Come anticipate David Fincher's "Zodiac"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (937 of them)

*er, "his ardor" = his ardor seemed more like doggedness.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:24 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm pretty sure Domino's playing on a Cinemax station, if you're looking for that sort of thing

Look, there's no fucking point in comparing two very different movies for the sake of a joke.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:26 (seventeen years ago) link

Stuff I loved:

(1) The staging of the murders

(2) How Fincher serves the material instead of injecting hysterics: the fucked-up bureaucratic haggling, how Paul Avery and Graysmith never develop a friendship (their last scene is brutal).

(3) Graysmith and his wife's marriage. Chloe Sevigny is NOT Mrs. Jim Garrison; that mooncalf docility she specializes in is put to good effect.

(4) No attempt to "humanize" characters, a la Brad Pitt playing with his dogs in Seven.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Look, there's no fucking point in comparing two very different movies for the sake of a joke.

Point taken, but given that you seem to like the down-tempo, restrained nature of the flick (serving the material, lack of hysterics, etc.), I was kinda surprised you zinged it for being that very thing.

Fake Dr. Morbs needs to go back to the drawing board & whip up better zingers.

― David R., Sunday, 4 March 2007 00:43 (seventeen years ago) link

Best scene: the interrogation of Leigh Allen in the distillery. John Carroll Lynch was quietly amazing.

otm!

my other favorite scene:

gyllenhall with Charles Fleischer in the basement, so creepy/hilarious

― latebloomer, Sunday, 4 March 2007 03:33 (seventeen years ago) link

(2) How Fincher serves the material instead of injecting hysterics: the fucked-up bureaucratic haggling, how Paul Avery and Graysmith never develop a friendship (their last scene is brutal).

Yeah, it seemed affected and mandatory. None of the Robert Downey Jr. stuff stuck with me at all. I don't think the movie would've suffered one lick if he hadn't been in it.

(3) Graysmith and his wife's marriage. Chloe Sevigny is NOT Mrs. Jim Garrison; that mooncalf docility she specializes in is put to good effect.

'Mooncalf docility?' What the fuck? I like my maidens mooncalf docile, right? Sevigny does nothing except wear a pair of ugly glasses. 'Mooncalf docility' sounds pretty, but it seemed plainly a lethargic performance, not a lethargic character. Further – the whole obsessed-writer bit was distracting and self-serving, and went nowhere.

(4) No attempt to "humanize" characters, a la Brad Pitt playing with his dogs in Seven.

Saying that the characters weren't 'humanized' and this somehow adds to the movie's merit is creepy and wrong. They were adequately humanized – but if there had been more character-wise to the film, emotional engagement would've been more, well, engaging. At times Zodiac felt like it hewed so closely to arcana and verifiable fact, and that it was trying to solve the mystery, that it lost the edge of transportiveness that has been so effective in (some) of Fincher's other work.

― remy bean, Sunday, 4 March 2007 03:59 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't recognize his "humanized", it sounds like a horrible idea, I wunna see Zodiac without empathising with its grotesques.

― Noodle Vague, Sunday, 4 March 2007 04:03 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh no...SEVIGNY. Will the Jakenhall and the MERDeR detract?

― Abbott, Sunday, 4 March 2007 06:18 (seventeen years ago) link

I would also prefer me some arcana and veritable fact to transportiveness. And IIRC from preview some Gyllenhall sideburange! Oh '90s hipsters, all I miss is your sideburns.

― Abbott, Sunday, 4 March 2007 06:22 (seventeen years ago) link

On a tangesnt, has anyone seen an ad for the movie about the most DANGEROUS murderor who has killed over 300 people? And then it's a fucking alligator? Nein, bitte!

― Abbott, Sunday, 4 March 2007 06:24 (seventeen years ago) link

If Fincher's competing with any director here, it's Michael Mann. The very opening hi-def shot of the Bay Area at night and the overhead taxi sequence are both one-upped versions of shots from Collateral, the obsessive men following bureaucratic procedures recalls The Insider, and "Hurdy Gurdy Man" has creepiness not unlike "In A Ga Ga Da Vida" in Red Dragon. These kinds of films that combine frame-by-frame beauty, subtle conversation, and a grand scale - I eat this stuff up, especially in a cineplex with state-of-the-art picture and sound.

― Eazy, Monday, 5 March 2007 05:26 (seventeen years ago) link

Plus, "Hurdy Gurdy Man" has the perfect psychadelic combination of belligerent and absurd.

