years ago)

i hear there's a huge waiting list

― s1ocki, Saturday, 17 March 2007 15:07 (nineteen years ago)

good movie but too long,(though you cant blame Fincer,basing the movie on a true story, going as it seems,as accurate as can be) the obsession is clearly imaged by Fincher and the cast.
can't see Kubrik here but i can see Oliver Stone's touch, JFK area.i'm not sure if that comparsion improves Zodiac.

― Zeno, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:05 (nineteen years ago)

i didn't think it was too long... it flew by pretty quickly.

― get bent, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:15 (nineteen years ago)

yeah seriously, i was so gripped i barely noticed the time passing

― latebloomer, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:19 (nineteen years ago)

saw this Saturday - easily my favorite of Fincher's so far. I was instantly engaged from that first 4th of July trolling-the-neighborhood tracking shot. Not a lot of meat for the actors but they're all good - Ruffalo arguably the best, Downey does exactly what you expect from him at this point in his career, Gyllenhaal is okay. The casting in this movie is insane - I think every single bit player brought a new shock of recognition for me (Ione Skye, Philip Baker Hall, that Mr. Show guy, etc.) And as a period piece it seems unbeatable, very evocative of its time and place. Personally I was also engaged by how much the geography of my own life was reflected in the film (Riverside, Ontario airport, San Francisco, Lake Berryessa, Vallejo).

It is too long though - coming out of the theater there were several sequences that seem to have no bearing on the central plot. Like what was that whole subplot about Rick Marshall for...? That was a red herring that went on for at least 15-20 minutes...? Or the bit with Ione Sky and the baby (was that ever verified as being an actual Zodiac incident. If so, why wasn't she ever called in to identify him, didn't she see his face, etc.?) Both of these were great sequences in their way but on reflection they seem really extraneous... btw also definitely funny to have Hurdy Gurdy Man and Ione in the same movie...

And it should've ended with Graysmith walking out of the hardware store after the staredown, which is a great scene.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 19 March 2007 20:26 (nineteen years ago)

I really liked all those sequences. I especially like the way they leave the Skye abduction so weirdly up in the air. And I thought the final shot of the first victim is fantastic, because of course it is simultaneously OHMIGOD THEY GOT HIM and then at the same time completely unbelieveable.

― Alex in SF, Monday, 19 March 2007 20:44 (nineteen years ago)

I liked them all too! Its just that by the final third of the film I was getting antsy for some conclusions, and in retrospect those were just two of the sequences that happen to stand out as inessential to the overall plot.

Do you know the deal with that roadside abduction sequence, was that actually attributed to Zodiac, etc.? I went into this movie totally unfamiliar with the case and by and large don't care how "accurate" Fincher is in general, but the inclusion of this seemingly inconsequential incident made me wonder why it's included.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:00 (nineteen years ago)

gah that last sentence of mine is a horrible grammatical trainwreck, sorry.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:01 (nineteen years ago)

i dunno, those scenes fit for me because they capture the feeling of the time, the craziness of it while it happened

― latebloomer, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:03 (nineteen years ago)

even that long scene in the projectionist's house/the Rick Marshall subplot? That bothered me more than the roadside abduction or the final airport sequence. The audience spends roughly 20 minutes thinking Graysmith's on the tail of the "real" killer, only to circle back and settle on the original number one suspect.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:08 (nineteen years ago)

"Do you know the deal with that roadside abduction sequence, was that actually attributed to Zodiac, etc.?"

I think the general consensus is that it was not the Zodiac. I mean fuck nobody knows anything. The case was/is such a monstrous mess that it's impossible to know anything that happened. All that is for sure is that 1) the person that committed the two Vallejo murders wrote a series of letters as the Zodiac which contained evidence that only the killer was likely to know, 2) the writing on the car at Lake Berryesa and certain details of that crime are very consistent with the first two murders, but the Zodiac never took credit for the murders in any letters and 3) the murder of the cabbie is clearly linked to the Zodiac by virtue of the bloody shirt which was sent to the Chronicle. Everything else is pretty impossible to pin down.

― Alex in SF, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

I like the Rick Marshall sequence because it really highlights what a complete runaround the whole thing was.

― Alex in SF, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:14 (nineteen years ago)

I mean the amazing thing about the Zodiac is that as a killer the guy was no super-criminal or anything. In fact exactly the opposite. He was basically a complete fuck up. He was constantly leaving his victims alive, dropping physical evidence left and right and even nearly getting caught (that description goes out correctly in Fall '69 and all this is just another crazy killer who got busted ya know. But he lucked out and never got arrested and then either died or went insane or got scared (presumably) into either a) stopping or b) publically taking credit for his crimes. So yeah these were no perfect murders or anything. But in terms of manipulating the media, of building his relatively modest crimes to absolute hysterical pitch, and ultimately drowning the police in a glut of false leads and endless investigations, the guy was a genius.

― Alex in SF, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:22 (nineteen years ago)

I did appreciate that the scene at the projectionist's house is set-up as the classic serial killer "gotcha!" reveal scene (cf. Silence of the Lambs) where you're totally expecting Graysmith to get attacked and then it just ... peters out... which is funny in a subverting-the-expectations-of-the-viewer but also kinda annoying for the same reason.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:46 (nineteen years ago)

the movie makes it look like the main reason he wasn't caught was cuz the murders were all in different jurisdictions.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:07 (nineteen years ago)

well...

― latebloomer, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:13 (nineteen years ago)

i loved the red herring stuff!

and i especially liked the projectionist scene. so mysterious. i thought it played on the horror movie conventions really well.

― s1ocki, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:16 (nineteen years ago)

i loved the red herring stuff!

and i especially liked the projectionist scene. so mysterious. i thought it played on the horror movie conventions really well.

