Movie late pass: Zodiac
mannybolone
Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
took me long enough but finally got around to watching it. I'll say this much: the film looks really, really good. FIncher's attention to detail is exceptional, especially for a period film. I also loved the casting - with the exception of Jake Gyllenhaal who I felt like lacked a real presence (but then again, I feel that about all his films so maybe I'm biased). Otherwise though, it's just good to see folks like Anthony Edwards, Mark Ruffalo and many of the character actors get work here. I do have agree with some of the reviews I had read - the movie hits its best marks in the first hour or so but the last hour of the film feels like a different film, especially when the focus of it turns from the investigation proper and instead, becomes about Graysmith's obsession. The film, to me, loses the atmosphere it so carefully crafted and - going back to Gyllenhaal - can't be carried by on the strength of Graysmith's character (or perhaps, the actor playing him). It doesn't help to know that the film was based off of Graysmith's books...it just feels like the film goes too far to make him a focal point and I wasn't sold that he deserved to be. It did manage to come back right at the end but that extra hour still weighs. Spooky shit, regardless.
Comments
Very strange that it didn't make any impact on the Oscars though.
Probably the best new film I saw in 2007. I tell everyone I know to see it.
NB: never enough movies w/ Robert Downey Jr in it. The guy can act
He was incredible in it. Between this and 'A Scanner Darkly', Downey jr has had some pretty great supporting roles in the last couple years.
Absolutely. Can't forget Kiss Kiss Bang Bang as well.
Great flick. I read Graysmith's first book years ago and thought it was one of the creepierst true crime things I'd ever come across (in a good way). I though the movie captured the paranoia/menace of the book really well.
This is not some sort of blanket statement - because some of my favourite films have almost no or no female presence in them - but the "guy's world" aspect in this film was off-putting for me and I think it was something that kept me from being more engaged. I guess the movie was effective that way, they really did block everyone out who wasn't investd in it like they were!
I can and did.
Yeah - I feel like the Chloe Sevigny character (Graysmith's wife) was meant to provide some balance but while I actually liked the casting there, I didn't think her character had much to do at all except look slightly disapproving and bookish. And since it was the Zodiac, the other women were there to die.
I found Spike Lee's "Summer of Sam" to be overwrought in a way that only Spike Lee can pull off but I did like how the movie was less about the actual serial killer (though apparently not his talking dog) and more about how his presence played out in NY. I think "Zodiac" could have been a far more interesting film had it gone in a similar direction: a period film about San Francisco and the Bay Area during the Zodiac years. Instead, it ended up being what I thought was a very well crafted procedural but as Bassie notes: the film hinges on you getting "drawn into the obsessions or the characters" and in that respect, I don't know if I was quite as sold on it, especially given that last hour where it's all about Graysmith.
I am still confused about one of the final scenes in the basement with the weird projectionist -- where did he factor in to it all?
Has anyone seen the director's cut?
That wasn't the projectionist. The projectionist was Rick Marshall, one of the two main suspects, and that scene involved his friend who he supposedly had given a film of the killings to. It was played out creepy to demonstrate Graysmith's paranoia.
I thought I>Michael Clayton[/i] was pretty weak as far as thrillers went. Well-made and acted, sure, but the whole "corporate espionage" aspect was like B-grade Grisham. And the horses scene was pure deux ex machina.
I felt the same way about it. Well-crafted, well-acted, but not really engaging. I just wasn't interested in the story or the characters. It doesn't help that I'm really tired of serial-killer movies. It is worth seeing though, especially on a big screen.
OK -- I just wasn't sure if that guy had any involvement in the murders.
You're right about Michael Clayton -- especially the car bomb shit. I kept thinking that the horses were looking down on their keeper or something, as if he was the guy who got hit by the car. It didn't really make much sense. Same thing with the ending -- not quite sure if they developed the company hacks enough, or, even if they did, that they'd all of the sudden pull something like that after 10 years of ligitigation.
i found it completely unengaging. the dialogue came off ostentatious and overwritten to me, especially tom wikinson's character. in a novel i can see, but i find it had to believe that people talk like that in the real world, cramming all this snappy and poetic talk into every syllable. i found it distracting and annoying.
i liked zodiac when i saw it in the theater and thought it to be a pretty effective thriller. some parts made me pretty paranoid
Funny - I was just thinking about that scene. It was very well done, the panic under extreme calm and methodical nature of it left an impression with me.
The other scene I liked was the Everytown, USA couple at the breakfast table and the housewife that broke the code. It hit home that the killer, too, can be anyone living in any town. It's that normal aspect to abnormality that makes things eerie imo...a la In Cold Blood (the book).
instantly took me out of the movie and put me on the express shuttle to haterville.
I'd still say it's worth a watch. You have to suspend your disbelief a bit, but it's very well made.
could have been good- but in the end it was pretty mediocre. Agrree the attention to detail was great, but that was about it.
I really liked Michael Clayton. I worked in mental health for years. Trust me. Well educated folks on a manic binge can say shit like Wilkinson. It's one of the truly amazingly weird aspects of bi-polarism. I thought Swinton's character was weak and the repeated direction of her practicing her speeches was so hacky. Clooney was riveting and I liked his struggle. Brother: "Mickey what do you want me to do?" Clayton: "Give Mary her tires back".
Zodiac was a really interesting film. Two great performances by Rufallo and Downey Jr. I can't quite put my finger on what went wrong but it just went on too long and couldn't keep its focus. Still, a very good procedural.
Yeah, Fincher set that up nicely with all the law enforcement agencies trying to break it and then switching to this old retired couple.
Sent me scurrying after the two Graysmith books on the Zodiac Killer... I was obsessed w/ this case for a month or so following the film.
Bought the dir's cut DVD but haven't viewed it yet.
Got the directors cut on HD DVD when it came out & it looks amazing in High Def. Great acting in it aswell, Downey Jr, Mark Ruffalo, Brian Cox as Melvin Belli. The guy who plays Leigh Allen (Lynch I think his name is) is well creepy.....
just watching some of the extra features, locals in Presidio wouldnt let them film the movie there so they built the whole Washington/Cherry area in a lot in LA
nice soundtrack to
theres only a bit added, where the screen goes blank for a minute or so & you hear all the soundbites of important happenings/songs to signify the years passing