― Eazy, Monday, 5 March 2007 05:28 (seventeen years ago) link

I wonder what Pandora will recommend for me if I like "Hurdy Gurdy Man".

― Eazy, Monday, 5 March 2007 05:39 (seventeen years ago) link

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, 5 March 2007 05:46 (seventeen years ago) link

At times Zodiac felt like it hewed so closely to arcana and verifiable fact, and that it was trying to solve the mystery, that it lost the edge of transportiveness that has been so effective in (some) of Fincher's other work.

Generally, this sums up my objections; however: (a) It's a large part of the film's effectiveness that it's aware of how increasingly absurd Graysmith's quest is. It doesn't want to solve the mystery; (b) I THINK I know what you mean by "transportiveness," but if I do, then give me low-key. Fincher isn't very good at -- nor has he any interest in -- people.

Two days later, I'm liking the film more and more.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 5 March 2007 12:25 (seventeen years ago) link

...if the mongrel shits can grasp it at all.

Cousin larry asshole, quit the act or I will strangle you with yr own intestines, fuckface.

― Dr Morbius, Monday, 5 March 2007 14:23 (seventeen years ago) link

I really really liked this film. I almost can't believe David Fincher made a movie that I will actually recommend to people.

― Alex in SF, Monday, 5 March 2007 16:04 (seventeen years ago) link

If the movie has a flaw (and it's not much of one) it's that by focusing so much on Graysmith's book (which is very convinced of this one suspect's guilt) it perhaps overstates the case against Allen, which by all accounts is very very weak (or weaker than the movie makes it sound.)

― Alex in SF, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:08 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah, he was more or less exonerated by DNA evidence a few years ago

― latebloomer, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:11 (seventeen years ago) link

hoping to see this next weekend

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:21 (seventeen years ago) link

What's more the fingerprint evidence that he didn't do it and Cheney's evidence that he did is respectively stronger and weaker than the movie lets on.

― Alex in SF, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:24 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah, definitely. allen wasn't the guy (though he was a weirdo/pedophile).

anyway, here's some archival old stuff about the actual case on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPRHudSmQp4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL0cyzrQGQg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XArxSBHgEXM

― latebloomer, Monday, 5 March 2007 20:11 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh yeah another thing the movie doesn't make entirely clear is that the 1978 missive is now widely thought NOT to have been composed by the Zodiac Killer. Still these are minor quibbles.

― Alex in SF, Monday, 5 March 2007 21:12 (seventeen years ago) link

I think I'll see this.. even though I like reading Armond White's reviews, he has such a clear point of view.. and I'm not much a fan of Kubrick nerd cinema..

― daria-g, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 04:05 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't understand how anyone can care about this movie. Well-made, no truly embarassing performances... but no characters and no drama and for the last 2/3 nothing that rose above the quality or depth of a 90-minute A&E special.

I saw no Kubrick at all - aside from the newspaper publisher being the Stars & Stripes editor from FMJ. Was the first murder victim Ashlee Simpson?

― milo z, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 04:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Apparently it helps to be a J-P Melville fanboy who doesn't realize what a splendid comedy Fight Club was!

I can wait to see this. It finished a distant 2nd to the biker Hogs dumbfest at the b.o.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 15:07 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.jakegyllenhaal.com/images/enter_top.jpg

just sayin

― get bent, Sunday, 11 March 2007 06:36 (seventeen years ago) link

i loved this ALMOST unreservedly, but i hated sevigny's character (mainly on principle -- why aren't there any male film characters that get fed up with their female-other's career/hobbyist obsessiveness? why is it always the chick that has to be long-suffering and have no life outside the relationship?) (but i also think that sevigny has the attractiveness and personality of a wet paper towel).

― get bent, Sunday, 11 March 2007 07:10 (seventeen years ago) link

i hated sevigny's character (mainly on principle -- why aren't there any male film characters that get fed up with their female-other's career/hobbyist obsessiveness?

See The Devil Wears Prada, where it's far more wearisome.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, 11 March 2007 13:25 (seventeen years ago) link

oh yeah! i don't count that guy as a "character" though... he's such a non-entity. all i remember about him is his grilled-cheese sandwich!

― get bent, Sunday, 11 March 2007 13:41 (seventeen years ago) link

Spectacular. He had me @ Hurdy Gurdy Man

― Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved, Friday, 16 March 2007 06:09 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

in real life, who else is on the list?

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

i hear there's a huge waiting list

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

"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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 837 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.