― s1ocki, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:16 (nineteen years ago)

the movie makes it look like the main reason he wasn't caught was cuz the murders were all in different jurisdictions.

And because no one had text messaging.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:19 (nineteen years ago)

omg zodiac is stabbing me lolz pos

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:21 (nineteen years ago)

"the movie makes it look like the main reason he wasn't caught was cuz the murders were all in different jurisdictions."

That's certainly helped.

― Alex in SF, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:21 (nineteen years ago)

one of the better things about the projectionist scene is that the guy does not match the physical description of Zodiac in any way and seems only peripherally connected to the killings, but because of the way the meeting's been set up and Graysmith's paranoia and the way the scene is staged you still get the total "omg Jake RUN HE'S THE KILLER!" vibe from it.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:22 (nineteen years ago)

unrelated - the scenes at Original Joe's made me really happy. way to zero in on SF venue that really hasn't changed in 30+ years!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:25 (nineteen years ago)

That's one of the reasons why the scene is brilliant!

It also makes the scenes with Allen really weird too! The police sketch of the Zodiac looks nothing like Allen (either IRL or the actor playing him!)

― Alex in SF, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:26 (nineteen years ago)

I miss Zims. I wish they could have recreated Zims for this movie.

― Alex in SF, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:27 (nineteen years ago)

This has grossed about $33 mil in N America in a month, which I'd say qualifies as a disaster. Hope to see it on Good Friday.

― Dr Morbius, Monday, 2 April 2007 13:44 (nineteen years ago)

i made that same comparison – eazy – between fincher and mann. i think there's a point to be explored by somebody more articulate than myself about their equivalent grasp and appreciation of a, shall we say, poetically elegant urban environment?

-- remy bean, Monday, March 5, 2007 12:46 AM (4 weeks ago)

^^^ yes

i wanna see this again before it gets rushed out of theaters

― and what, Monday, 2 April 2007 13:53 (nineteen years ago)

Penance?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 2 April 2007 13:57 (nineteen years ago)

yeah i wouldn't mind "rescreening" this myself!

― s1ocki, Monday, 2 April 2007 14:45 (nineteen years ago)

Saw it for the first time this weekend. Only complaint: not enough Robert Downey Jr. More thoughts as they come to me.

What a fucked up mess this investigation was.

― kenan, Monday, 2 April 2007 14:50 (nineteen years ago)

really really liked this, especially for the first half i was giddy. it loses steam towards the end (on purpose obviously) so it'll take a future viewing for me to decide how good it really is. totally good/interesting tho.

― ryan, Thursday, 5 April 2007 07:18 (nineteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

Mostly neatly done (except for the overlength of course). Also about nothing much except the plot, which is why true crime is a who-cares genre for me.

The glam presentation of the first murder: big mistake.

so why fid Avery write Z could've been a "latent homosexual"? This is pretty amusing when Downey is playing him.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 13:34 (nineteen years ago)

^why did Avery

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 13:35 (nineteen years ago)

Zodiac was teh suck. Not until the very end did I say to myself, "Oh, this movie is supposed to be about Gyllenhaal's character." Which, yawn. "Capote" did the "about the story, but really about the story of the story" thing pretty much better.

― crazymonkeyfromjapan, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

Given the opening post, it's funny that the Edwards-Ruffalo scenes are the least strained in the film. Good thing I don't watch contemporary cop shows, or those might've seemed thin too.

Jake as Graysmith was straight-arrow/obsessed-man two-dimensionality.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:34 (nineteen years ago)

i assume youre referring to the swelling of hurdy gurdy man? i can buy that from an ethical standpoint i guess but not a cinematic one, i thought all the murders were staged really well. god i sound like an amoral cunt.

totally otm about the plot-centricity leading to dullsville though.

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

the movie's not really about the plot at all, morbius! what's the plot?

― s1ocki, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

lol u enable murdurars liek cho BEARTARP

― Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:43 (nineteen years ago)

the plot is WHODUNIT

i assume youre referring to the swelling of hurdy gurdy man?

Not solely, no. That it looked REALLY COOL!

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:01 (nineteen years ago)

the actual murders?? i totally disagree

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:02 (nineteen years ago)

Mark Ruffalo is lights-out

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

A Matt Zoller Seitz essay on the film -- good debate in the Comments; MZS:

I think showing the murders was probably a mistake, and that if Fincher and Vanderbilt felt they had to show them, they should have done so from a discreet, ugly distance, like we're peeping through a slaughterhouse door at a killing on the other side of the building. "Summer of Sam," a similar film in certain ways, made the same mistake as Fincher. The violence went beyond fascination and into revelry, and the filmmaker saying, "Well, that's true to life -- it's the tabloid mentality" really doesn't cut it.

The movie's so surefooted in every other way that these errors stand out more than they would in a lesser film.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

like i said i can see that with the first (which i maintain was a great scene), but the one at the beach was absolutely horrific. its been awhile but as i recall the acutal shootings in the first one were done (after the first gunshot) from a static (& distant) angle, and were very far from 'glammed up'

tbh i thought the murders/suspense scene (in the basement) were the highlights of the flick

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:20 (nineteen years ago)

i liked this a lot. the plot is surely a red herring if there ever was one. i cant decide how im supposed to take the ending, however.

― ryan, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:26 (nineteen years ago)

the attack at Lake Berryessa is totally disturbing and as unglamorous a staging of the event as you could make.

I think the opening murder sequence is amazing, but I can see how its more "sensationalized" elements (the Donovan song, etc.) might be off-putting.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

I am bummed this failed so badly, as its probably my favorite Fincher film to-date. I am really put off by most of his other films.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:28 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 872 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.