Zodiac (2 Viewers)

[icecreamdisco]

no thread for a new david fincher film? wack. maybe that weirdly upbeat rod stewart song in the trailer killed everyone's interest (it bombed at the us box office, despite great reviews).

i'll be seeing it tomorrow.

 

[bazookajoe]

I'll be seeing it asap, probably Thursday

 

[ur_inner_child]

I saw it yesterday and was going to make one! I swear!

The trailer doesn't seem to do it much justice.

A little long.

I liked it.

I'll get into detail about it a little more later, there's quite a bit to say!

 

[Silver Persian]

Any movie that lets me stare (perv) at Jake Gyllenhall for almost three hours is great.

Although the ending was not handled very well.

 

[icecreamdisco]

great, great film. manages to simultaneously create a palpable sense of exhaustion while at the same time keeps you totally engrossed in its cavalcade of details, minutia, false leads, etc. it's so great to see a film about a familiar subject presented in way you've never seen before. great freaking cast, all well chosen and none trying to outdo each other; believably played by everyone, from stars to characters actors alike. i was a little creeped out that gyllenhaal didn't age throughout the 15 years his character spans. maybe that was an artistic choice; emphasising how graysmith is stuck in time, so to speak, obsessing over the case. nice to see chloe sevigny doing something mainstream for once, too.

one thing that immediately jumped out to me was the digital photography. the depth of field is just astonishing; i honestly could've sworn i was watching the latest pixar offering at certain points (certain people almost look like the humans near the end of happy feet). i thought this was somewhat ironic since the film shows the technical limitations of its era and how they affected the case. using the old-school paramount logo at the beginning was a nice touch.

so much to talk about and mull over, but i'll end here. definitely a dvd purchase, and the first great film i've seen at my mall theatre since children of men.

icecreamdisco rating: 5 chloe sevigny sellouts out of a possible 5. yup, a rare perfect rating from moi! cherish it.

 

[walrusbear]

i agree

just got back and i'm elated
my favourite of the year so far

why can't all crime movies be this good??

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It was pretty clever, wish i could have paid more attention, because you need to.. it's probably a bad choice of movie to see with a bunch of friends.

 

[s-p-a-c-e-d]

It was good, but I did feel it dragging on by the end (although I wasn't disappointed with the ending at all, it was very fitting even if they had to resort to long bits of text to fit it all in >_>).

 

[ur_inner_child]

*blushes*

Here is the Quicktime Movie Trailer

A serial killer in the San Francisco Bay Area taunts police with his letters and cryptic messages. We follow the investigators and reporters in this lightly fictionalized account of the true 1970's case as they search for the murderer, becoming obsessed with the case. Based on Robert Graysmith's book, the movie's focus is the lives and careers of the detectives and newspaper people.

You into crime investigations? This is enough to make you orgasmic. I've got admit I enjoy the twists and turns you get from something like Law and Order SVU or CSI Miami etc. Anyway, you get right into the gritty details, as icecreamdisco said. You are with them and you get pissed off with them when you have false leads, feel as they feel when they realise a logical conclusion, etc.

I love love love love Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jnr. They both were incredible actors. Mark Ruffalo sets aside the chick flicks and gets down with some great acting, very believable, and I empathised with him. As with Robert Downey Jnr, his light comedic tangents develop into something quite tragic, and it's beautiful that way. Jake Gyllenhaal really did well too. I love his character. There were some scenes that probably wouldn't have worked without him as the actor. A review said it but I was thinking of it at the time too, that scene where he involves his children, could've either really sucked or really worked.

I heard a lot of disappointed comments as I walked out of the theatre. I think it's merely the nature of the film;

Spoiler

You wanna watch the criminal bastard get what he deserves but all you get is some texts stating fact, that although we had all the evidence, he died of a heart attack. You've got to merely just laugh at that. I can see why people can feel a little ripped off because you've developed a relationship with this investigation, and getting justice is your closure. If you understand it, you'll probably get over it and appreciate how great this film is.

So there you go.

Highly recommended.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

a little long the second time.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Ouch, I probably wouldn't have watched it another time.

The suspense that drives it all is gone

Dragged along by friends?

 

[goan_crazy]

wasnt how i had expected
prob coz i had no idea wat the story was about
but it was good that way too i think

i liked it
cept it kinda dragged out a bit long
but overall enjoyable

 

[Fish Sauce]

Saw a short description of this a couple of weeks ago and it caught my eye. Getting some good reviews, too, so I'm going to try and see it tomorrow or Friday. I think it only comes out here tomorrow, actually.

 

[bazookajoe]

i was a little creeped out that gyllenhaal didn't age throughout the 15 years his character spans. maybe that was an artistic choice; emphasising how graysmith is stuck in time, so to speak, obsessing over the case.
using the old-school paramount logo at the beginning was a nice touch.

Thought the exact same thing when I saw it today.
I really liked it, the guys I saw it with weren't very appreciative but I was hooked from the very beginning. But again Fincher fails to deliver a really memorable ending, definitely the only negative part of the movie I can think of

 

[Fish Sauce]

Just saw it, really enjoyed it. Don't think that I could sit through the whole thing again any time soon though, it's not that sort of movie.

 

[icecreamdisco]

i actually loved the ending... one dude said it best on someone's blog:

I saw the movie twice before review, and was twice struck by the PERFECTION of the ending. And here's why: The end to me is not the last shot, but the title cards that follow which undermine the whole Allen-as-Zodiac thesis. The movie builds a case against him and seemingly, in that last scene, adds the final bit of evidence. Then comes a card saying DNA evidence proved inconclusive and he croaked before he could be charged. That's the final twist, the final twart, the final dead end, the final futility. Its a tremendously perverse ending, no?

the brilliance of the film is the way it makes an exercise in futility so haunting and compelling; the way the "___ years later" captions pile up, the leads constantly go nowhere... the audience essentially undergoes the excitements and disappointments of the central characters even with our benefit of foreknowledge about the case.

plus, any ending with "hurdy gurdy man" over the credits is automatically good.

 

[bazookajoe]

Wow, I never thought about it like that.

 

[hiphophooray123]

i have heard from 5 people that it was shit and overrated, 3 of which were big movie buffs/critics, so i have not seen it yet.

 

[icecreamdisco]

i have heard from 5 people that it was shit and overrated, 3 of which were big movie buffs/critics, so i have not seen it yet.

well, it's been praised nearly everyone else (#164 on IMDb's top 250), including me, and i'm the biggest movie buff of them all, so there ya go.